But what if this European slow motion debacle was not enacted as a Mad Max dystopia, but rather brought about by a tsunami of Muslims ultimately displaced by Western-engineered wars?
And what exactly does "Western-engineered" mean in this case, pray tell?
Even the military and civilian population of the United States, let alone other countries made their rejection of the invasion of Syria clear some time ago.
Rejecting the bullshit and truthiness that continues around this is something people of almost all sympathies can get behind.
And what exactly does "Western-engineered" mean in this case, pray tell?
Even the military and civilian population of the United States, let alone other countries made their rejection of the invasion of Syria clear some time ago.
Rejecting the bullshit and truthiness that continues around this is something people of almost all sympathies can get behind.
And thank you for making the point. The overwhelming majority of people in the western world were either against these actions or mostly oblivious to the truth of the matter. Which also makes them victims in a sense, and left holding the debt to pay for this whole clown car show.
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
One of the key myths of the whole refugee crisis is that Erdogan’s AKP government is doing all it can to contain it.
Nonsense. The crisis itself was engineered by Ankara in 2015 – when refugees were released from their holding camps in Turkey under threat that they would not be cared for anymore. The refugee flood was not a «spontaneous» creation, as Syrians, Iraqis and/or Afghans suddenly decided to flee to the EU; it was directly instigated by Ankara. And Erdogan from the start was already contemplating the Big Prize; to bribe the EU, especially Merkel, to pay – at least 3 billion euros – so most refuges remain not on Turkish soil, but on one of his own neo-Ottoman sub-plots; a «safe zone» to be built inside Syrian territory.
If this refugee crisis is threatening to destroy Europe, why was Turkey able to contain it with apparent ease and at little or no cost until last year?
If the refugees held in one country are enough to overwhelm a continent then surely its unreasonable to expect that country to bear that burden on its own in the first place isn't it?.
In my country we hate refugees so much we don't even let 'em in to the country. Unless they rot in a camp for a decade then get lucky and then manage to jump thru what we think are a sufficient number of pointless, bureaucratic hoops. If refugees actually come here "illegally" we intercept before their boats land or deport 'em from the airport. We pay tin pot pacific nations to do our dirty work for us, to house these queue jumping bbbbbaaaaarrrstards in concentration camps where the conditions are bad enough to let them know they are getting what they deserve and to discourage anyone else fleeing a life threatening hell hole from coming here.
I can't believe Europe is so tight that it can't even pay its foreign jailers to hold back the refugees it is ultimately responsible for.
And of course Turkey wants a buffer zone and are preparing for a war. The Kurds want their own state and probably deserve one.
tapitsbo » 04 Mar 2016 17:16 wrote:Perhaps Turks have different policies regarding the refugees than countries like Sweden and Germany.
And of course Kurdistan will become a state. The history of "Turkey" is pretty interesting
Its not about the policies its the numbers.
If Europe can't handle these numbers of additional refugees why is it Turkey is expected to?
To me this seems illogical. Either Turkey is more capable (ie larger and more prosperous) than Europe or they will find it harder to process and look after those refugees. the same refugees that are supposedly tearing Europe apart.
The same argument could be made in many different directions. (If some countries, including those who are aggressors in the wars, are taking 0 refugees, then why should any country?)
Otherwise, it absolutely is about policies, for all parties involved, in more ways than I am going to enumerate here.
This is an interesting link, since you brought up treaties before:
It's almost like the UN isn't what it says it is exactly and is subject to all sorts of contingent pressures. Weird, eh?
Or maybe somebody called somebody else a mean name once and therefore all of the wars, double standards, etc. are justified.
What happens if you try and seek asylum from Australia in Asia (Sri Lanka, let's say) for being Murdochian ultrafascists?
Of course, if Europe truly were to be torn apart, there would be european refugees seeking asylum every which way. I'm sure you'd be greatly worried about where they were supposed to go, right?
Including possibly even "into the jaws of military contractors" as backtoiam puts it (certainly there are private military contractors involved in jihadi controlled regions, I'd love to know more about what he means by that, however). I've been told Israel should not have to accept refugees because they are a nation of refugees; the same argument is used to justify the opposite position in regards to North American countries, for better or for worse. It's a special, advanced sort of logic, you know? Not everyone gets it.
