Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

[Occult Means Hidden]

In reply to Tapits.

Its all quite precarious.

Israel would never accept refugees because it's Israel. Enough said. Saudi Arabia probably wouldn't turn them away, but the trek across western Iraq is a long dead zone. They would likely encounter persecution in Sunni Saudi Arabia anyway since they are the anti-thesis of everything Shia. Jordan is cut off from Syrian Government forces. Turkey is closest. By foot, train or car that leaves Turkey or Lebanon. I think the fact that most Syrian refugees are heading away from the direction of Damascus -their country's capital- instead of toward it, answers most of our questions. They consider themselves as much a refugee from Assad as they do from any of the opposition groups in the country. This is a revealing question to ask refugees. Whom in Syria displaced you? From whom are you running away from?

I'm not sure the Syrian government is legitimate as you state it is. Careful where you tread or you'll support military coups, dictators and authoritarianism. I'm not convinced that it is accurate to state that your identified aggressor nations have annexed Syrian territory. US/NATO/Israel haven't attacked Syrian military forces except in isolated incidents. Yes, yes, the formula is ISIL + al Nusra = USA + NATO and or Israel. Let's call this the proxy formula. But there are other formulas also. I know you probably think this is naïve, but the sheer reliance on the proxy theory is potentially naïve. If they are proxies, would we actively try to destroy them? Maybe we would. There is record of American airstrikes in the region in question. If the Americans weren't attacking Syrian government forces or ISIL, than who were the Americans attacking? As part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US and Coalition claims to have attacked, "As of 3:59 p.m. EST Mar. 1, the U.S. and coalition have conducted a total of 10,715 strikes (7,159 Iraq / 3,556 Syria)." The proxy formula may not be coherent if these were real strikes. Therefore are we to contend that these are fake airstrikes? The counter to this argument, is that the U.S. attacked Al Qaeda even though the U.S. supported Al Qaeda.



Here is another formula. Western Syria civil war + power vacuum in Northern Iraq after US withdraw = reactionary radicalized opportunists = ISIL + al Nusra. Let's call this the power vacuum formula.

Both formulas are valid, but one may be more probable than the other. I'm not seeing the case for one formula over the other at this time, whereas you and most on this board, have clearly picked a side.

[tapitsbo]

I think you're right that "we" (the imperialists increasingly rejected by Western populations) would destroy proxies, especially IS who seem to have been recruited for a suicide mission to a large degree. I refuse to believe we've seen the end of groups like IS, Boko Haram, etc. though.

I think "enough said" says a lot - it's a rejection of the principles that friendly relationships generally seem to be based on. It is an exceptionalism which may be not even reward self-interest in the long run. Israel and KSA are problematic, certainly, especially once we admit that the Russian and Syrian governments are problematic in some measure. I find it troubling that the Canadian government's relationship with Saudi Arabia is rarely questioned out in the open whereas things like BDS have clamorous support.

I think there are most definitely Sunni governments and sources of authority that are nowhere near as sketchy and questionable as KSA, Qatar, Al-Qaeda, and IS.

I don't believe the Russian and Syrian governments are completely innocent

Of course Salafis/Wahhabis are going to want to defend themselves too but the pattern seems to be that they are on the offense.

I don't believe what you're saying really contradicts most of what I am saying.

Of course we may ask refugees who they are running away from (many migrants of course are not refugees.)

You could also ask the entire West who they are "running from" in terms of questionable elites whose narratives they are rejecting.

Things like the Pentagon predicting war throughout central Europe by 2020 don't do a lot to comfort us that O'Colmain/slad's narrative is completely bogus. If slad's narrative has itself been engineered to sway hearts and minds of people across the West, it may yet have some worth especially in contrast to the very patchy official version of events.

[Occult Means Hidden]

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.

.

Tapits,

As I stated elsewhere, what I find problematic is the thesis that Israel/Zionists want to "destroy" Europe by a dubious methodology and in a manner that inhumanes victims by considering them as dangerous as weapons - and for irrational motives. This despite better reasoned justifications for this migration that require no need for conspiracy - people simply wanting to leave the war zone to go to where it is safe. My problem is heightened because the original article's author is pushing this dubious thesis, one that would benefit Russia exponentially by driving Israel/U.S. apart from Europe. More so since his credentials show a willingness to write for and to be bankrolled by Russian media outlets. Although I realize this works both ways for American media.

