ISIS takes Palmyra

[Simon_Jester]

So, my ADVICE would be to the Euro nations: Take them in if you must, but have a plan to A) sift through them to find ISIS infiltrators...

There is as yet no particular evidence that Da'esh wants to "infiltrate Europe." I wouldn't be too worried about it- the risk is non-zero but it is not exactly large. Right now Da'esh is very busy doing its best to conquer a large area of land within the Middle East. They have a sizable army of recruits and are well-funded for their purposes.

Terrorism, by contrast, is what you do when you have few men and few resources.

There is a territory in the middle- a large, organized group that uses terror tactics- but in cases like that, the terror tactics will be used against nearby territory that's a target for the group's expansion. Thus, Iraqi guerilla groups would commit terrorism against Iraqi citizens, but did not seek to commit international terrorism against Americans (or Britons or people of other nations) in other countries.

It is actually very unusual for a group to practice long range international terrorism, and the situation is not as simple as "Da'esh are fanatical Muslims so they must want to launch terrorist attacks against Europe." That would not serve their purposes and would be a very major change from the tactics they've focused on (successfully) since they were founded.

B) Make sure the Wealthier Arab/muslim nations that are NOT at war take the VAST majority (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, S. Arabia, Brunei, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Maylaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Iran, Albania, and to a lesser extent: Sudan, Tunisia, Eritrea, pakistan, bangladesh, heck some could go help rebuild Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Libya if they were funded properly....)...

Bangladesh? Are you seriously calling Bangladesh a nation that can afford to go rebuild other nations and take in refugees? Or is this just a grammar confusion issue?

even if they are cared for in Europe, given some seed money, and organized into groups before they go to those countries it would be a vast improvement over "let them stay in Europe effectively forever... with no plan"
The reason they don't WANT to go to those countries shows how they aren't truly fleeing ONLY the war: They want the $$$$ and the benefits of living in Europe.

There's another good reason- they can be confident the European countries aren't themselves going to be torn apart by a religious civil war in the next twenty years.

Think about World War Two, and Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. A lot of them ran to the neighboring countries, as refugees often do- they ran to Poland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, places like that. Then came 1939 and Hitler started invading his neighbors- Poland, France, and so on. The refugees found that they had run out of the frying pan and into the fire, and many of them were killed in the Holocaust.

This is a great example of why refugees may want to run to a country that is far away and reasonably secure, rather than running to nearby countries where Son of Da'esh might pop up in five or ten years and start harassing them again.

I mean, we can't rule out the possibility that an aggressive, fanatical Muslim rebel/guerilla movement like Da'esh might pop up in many of the countries on your list. Neither can the refugees. So no, it is not directly about the $$$$. It is about the security- Western nations are seen by these Muslims as relatively safe places where they can be sure of getting real refuge from radical Islamic fundamentalism.

My personal response to that is: To Effing bad! The other Muslim nations of the Ummah need to step up and start chipping in their Zakat money for their brothers or they can admit they are secular humanists like Europe (for the most part)...

I think there's a third option here, which is that they are not secular humanists but are simply bad Muslims... as in, Muslims who fail to honor their obligation to other Muslims.

Charity is a Christian responsibility too, and it's not like Christian nations in the past (stretching back into the Middle Ages) have always been charitable to each other.

As for defeating ISIS militarily, this is a secondary issue to the political and cultural conditions that spawned ISIS in the first place. The US devastated Vietnam too, but despite the spasms of the Final assaults on S. Vietnam and the insanity of the Khmer Rouge (which communism was a major driving factor) nothing as long lasting and ambitious as ISIS arose in SE asia in the 70s and 80s that tore the area apart in the years after our departure. (if the Khmer Rouge were an 8 on the 10 scale of evil bastards, i'd give ISIS a 9 and climbing just for the ongoing nastiness of their regime and its continued regional influence.)