Turkey and Israel have both literally expanded their territory over the course of the Syrian Civil War, the one that totally isn't a misnomer. Maybe a future alliance could annex an area in the Middle East and institute a genuine reconstruction plan there at some future date, and a homeland for refugees while they're at it. Sound like something the supposed "anti-ISIS" coalition is about to do any day now? Yeah, I didn't think so. (Weird how those picky refugees don't want to go live in the "caliphate", with its courageous rejection of outdated international laws, eh? It's almost like they're on the wrong side of history or something after all their brainwashing by Gaelic Marxist confusionists.)
Last edited by tapitsbo on Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
tapitsbo » 04 Mar 2016 17:39 wrote:The same argument could be made in many different directions. (If some countries, including those who are aggressors in the wars, are taking 0 refugees, then why should any country?)
No it specifically can't in this case. Pepe Escobar has accused Erdogan of causing the crisis by emptying the refugees camps. The refugees had gone straight to his country and then stopped. Turkey bears the burden of looking after those refugees. If Turkey suddenly expels them and the effect is so catastrophic then wasn't it obviously catastrophic for Turkey before they expelled the refugees?
Of course, if Europe truly were to be torn apart, there would be European refugees seeking asylum every which way.
...what does "...deal with.." entail exactly - allocating an empty bit of desert to pitch tents or access to a first world cradle to grave welfare health & education system, language tuition, social workers & mental health professionals ....
....this is one small example of how good intentions have to be followed through on - how many qualified dentists does Germany produce per annum what is their capacity to handle the many man-years of work that has now entered their pipeline, has any politician in Germany considered the implications - that seems a fairly minor aspect that needs to be multiplied many times over to cover all the other health & welfare issues...
Refugees in Baden-Württemberg dentures could cost billions
For many refugees, the teeth must be comprehensively refurbished. The cost could run into the billions. Money for the end the social funds would have to bear.
Stuttgart - Dentists fear that might incur costs by billions of refugee treatment soon. Because at least for the asylum seekers who come for complaints in their practices, the condition of the teeth is often catastrophic.
The dentists' associations Baden-Württemberg confirmed that: "In a large part of the refugees is a need for a comprehensive dental treatment or rehabilitation of dentures. That's with corresponding costs connected ", Director Knuth Wolf told our newspaper.
In the first 15 months of their stay in Germany asylum seekers are only entitled to treatment for acute illnesses or pain. Then they get the same access as dentures as insured by the statutory health insurance. there is so far estimates of total expenditure not yet. Experts, however from a cost of EUR 10 000 per complete treatment. Given the number of refugees, that could quickly add up to several billion euros.
David Peduto | (Informed Comment) | – – The Syrian war has resurrected uncomfortable colonial legacies for France and the United Kingdom. For the French and the British, whose policies in post-World War I Syria shaped the country and the region in profound ways, the 500,000 Syrian refugees who landed in the European Union last year are a personified brood of chickens coming home to roost. While neither country is exerting influence in any meaningful way to bring the conflict to a close in Syria, their historical responsibility impels them to accept Syrian refugees at home. As early as 1915, the French saw their claim to Syria as part of their “mission historique” in a land where their crusaders once tromped and fought their way through to Jerusalem. Beyond historical claims, Syria promised commercial, geographic, and strategic advantages to a country eager to draw beneficial borders in the shadow of the waning Ottoman Empire. It did just that with the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, which promised the French influence and control over contemporary Lebanon and Syria, and the British with authority in current-day Jordan and Iraq. But the British outmaneuvered their French counterparts in the final division of territory in the Middle East. Prior to the opening of the Paris Peace Conference, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George had extracted concessions from French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau to bring oil-rich Mosul and Palestine under British rule, rather than French and international control, respectively. The San Remo Conference in April 1920 solidified both French and British claims with the establishment of the mandate system, leaving governance of these territories to their respective colonial power. One month before San Remo, however, the Syrian National Congress had declared independence and announced Faisal as the country’s constitutional monarch. This was the same Faisal whose father, Hussain, had been promised an Arab kingdom by the British in exchange for his armed support against the Ottomans in the Middle East during World War I. But the British backed out of Syria in November 1919, leaving Faisal to face the French alone. Reeling from the betrayal of the British, Faisal was soon overwhelmed by the French. The French entered Damascus on July 25, 1920 and forced Faisal to flee. Acting with impunity, they undid all that the Syrian National Congress had done, put down resistance, and established control over the country. The French authorities exercised a divide et impera strategy that did much to create internal rifts that continued well after its troops left Syria in 1946. If the words of Victor Hugo are true that “we are children of our own deeds,” then surely we are the grandchildren of our forebears’ deeds. But just as modern France and Britain are the product of their colonial legacies, so too are the refugees seeking refuge in Europe the descendants of those first subjugated by the ramifications of colonial cartography. The French, the British, and the Syrian refugees are political progeny met at the crossroads of history and responsibility. It is time for Britain and France to take a more active role in the relocation, resettlement, and asylum acceptance of those Syrian refugees fleeing to Europe. In keeping with the remarks of the European Union’s migration commissioner, Dimitris Avramopoulos, that, “It is not for migrants or refugees to choose where to go,” France and Britain should welcome those refugees who have crossed the moat of Fortress Europa. If this is indeed the position of the European Union, then two leading states of that union who bear the mantle of colonial legacies should step up to the plate and make right the wrongs that were a century in the making. Britain must accept more Syrian asylum seekers. Last December, Prime Minister David Cameron applauded Britain’s acceptance of 1,000 resettled refugees. But such a low number of acceptance in a country with such a large absorptive capacity is more travesty than it is triumph. The United Kingdom has pledged that it will accept 20,000 Syrian asylum seekers by 2020. This is hardly impressive. At a recent donor conference for Syria and the region, Britain also pledged an additional $1.75 billion over the next four years. But such distant and unsubstantiated goals speak to a lack of vision Cameron otherwise pins to 2020. France aims to accept 30,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2017. While French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has said that his country “will not welcome all the refugees of Europe,” no one is asking France to do so. But what should be demanded is greater acceptance than that currently on offer. While France is less attractive than Germany to refugees for various reasons (long application processing times, high unemployment, entrenched xenophobic attitudes, etc.), it can bear more than it claims that it can. Demolishing large sections of the “Jungle” refugee camp in Calais without providing better alternatives is hardly a step forward. The bottom line is that Britain and France must do more to help assuage the refugee crisis in Europe. While a host of asylum seekers are traversing the continent from a host of countries, particular attention should and must be paid to those from Syria. It is the land of Sykes-Picot, and its embattled population are the descendants of colonial pawns. While Britain and France cannot un-write history, they must now seize the moment and undertake a “mission historique” rooted in historical responsibility to assist the Syrian refugees. David Peduto is pursuing a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy at the Fletcher School, Tufts University —– Related video added by Juan Cole:
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started. They could still get him out of office. But instead, they want mass death. Don’t forget that.
Or that Turkish society and institutions are symmetrical to European ones?
So you are saying Turkey is special and has the ability to deal with all those refugees but Europe as a super state doesn't?
Turkey is one of the agressors in the conflict yet you indicated you were fine with it attacking Europe, as revenge for Islamophobia or something. Never mind the long history including recently of turkish colonization of europe including slavery. A turkish attack on european countries would involve irregular proxies like IS, etc. I get the feeling you approve of that, and you're telling us we're supposed to be afraid of Russia? If your argument is correct it's just more proof Israel and Saudi need to accept more refugees.
The EU is hardly a super state and behaves consistently against the interests of its population especially in its weaker member states. An actual super state the US sided with Islamists in the Balkans of course
Something funny is happening talking to you Joe it's like I am realizing the narrative is even more silly than I had thought.
tapitsbo wrote: Turkey is one of the agressors in the conflict yet you indicated you were fine with it attacking Europe, as revenge for Islamophobia or something. Never mind the long history including recently of turkish colonization of europe including slavery. A turkish attack on european countries would involve irregular proxies like IS, etc. I get the feeling you approve of that, and you're telling us we're supposed to be afraid of Russia? If your argument is correct it's just more proof Israel and Saudi need to accept more refugees.
The EU is hardly a super state and behaves consistently against the interests of its population especially in its weaker member states. An actual super state the US sided with Islamists in the Balkans of course
Something funny is happening talking to you Joe it's like I am realizing the narrative is even more silly than I had thought.
Tapits,
I find myself trying to decipher your post. It isn't clear. For instance you state, "Never mind the long history including recently of turkish colonization of europe including slavery" but that is clearly water under the historical bridge since they are all in the same military alliance. Then you state, "If your argument is correct it's just more proof Israel and Saudi need to accept more refugees.". Can you clarify what the acceptance or lack there of indicates, and what does that have to do with being afraid of Russia? EU is certainly a quasi super state. Arguing otherwise is just semantics. I don't understand this, "An actual super state the US sided with Islamists in the Balkans of course". Convoluted wording aside, what does that mean? Should the Islamists not have been sided with? Because of their later association with Al Qaeda or because the people in the areas the US supported happen to have been Islamic? Can you clarify what such Balkan operations have on the point you are making? Thank you.