Western leftists are eating this up so readily because the active U.S. and Israel bashing and the examples cited in the articles are true, despite have no bearing on the main thesis. For example he may go on about America's invasion of Iraq, for instance. Completely true that it was an atrocity, but having nothing to do with a deliberate plan to wage war on Europe schemed by a privileged class of Jews.

This thesis also plays on racial fears by driving white European to be suspicious of Middle Easterners because they are weaponized and because a certain class of Jews weaponized them. The added bonus of this propaganda is that it is turning some leftists against migration, because they are buying into the idea of it being weaponized despite a long history of support for victimized displaced persons and refugees.

I hope I clearly communicated this.

Also I'm not making a distinction between migrants and refugees here.

[seemslikeadream]

which ones are Russian?

ZeroHedge

Dissent Voice

Information Clearing House

Intifada

CounterPunch

Global Research

Aljazeera

[Occult Means Hidden]

none.

[Occult Means Hidden]

I don't know what SLAD is trying to get at or troll at so i'll quote her quote of a quote, my quote and a Wikipedia's quote.

SLAD's quote of a quote:

Gearóid Ó Colmáin is a journalist and political analyst based in Paris. His work focuses on globalization, geopolitics and class struggle. He is a regular contributor to Dissident Voice, Global Research, Russia Today International, Press TV, Sputnik Radio France, Sputnik English, Al Etijah TV, Sahar TV, and has also appeared on Al Jazeera and Al Mayadeen. He writes in English, Gaelic, and French.

My quote:

My problem is heightened because the original article's author is pushing this dubious thesis, one that would benefit Russia exponentially by driving Israel/U.S. apart from Europe. More so since his credentials show a willingness to write for and to be bankrolled by Russian media outlets. Although I realize this works both ways for American media

Wikipedia via alexa.com:

Sputnik is an international multimedia service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013

[tapitsbo]

I am really getting a lot of interesting thoughts out of this thread.

I certainly was not aware that the majority of refugees were Shia and I am not sure where OMH is getting that from.

We are veing told Saudi Arabia's refusal to help refugees is a moot point because they would be persecuted, but increased sovereignty for europeans must be forestalled at all costs because of the mere possibility of the same.

Here we are talking about what countries are closest but that doesn't jibe with countries in southern europe being coerced into accepting a different standard when their populations were likely anti war in the first place.

So we're not making distinctions between refugees and migrants but we are making seemingly arbitrary distinctions between different countries' obligations. This is almost insulting to people who are simply trying to develop a model to understand the situation. Some countries in Europe may have already closed their borders but we are still far from being able to have coherent discussion in the public sphere about the issues at hand.

Let's not forget that the neocons/zionists/etc. are not all jews and it is their policies not their ethnicity that is being criticised. One of those policies happens to be a support of militant religious and ethnic nationalisms, including in europe, that is in practice much much more powerful than the stuff in American Dream's New Europe thread.

I say this as someone who is convinced the fascist style politics in places like Poland and Ukraine is a trap for europeans itself.

Places like Sweden have pursued reckless policies in a different way and regardless of whether their country was once a safe place for displaced people it will not remain so for these people or the indigenous inhabitants. Regardless of whether this is a consequence of a larger geopolitical strategy, it is exacerbated by the silencing of any discussion about migration, war, etc.

To me it is obvious that europe is subservient to the US and its expansionist allies. There is nothing at all inappropriate in a distance being put in place here except in the words of fear-mongers who usually refuse any conversation about the topic.

[Joe Hillshoist]

You seriously think it caused zero problems in Turkey?

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.

lets go back a step. I simply criticised a piece of writing that claimed Turkey caused the Euro refo crisis by closing some camps. What were these camps? the refugee equivalent of the magic pudding? How can these camps be so full of people that they will destroy Europe but not destroy Turkey in the meantime? Turkey is asking for money to look after the refos because it costs money to look after refos. Simple fucken logic really. but nooooooo. Turkey is "bribing" Europe for money by not spending everything it has keeping refugees out of Europe. To its own cost and for the benefit of people who don't want to pay for it.

All of this:

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.

has nothing to do with those simple points.

Its like the claims of Turkey supplying mercenaries to ISIS.