You're only saying that because you secretly agree with the Khmer Rouge's belief that people with literacy and glasses are a bunch of poindexters who need to be executed to make room for the Glorious New Regime of authentically rural hillbillies.



I am of course exaggerating and do not seriously believe you believe that, but it's hard to come up with another reason for you to give them a mere 8/10. Seriously, the Khmer Rouge were about as close to 10/10 as it is possible to get; they were so evil a neighboring totalitarian communist state invaded to stop the evil. They were so evil they literally fell apart from their own evilness and were unable to maintain a viable state.

Da'esh may well deserve its 9/10 rating, but an 8/10 is much too low to give to the Khmer Rouge.

Also, I have to point out that Da'esh has only existed for a few years; there is no reason to assume that they are any more a long-term stable feature of the Middle East than the Khmer Rouge were. I can even imagine that in a few years, if they are allowed to expand unchecked, Iran might get into the game and squash them just like Vietnam squashed the Khmer Rouge, and then having Iran get sucked into a guerilla war in northern Iraq for 5-10 years after that just like Vietnam did.

[Elheru Aran]

Point of contention, Simon: Hasn't Iran already gotten burnt dealing with Syria, according to chatter on another thread? They might be reluctant to deal with ISIS given that ISIS is probably one of the stronger forces in the general region right now.

[Grumman]

#2 to get down to brass tacks, if we did declare "WWIII" or something similar, can you really say that ISIS isn't the worlds best current example of a WWIII-ing?

Again, WTF is this supposed to mean? Stop trying to be clever, it isn't working.

He's saying that ISIS has no redeeming features and that if somebody gave them the ultimatum, "Unconditional surrender or extinction, pick one," it would be very hard to say they didn't deserve it.

[Iroscato]

Oooh, he's SUCH a tough guy! I can feel myself homosexualising on the spot. He's so cool.

[Simon_Jester]

Point of contention, Simon: Hasn't Iran already gotten burnt dealing with Syria, according to chatter on another thread? They might be reluctant to deal with ISIS given that ISIS is probably one of the stronger forces in the general region right now.

If Da'esh actually succeeded in conquering part or all of Syria and northern Iraq (as the Khmer Rouge succeeded in taking over Cambodia), and established itself as an independent state, then eventually Iran and Da'esh might cross swords (as Vietnam and Cambodia crossed swords). That doesn't mean they would want to do so right this minute, though.

I can think of a number of reasons why this might occur.

[Broomstick]

Think about World War Two, and Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. A lot of them ran to the neighboring countries, as refugees often do- they ran to Poland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, places like that. Then came 1939 and Hitler started invading his neighbors- Poland, France, and so on. The refugees found that they had run out of the frying pan and into the fire, and many of them were killed in the Holocaust.

^ This is exactly what happened to my family - the only ones to survive were the ones that fled the farthest. Those that stopped in eastern Europe all died. "First safe country" in the opinion of someone sitting safely half a continent away may not, in the long term, be safe at all.

[cmdrjones]

So, my ADVICE would be to the Euro nations: Take them in if you must, but have a plan to A) sift through them to find ISIS infiltrators...

There is as yet no particular evidence that Da'esh wants to "infiltrate Europe." I wouldn't be too worried about it- the risk is non-zero but it is not exactly large. Right now Da'esh is very busy doing its best to conquer a large area of land within the Middle East. They have a sizable army of recruits and are well-funded for their purposes.

Terrorism, by contrast, is what you do when you have few men and few resources.

There is a territory in the middle- a large, organized group that uses terror tactics- but in cases like that, the terror tactics will be used against nearby territory that's a target for the group's expansion. Thus, Iraqi guerilla groups would commit terrorism against Iraqi citizens, but did not seek to commit international terrorism against Americans (or Britons or people of other nations) in other countries.

It is actually very unusual for a group to practice long range international terrorism, and the situation is not as simple as "Da'esh are fanatical Muslims so they must want to launch terrorist attacks against Europe." That would not serve their purposes and would be a very major change from the tactics they've focused on (successfully) since they were founded.