Also you earlier stated this, "Turkey and Israel have both literally expanded their territory over the course of the Syrian Civil War". Can you please cite where and how Israel increased territory? By Turkey I think you mean incursions into Syria and Kurdistan. Thanks.
Rage against the ever vicious downward spiral. Time to get back to basics. [url=http://zmag.org/zmi/readlabor.htm]Worker Control of Industry![/url]
Water under the bridge would be fantastic but there was an article recently posted in this thread, along with many arguments from Joe and others, that Europe deserves whatever it is coerced into due to historical water under the bridge.
Joe indicated that Europeans and others should be afraid of Russia, but the prospect of Turkish expansion into Europe is something he does not care about, specifically because of historical water under the bridge, as you call it. Why should anyone hearing his appeal care about Russian influence, especially when Russia in its current form is much better at respecting internal and external "others" (forgive my adoptation of Joe's vocabulary) than Turkey under its current government? This is a strange inconsistency, to me at least. What is more, the rivalry between the West and Russia is asymmetrical and even Russian hawks speak of a "multipolar" world.
I don't believe Islamists should have been sided with, no, especially not ones who have a literal record of stating they wanted a reconquest of parts of Europe such as in the Balkans to incorporate into a caliphate. Whether or not a caliphate is part of the destiny of parts of the Islamic world is not a conversation I am going to get into here, the point is it would most likely represent a break with the sort of international law that Joe is citing, and it is unrealistic to expect that Europe would be bound to obligations ignored by such an entity once it was well established, especially since the USA and Israel have historically co-operated only reluctantly with international law. We've seen a defence of international law from posters like AliceTheeKurious on this board recently, but if it is applied only very selectively as an institution, then there are certainly questions to be asked around that.
If, against rhetoric like Alice's, we are to believe international law is a wicked instrument of oppression, yet one that should be used against europeans and certain others in ways approaching collective punishment, why should we feign surprise when many find this unconvincing?
Whatever the EU is or is not, it doesn't have a very good record in recent years, especially not in places like Greece which are as best as I can tell only begrudgingly part of the alliance, the alliance that includes states that take very different forms.
What does the acceptance or lack thereof by Israel, Saudi, etc. indicate to you? Do you feel it is justified? These countries' governments have vocally supported European acceptance of refugees and even demographic replacement in some instances at the same time as they've attacked the legitimate Syrian government and contributed to destabilization elsewhere. We hear that Europe "has not yet learned to be multicultural", but we almost never hear that about these countries. Meanwhile the actually existing multicultural Syria has been largely destroyed. That's just part of what indicates to me evidence to support the at times clumsily articulated article series by O'Colmain, as well as prompting inquiry into what exactly the multicultural policies are that are advocated in some regions and not others by the various "alliances" orbiting around the USA and its closest partners.
I'm sticking with this topic since it astonishes me that there was more widespread opposition to the war-mongering agenda during the George W. Bush administration but now we have threads like "Reasons Why The U.S. Is Great" on RI.
It's absurd that in 2016 we are still talking about "neocons" seriously and they are still setting the agenda.
How popular is NATO anyways? They have a pretty nasty track record, don't they? It's almost like certain countries have been coerced into the alliance, no?
I'm not going to cite Israeli expansion of territory during the conflict, it's well cited elsewhere.
What do you feel the Israeli, Saudi, etc. response to the conflict and crisis indicates? What is most problematic to you about the articles SLAD linked and the discussion we have been having? I acknowledge that details of the articles may be off, but it seems you object to their central thesis.
Another question is how we got to the point where the policies prevailing in the West are considered "normal" - the institutional effort to make it so is massive and can be documented, assisting us in imagining that the the current state of affairs is not necessary.
Why do we not see more commitment to rebuilding stable, somewhat pluralistic societies in the Middle East? The best efforts towards this that I can see are coming from the Assad government and Kurdistan. It is difficult to see why the expansion of Islamism is supported by the West except for in the service of a agenda that roughly matches the one outlined by O'Colmain and now has a lot of blood on its hands.
Thank you for your patience with my convoluted wording.
Last edited by tapitsbo on Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