People leave Australia to fight for ISIS. They end up entering Syria via Turkey because its the easiest point of access. But why should Turkey be more responsible for stopping that process than Australia? Australians go there to fight for ISIS but its someone else, not us, that should be responsible for stopping them?

Lack of basic logic.

And none of this is me supporting Turkey, a genocidal nation if ever there was one.

I don't care what Turkey does to Europe any more than I care about what Indonesia does to West Papua. In fact i care more about what happens to West Papua. there is no historical record of West Papua invading and enslaving any other nation on earth. Turkey as a nation is dodgy as. But Escobar's analysis of Turkey is really flawed because of its inherent lack of basic logic. You say Turkey enslaved Europeans but less than 100 years ago my nan's brother took part in an attempted invasion of Turkey. On the say so of dickheads governing European powers. So there is no right and wrong in that situation. Turkey v Europe is someone else's fight. But if you, or more to the point Pepe Escobar wants to publish stuff about that fight perhaps he should make sure the facts back up the propaganda he wants to spread.

[tapitsbo]

We could go backwards in time in endless circles creating different rationales for different things but in practice we have standards put in place in place by things like the UN treaty that you cited, or by relationships between different states and organizations.

Why should Turkey vs. Europe be a fight at all?

Throughout this thread I have been suggesting mildly that the populations of Western nations should do all they can to encourage disengagement from the aggression in the Middle East; this would be an even more fruitful way of taking responsibility than simply sheltering migrants but turning a blind eye to context.

I could care less about what you personally believe Joe, but I am grateful to you for some of the reasoning you've added to this thread. It has further convinced me that the Western media narrative about the Syrian war and migrant crisis is deeply skewed and censors a great deal of important and pertinent information.

Turkey has co-operated closely with IS in the war; in fact I believe the country has to some extent been hung out to dry by a broader alliance.

We have to select what context seems relevant; you and OMH seem to take the context of much of these events as a given yet it is contested by many parties

Why indeed is Turkey not co-operating with the Syrian government in rebuilding the country, instead of spending money on camps within their own territory.

The truth is I didn't read Escobar's article. My picture of these events has been built up from many sources. I feel like you guys are less interested in discussing the context of the events in the Middle East in Europe and more interested in not discussing them (e.g. "enough said") along with the veiled threat to "be careful", which of course is to be expected.

If I remember correctly, Indonesia and West Papua is not unrelated to the same old story of international law, imperialism, varying standards, etc.

It's fine to question and relativize all of that, but keeping it relevant and persuasive is another thing.

I'm not at all convinced that especially poorer European nations, let alone countries like Lebanon and Jordan should have to co-operate with a war pursued by countries like the US, UK, Israel, KSA, etc. that aren't themselves helping with the problem to the extent they should (based on the standards certain other countries are being held to.)

[tapitsbo]

Also: what do we really mean when we say "power vacuum".

There are forces in that vacuum

[Joe Hillshoist]

If you haven't read an article why are you starting an argument with me about my specific response to it.

[tapitsbo]

I was just trying to get a sense of where you were coming from.

Possibly I read some of the Pepe Escobar article, I don't remember.

[Occult Means Hidden]

I certainly was not aware that the majority of refugees were Shia and I am not sure where OMH is getting that from

I based this off the demographics of Damascus. Syria at large is Sunni. I misspoke/was wrong on this point.

Here we are talking about what countries are closest but that doesn't jibe with countries in southern europe being coerced into accepting a different standard when their populations were likely anti war in the first place.

Which standard? The standard to widely accept refugees? If they were anti-war they would likely be pro-refuge. These ideas stem from the same liberal mindset. Oppose violence to others. Care for those whom violence has been inflicted upon.

You are trying to get at a policy thrust upon Europe by America or "Zionists" through the EU. But I think very much the member states have the confederation they asked for.

Turkey has co-operated closely with IS in the war; in fact I believe the country has to some extent been hung out to dry by a broader alliance

Although I do not agree with this statement and I find it difficult for you to prove or nebulous by your meaning of a broader alliance, the Turks do seem to hate the Kurds most of all, so I can see some enemy of my enemy is my friend going on. Although, something like ISIL (lawless, chaotic, fundamentalist), is not what the Turkish people want on their borders. You can argue that the Turkish government is a different story, still, they have undeniably taken strategic positions against ISIL but have let the Americans do the incursions for them. Except when it comes to Kurdish activists. It's all so complex these relationships because the Kurds and the U.S. have had great working relationships while the Turks, also America's allies, fears a Kurdistan more than an Assad led Syria. It's all quite schizophrenic. I guess this is why most foreign policy inflames instead of pacifies. It's insanity.