B) Make sure the Wealthier Arab/muslim nations that are NOT at war take the VAST majority (Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, S. Arabia, Brunei, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Maylaysia, Singapore, Qatar, Iran, Albania, and to a lesser extent: Sudan, Tunisia, Eritrea, pakistan, bangladesh, heck some could go help rebuild Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Libya if they were funded properly....)...

Bangladesh? Are you seriously calling Bangladesh a nation that can afford to go rebuild other nations and take in refugees? Or is this just a grammar confusion issue?

even if they are cared for in Europe, given some seed money, and organized into groups before they go to those countries it would be a vast improvement over "let them stay in Europe effectively forever... with no plan"
The reason they don't WANT to go to those countries shows how they aren't truly fleeing ONLY the war: They want the $$$$ and the benefits of living in Europe.

There's another good reason- they can be confident the European countries aren't themselves going to be torn apart by a religious civil war in the next twenty years.

Think about World War Two, and Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. A lot of them ran to the neighboring countries, as refugees often do- they ran to Poland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, places like that. Then came 1939 and Hitler started invading his neighbors- Poland, France, and so on. The refugees found that they had run out of the frying pan and into the fire, and many of them were killed in the Holocaust.

This is a great example of why refugees may want to run to a country that is far away and reasonably secure, rather than running to nearby countries where Son of Da'esh might pop up in five or ten years and start harassing them again.

I mean, we can't rule out the possibility that an aggressive, fanatical Muslim rebel/guerilla movement like Da'esh might pop up in many of the countries on your list. Neither can the refugees. So no, it is not directly about the $$$$. It is about the security- Western nations are seen by these Muslims as relatively safe places where they can be sure of getting real refuge from radical Islamic fundamentalism.

My personal response to that is: To Effing bad! The other Muslim nations of the Ummah need to step up and start chipping in their Zakat money for their brothers or they can admit they are secular humanists like Europe (for the most part)...

I think there's a third option here, which is that they are not secular humanists but are simply bad Muslims... as in, Muslims who fail to honor their obligation to other Muslims.

Charity is a Christian responsibility too, and it's not like Christian nations in the past (stretching back into the Middle Ages) have always been charitable to each other.

As for defeating ISIS militarily, this is a secondary issue to the political and cultural conditions that spawned ISIS in the first place. The US devastated Vietnam too, but despite the spasms of the Final assaults on S. Vietnam and the insanity of the Khmer Rouge (which communism was a major driving factor) nothing as long lasting and ambitious as ISIS arose in SE asia in the 70s and 80s that tore the area apart in the years after our departure. (if the Khmer Rouge were an 8 on the 10 scale of evil bastards, i'd give ISIS a 9 and climbing just for the ongoing nastiness of their regime and its continued regional influence.)

You're only saying that because you secretly agree with the Khmer Rouge's belief that people with literacy and glasses are a bunch of poindexters who need to be executed to make room for the Glorious New Regime of authentically rural hillbillies.



I am of course exaggerating and do not seriously believe you believe that, but it's hard to come up with another reason for you to give them a mere 8/10. Seriously, the Khmer Rouge were about as close to 10/10 as it is possible to get; they were so evil a neighboring totalitarian communist state invaded to stop the evil. They were so evil they literally fell apart from their own evilness and were unable to maintain a viable state.

Da'esh may well deserve its 9/10 rating, but an 8/10 is much too low to give to the Khmer Rouge.

Also, I have to point out that Da'esh has only existed for a few years; there is no reason to assume that they are any more a long-term stable feature of the Middle East than the Khmer Rouge were. I can even imagine that in a few years, if they are allowed to expand unchecked, Iran might get into the game and squash them just like Vietnam squashed the Khmer Rouge, and then having Iran get sucked into a guerilla war in northern Iraq for 5-10 years after that just like Vietnam did.

#1 as to ISIS long range tactics, agreed. However, I also see this as possibly a continental scale and Long term version of the Nazi tactic of herding civilians out onto the roads of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. Destabilize ond demoralize your enemy so you can strike him elsewhere at your leisure.

#2 Re Bangladesh: That's why I said "to a lesser extent" to clarify, I'd put Bangladesh in the same category as Libya. A place that MAM's (Military Age Males) could be organized and sent to to either retake, rebuild or stabilize. The idea of retraining refugees into cadres and sending them back to other nations of the Ummah makes about as much sense as trying to "assimilate them" into European culture, AND it's less paternalistic and racist too! Do we REALLy think it's a good thing to try to change these people into little brown germans?

It's about time we started holding the other nations of the ME up to civilized standards. Look, we already have well sestablished networks of people who go to Asia for example, to teach english for a few years to earn cash and experience right? Well, to those Non-Arabic Muslim nations: HERE'S YOUR CHANCE!! Import thousands of Syrians to teach you Arabic the old fashioned way! I mean, it's the language of the Koran is it not? Let the Saudis build those 200 mosques in Brunei, Maylaysia, Singapore, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, and Bangladesh!

#3 also true, here's the Muslim nations chance to 1UP the west... GO Ummah!!!

#4 Re the Khmer Rouge.... Ok fine 10/10.... I only downgraded them to 8/10, as I said, because they existed for such a short period of time (due to aforesaid invasion by the other communist power in the area) and because they didn't have regional ambitions, But I get you.

[cmdrjones]

Think about World War Two, and Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. A lot of them ran to the neighboring countries, as refugees often do- they ran to Poland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, places like that. Then came 1939 and Hitler started invading his neighbors- Poland, France, and so on. The refugees found that they had run out of the frying pan and into the fire, and many of them were killed in the Holocaust.

^ This is exactly what happened to my family - the only ones to survive were the ones that fled the farthest. Those that stopped in eastern Europe all died. "First safe country" in the opinion of someone sitting safely half a continent away may not, in the long term, be safe at all.

This is pretty reasonable, but does not Obviate sending them on to a Muslim country not at war once they've been screened etc.

it also means that a huge chunk NOT from Syria don't qualify.

on a personal note, this gives me the idea that you have a huge heart, willing to extend the sense of urgency brought on by the example of the holocaust to those who would be most likely in Europe to deny either that it happened or that it was a bad idea.


Chimera: Homo-sexualizing? Is that a thing? I thought you were born that way or not.... that's what the great philosophetter lady Gaga said anyway

[Simon_Jester]

#1 as to ISIS long range tactics, agreed. However, I also see this as possibly a continental scale and Long term version of the Nazi tactic of herding civilians out onto the roads of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. Destabilize ond demoralize your enemy so you can strike him elsewhere at your leisure.

Except that there is no evidence that Da'esh is actually planning on this long a timescale, so it's not a 'tactic.' I'm not sure the Germans did it on purpose either- it's just a predictable effect of terrifying a civilian population in the 20th century; lots of them have cars or access to trucks and the like, so when the city is attacked they flee in huge numbers in all directions.

Wells saw it coming in The War of the Worlds, and I doubt he was the first.

#2 Re Bangladesh: That's why I said "to a lesser extent" to clarify, I'd put Bangladesh in the same category as Libya. A place that MAM's (Military Age Males) could be organized and sent to to either retake, rebuild or stabilize. The idea of retraining refugees into cadres and sending them back to other nations of the Ummah makes about as much sense as trying to "assimilate them" into European culture, AND it's less paternalistic and racist too! Do we REALLy think it's a good thing to try to change these people into little brown germans?

Exactly who is in charge of this 'retaking' effort, by the way? On whose behalf is this army to be drafted and raised? Do the countries serving as training-grounds have any say in that?

#3 also true, here's the Muslim nations chance to 1UP the west... GO Ummah!!!

The level of coordination required to make this happen would probably scare/anger the shit out of you if it ever decided to do anything you didn't like.