[tapitsbo]

Policies have pacified and even nurtured in the past. Depending on your point of view. Violence has abated in certain times and places.

I believe your use of the term schizophrenia refers to yet more divide and conquer strategies.

I never said I was anti-refugee, OMH. In fact quite the opposite. Mostly in this thread I was asking why more countries were not accepting refugees, especially parties to the conflict.

Let's not conflate Europe and the EU, there are certainly enough institutions involved in all this.

[seemslikeadream]

Hollande outlines 'catastrophic scenario' if UK exits the EU

By Euan McKirdy, CNN
Updated 2:54 AM ET, Fri March 4, 2016
Police forces stand at the ready during the dismantling of half of the "Jungle" migrant camp in the French northern port city of Calais.

French President says there will be immigration "consequences" if Britain votes to leave EU
Hollande says financial and economic ties would also suffer
(CNN)French President Francois Hollande is warning British referendum voters of the immigration and financial "consequences" of leaving the EU.

Hollande echoed his economy minister in speculating that the focus of the two countries' migrant crisis could shift from Calais to the British side of the English Channel.

"I don't want to scare you, I just want to tell the truth, there will be consequences if the UK is to leave the EU," Hollande said at a news conference, standing next to British Prime Minister David Cameron. The two leaders had just attended a UK-France summit in Amiens in northern France Thursday.

"There will be consequences, especially in the way that we handle the situations that we just mentioned in terms of immigration," he said, an apparent reference made by Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron to British newspaper Financial Times ahead of the meeting.

Migrants stitch lips shut in hunger strike

Migrants stitch lips shut in hunger strike 00:57
The British Prime Minister announced Thursday £17 million ($24 million) in additional funding to help France address the situation at controversial Calais migrant camp known as the "Jungle."

The camp on the outskirts of the French city closest to the UK is a major transit point for thousands of migrants hoping to enter Britain illegally by smuggling themselves on trucks or other vehicles. Many migrants there are reluctant to leave and register in a French reception center as their preferred destination is the UK.

Cameron had earlier said the notorious migrant camp may move to British shores if the UK voted to leave the EU in June's 'Brexit' referendum. The move would reflect the potential revision of an Anglo-French accord, known as the Le Touquet treaty, which allows the UK to station immigration officials on French soil.

"Brexit is the other face of the refugee crisis," Macron said, according to a transcript of his remarks.

"The day this relationship unravels, migrants will no longer be in Calais," he said.

Half of French migrant camp to be demolished

Half of French migrant camp to be demolished 02:58
Hollande also alluded to other downsides for Britons aspiring to greater independence in Europe.

"There will be consequences in many areas: on the single market; on financial trade; the economic development of the two countries. It doesn't mean that everything will be destroyed, I don't want to give you a catastrophic scenario but there will be consequences, especially in terms of people as well."

Brexit: British PM tells Parliament UK can have 'best of both worlds' in EU

'Consequences'
Hollande sought to confirm the endurance of the two countries' "historic relations" and "friendship" but warned that a move to exit the bloc would be consequential.

"There is no solution where there is no consequences. There are consequences if the 'in' wins or if the 'out' wins, there will be consequences both ways. Every time the people speak out in a referendum, there are consequences," he said.

UK politicians who support the split were dismissive of discussion that the treaty would be revised, with London mayor and prominent "out" campaigner Boris Johnson speaking pidgin French and denying that there would be a migrant processing center to replace Calais on British soil.

"I would say: 'Donnez-moi un break.' There's absolutely no reason why that treaty should be changed," the Guardian reported him saying. "It was an intergovernmental treaty; it was the Le Touquet treaty. It was signed between the British government and the French government. It's not in the French interests to want to do that and it's just the usual flapping and scaremongering."

Tusk: Migrants stay away
European Council President Donald Tusk on Thursday warned opportunistic "economic migrants" -- those who are not legitimate refugees but are seeking better living conditions -- not to come to Europe, saying their efforts would be "all for nothing."

"I want to appeal to all potential illegal economic migrants wherever you are from: Do not come to Europe. Do not believe the smugglers," Tusk told reporters in Athens, Greece.