Just wanted to mention that part.

[cmdrjones]

#1 as to ISIS long range tactics, agreed. However, I also see this as possibly a continental scale and Long term version of the Nazi tactic of herding civilians out onto the roads of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. Destabilize ond demoralize your enemy so you can strike him elsewhere at your leisure.

Except that there is no evidence that Da'esh is actually planning on this long a timescale, so it's not a 'tactic.' I'm not sure the Germans did it on purpose either- it's just a predictable effect of terrifying a civilian population in the 20th century; lots of them have cars or access to trucks and the like, so when the city is attacked they flee in huge numbers in all directions.

Wells saw it coming in The War of the Worlds, and I doubt he was the first.

#2 Re Bangladesh: That's why I said "to a lesser extent" to clarify, I'd put Bangladesh in the same category as Libya. A place that MAM's (Military Age Males) could be organized and sent to to either retake, rebuild or stabilize. The idea of retraining refugees into cadres and sending them back to other nations of the Ummah makes about as much sense as trying to "assimilate them" into European culture, AND it's less paternalistic and racist too! Do we REALLy think it's a good thing to try to change these people into little brown germans?

Exactly who is in charge of this 'retaking' effort, by the way? On whose behalf is this army to be drafted and raised? Do the countries serving as training-grounds have any say in that?

#3 also true, here's the Muslim nations chance to 1UP the west... GO Ummah!!!

The level of coordination required to make this happen would probably scare/anger the shit out of you if it ever decided to do anything you didn't like.

Just wanted to mention that part.

Perhaps, again, that was me musing. Maybe I am giving them mroe credit than they are due.
As for the retaking of Libya, it would presumably be the same force or organization put together to finally destroy ISIS. The "coalition of the sane" perhaps?
AS far as rebuilding other choatic or 'destroyed' Muslim countries, then that would be the Ummah itself.

and finally, if they are being held to modern moral standards, then by defintion they wouldn't BE doing anything that I don;t like, right?

A united muslim world that polices itself and isn't dysfunctional is far LESS likely to morph into the "crazy caliphate bogeyman" that's only here to cart off all our blonde daughters, dontcha think?

[cmdrjones]

Think about World War Two, and Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. A lot of them ran to the neighboring countries, as refugees often do- they ran to Poland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, places like that. Then came 1939 and Hitler started invading his neighbors- Poland, France, and so on. The refugees found that they had run out of the frying pan and into the fire, and many of them were killed in the Holocaust.

^ This is exactly what happened to my family - the only ones to survive were the ones that fled the farthest. Those that stopped in eastern Europe all died. "First safe country" in the opinion of someone sitting safely half a continent away may not, in the long term, be safe at all.

This is pretty reasonable, but does not Obviate sending them on to a Muslim country not at war once they've been screened etc.

it also means that a huge chunk NOT from Syria don't qualify.

on a personal note, this gives me the idea that you have a huge heart, willing to extend the sense of urgency brought on by the example of the holocaust to those who would be most likely in Europe to deny either that it happened or that it was a bad idea.


Chimera: Homo-sexualizing? Is that a thing? I thought you were born that way or not.... that's what the great philosophette lady Gaga said anyway

[Broomstick]

#1 as to ISIS long range tactics, agreed. However, I also see this as possibly a continental scale and Long term version of the Nazi tactic of herding civilians out onto the roads of Belgium and the Netherlands in 1940. Destabilize ond demoralize your enemy so you can strike him elsewhere at your leisure.

I'm with Simon in the notion that that isn't so much a planned tactic as a predictable side-effect of thoroughly terrorizing a civilian population. Keep Europe and world powers occupied with refugees so ISIS can do what it wants.

At this point I don't think ISIS gives much of a fuck what the rest of the world does, they're busy consolidating their current possessions and grabbing more land on the margins of their current territory.

#2 Re Bangladesh: That's why I said "to a lesser extent" to clarify, I'd put Bangladesh in the same category as Libya. A place that MAM's (Military Age Males) could be organized and sent to to either retake, rebuild or stabilize. The idea of retraining refugees into cadres and sending them back to other nations of the Ummah makes about as much sense as trying to "assimilate them" into European culture, AND it's less paternalistic and racist too! Do we REALLy think it's a good thing to try to change these people into little brown germans?

What the fuck are you going on about?

Do you or do you not realize that Bangladesh is one of the poorest, most overpopulated nations on the planet? They can barely take care of their own, how the fuck do you expect them to take on a shitload more of refugees? They're already taking in Rhohingya from Burma and struggling with that.

Oh, by the way - “brown” people are not interchangeable. Syrians have no more in common with Bangladeshis than Europeans, other than religion. Syrians are probably less likely to have a language in common with Bangladeshis than with Europeans.

Also, WTF with your notion of essentially drafting “MAM” refugees? Have you actually stopped to think about the consequences of an outside agency forcing men to leave the families they brought with them and go back and fight in the place they fled from? Why fuck are you so eager to send other people into mortal danger?

Fuck you – you're paternalistic and racist as all hell with these notions. These are not pawns, they're people. If they fucking wanted to go to Bangladesh they would have walked in that direction. You're just talking about dumping people you view as a problem on a “brown” country for the role reason they're both considered “brown” by you.

and finally, if they are being held to modern moral standards, then by defintion they wouldn't BE doing anything that I don;t like, right?

I don't know about that – you seem to be rather anti-self-determination, to start. You don't seem to want to tolerate people of different backgrounds or religions. You yourself don't seem to up on “modern moral standards” as professed by the west.

Think about World War Two, and Jewish refugees who fled Hitler. A lot of them ran to the neighboring countries, as refugees often do- they ran to Poland, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, places like that. Then came 1939 and Hitler started invading his neighbors- Poland, France, and so on. The refugees found that they had run out of the frying pan and into the fire, and many of them were killed in the Holocaust.

^ This is exactly what happened to my family - the only ones to survive were the ones that fled the farthest. Those that stopped in eastern Europe all died. "First safe country" in the opinion of someone sitting safely half a continent away may not, in the long term, be safe at all.

This is pretty reasonable, but does not Obviate sending them on to a Muslim country not at war once they've been screened etc.

What. The. Fuck?

Is THAT what you got out of what Simon and I said?

Are you seriously proposing religious apartheid? That's what you're proposing – you don't want Muslims living among your kind, is that it? Excuse me while I vomit.

on a personal note, this gives me the idea that you have a huge heart, willing to extend the sense of urgency brought on by the example of the holocaust to those who would be most likely in Europe to deny either that it happened or that it was a bad idea.

Holy fuck, you're stupid.

The POINT is that, as a descendant of refugees not just from WWII but all the way back to the 1860's I feel it would be hypocritical NOT to offer similar shelter to other people in need. How can I deny to others what was given to my family?

When the Irish in my family came over they weren't “sent on to an Irish/Catholic country not at war once they were screened.” When the German in my family came over they weren't “sent on to a German/Catholic country not at war once they were screened.” When the Russians came over they weren't “sent on to a Russian/Jewish country not at war once they were screened.” They were given actual goddamned sanctuary and allowed to build a new life in a new place.

No, I absolutely reject your “proposal” as bigoted and repulsive to me on a deeply personal level.

[Iroscato]

May I ask why this loathsome little turd isn't banned yet?

[cmdrjones]

I'm with Simon in the notion that that isn't so much a planned tactic as a predictable side-effect of thoroughly terrorizing a civilian population. Keep Europe and world powers occupied with refugees so ISIS can do what it wants.

At this point I don't think ISIS gives much of a fuck what the rest of the world does, they're busy consolidating their current possessions and grabbing more land on the margins of their current territory.

probably true

#2 Re Bangladesh: That's why I said "to a lesser extent" to clarify, I'd put Bangladesh in the same category as Libya. A place that MAM's (Military Age Males) could be organized and sent to to either retake, rebuild or stabilize. The idea of retraining refugees into cadres and sending them back to other nations of the Ummah makes about as much sense as trying to "assimilate them" into European culture, AND it's less paternalistic and racist too! Do we REALLy think it's a good thing to try to change these people into little brown germans?

What the fuck are you going on about?

Do you or do you not realize that Bangladesh is one of the poorest, most overpopulated nations on the planet? They can barely take care of their own, how the fuck do you expect them to take on a shitload more of refugees? They're already taking in Rhohingya from Burma and struggling with that.

Oh, by the way - “brown” people are not interchangeable. Syrians have no more in common with Bangladeshis than Europeans, other than religion. Syrians are probably less likely to have a language in common with Bangladeshis than with Europeans.

Also, WTF with your notion of essentially drafting “MAM” refugees? Have you actually stopped to think about the consequences of an outside agency forcing men to leave the families they brought with them and go back and fight in the place they fled from? Why fuck are you so eager to send other people into mortal danger?

Fuck you – you're paternalistic and racist as all hell with these notions. These are not pawns, they're people. If they fucking wanted to go to Bangladesh they would have walked in that direction. You're just talking about dumping people you view as a problem on a “brown” country for the role reason they're both considered “brown” by you.

So in question #1 you admit you don't understand what I meant, but then go on with a slew of other questions starting from a wild assumption? Ok got it.

next, yes I knew that about bangladesh, hence the words "rebuild" and "stabilize." Do you think that Muslims don't belong with other muslims? Who do you think SHOULD rebuild/stabilize Bangladesh then?

Further, the "little brown germans" phrase is me mocking the notion that these refugees can or SHOULD be 'assimilated' against their will. I am not stating that they are interchageable, the policy of ASSIMILATION is saying that. I am saying that sending them back armed and trained to defeat ISIS is as viable if not MORE viable than that policy.

and finally, if they are being held to modern moral standards, then by defintion they wouldn't BE doing anything that I don;t like, right?

I don't know about that – you seem to be rather anti-self-determination, to start. You don't seem to want to tolerate people of different backgrounds or religions. You yourself don't seem to up on “modern moral standards” as professed by the west.

"Seem"

^ This is exactly what happened to my family - the only ones to survive were the ones that fled the farthest. Those that stopped in eastern Europe all died. "First safe country" in the opinion of someone sitting safely half a continent away may not, in the long term, be safe at all.

This is pretty reasonable, but does not Obviate sending them on to a Muslim country not at war once they've been screened etc.

What. The. Fuck?

Is THAT what you got out of what Simon and I said?

Are you seriously proposing religious apartheid? That's what you're proposing – you don't want Muslims living among your kind, is that it? Excuse me while I vomit.

Again, reading comprehension. "but" in this sentence can also mean: 'In addition to' or as i explicitly stated: I agree with the above (ie "pretty reasonable") BUT would like to add the following.... which is absolutely true BTW. Spare me your histrionics.

on a personal note, this gives me the idea that you have a huge heart, willing to extend the sense of urgency brought on by the example of the holocaust to those who would be most likely in Europe to deny either that it happened or that it was a bad idea.

Holy fuck, you're stupid.

The POINT is that, as a descendant of refugees not just from WWII but all the way back to the 1860's I feel it would be hypocritical NOT to offer similar shelter to other people in need. How can I deny to others what was given to my family?

How can you deny others what your family was given? Good question! Like this: NO

When the Irish in my family came over they weren't “sent on to an Irish/Catholic country not at war once they were screened.” When the German in my family came over they weren't “sent on to a German/Catholic country not at war once they were screened.” When the Russians came over they weren't “sent on to a Russian/Jewish country not at war once they were screened.” They were given actual goddamned sanctuary and allowed to build a new life in a new place.

No, I absolutely reject your “proposal” as bigoted and repulsive to me on a deeply personal level.

Would it have been the right of the United States to send your Irish catholic ancestors to Spain perhaps? or the Germans to say South Africa? Or the Russians to Serbia? now you can make the case that those actions would have been in direct violation of the Ideals of the USA, but even so, IF the europeans chose to do so, would it not be their right? If the Arab nations then determine that as a condition of citizenship they join the fight against ISIS, well then I wouldn't have a problem with that... in fact the USA DID do something very similar in recruiting Immigrants off the boat as it were to fight in the civil war. A war that YOU find to be morally correct.

I rest my case.

You may not like the idea for all sorts of emotional reasons, but I am stating my OPINON that it would be a better long term option than letting them sit in Europe and letting the Arab league and other Muslim powers A) put a responsibility that is EXPRESSLY stated in their own Holy Books off on Europe B) avoid chipping in on a problem which DIRECTLY threatens their well-being and C) try to throw a guilt trip on the rest of us while they actively avoid reforming their own political systems.

[cmdrjones]

May I ask why this loathsome little turd isn't banned yet?

So you object to me stating that people should seize their own destinies and NOT leave things up to fate? Curious....

[Iroscato]

May I ask why this loathsome little turd isn't banned yet?

So you object to me stating that people should seize their own destinies and NOT leave things up to fate? Curious....

They have seized their destinies - they have run for their fucking lives, as humans are wont to do when they truly fear an enemy. They are desperate, they are terrified, and there is no morally justifiable reason to not give them shelter in their most dire hour of need. Frankly, you repulse me, and your entire posting history points to an absolute catastrophe of a human being, not just your "contribution" to these threads. That is why I hope the banhammer swingeth your way soon. An early Christmas present, hopefully.

[Broomstick]

next, yes I knew that about bangladesh, hence the words "rebuild" and "stabilize." Do you think that Muslims don't belong with other muslims? Who do you think SHOULD rebuild/stabilize Bangladesh then?

I don't think Muslims should be forced to live in a Muslim ghetto, and I think religious apartheid is a bad idea. Replace "Muslims" with "blacks" and you sound exactly the racist assholes of prior centuries in the US paternalistically saying "blacks belong with they're own, they'll be happier there".

You're not giving people an option, you're requiring them to live in an area designated for their group and you can't see how fucked up racist/bigoted that really is. It's just another way of saying you don't think Muslims belong in your precious society.

Further, the "little brown germans" phrase is me mocking the notion that these refugees can or SHOULD be 'assimilated' against their will. I am not stating that they are interchageable, the policy of ASSIMILATION is saying that. I am saying that sending them back armed and trained to defeat ISIS is as viable if not MORE viable than that policy.

There are no options in your world.

Here's a funny notion: why don't we ASK these people what they actually want? i suspect there will be a couple dozen different goals ranging from "safety for my family" to "I want to go back and fight". They should have OPTIONS, you are not giving them that. You are giving the men only one route to worthiness - being drafted to go back and fight in a war you deem suitable - and ignoring the fate of the non-men. You are insisting that they go live with their own kind, where you (despite not being one of them) decide rather than allowing them to choose where they want to live.

What. The. Fuck?

Is THAT what you got out of what Simon and I said?

Are you seriously proposing religious apartheid? That's what you're proposing – you don't want Muslims living among your kind, is that it? Excuse me while I vomit.

Again, reading comprehension. "but" in this sentence can also mean: 'In addition to' or as i explicitly stated: I agree with the above (ie "pretty reasonable") BUT would like to add the following.... which is absolutely true BTW. Spare me your histrionics.

Here's an idea - shut the fuck up until you can express yourself in a manner others can understand easily, without requiring a half dozen follow up explanatory posts by you. You either suck at a communicating, or you backpedal like a car stuck in reverse gear.

When the Irish in my family came over they weren't “sent on to an Irish/Catholic country not at war once they were screened.” When the German in my family came over they weren't “sent on to a German/Catholic country not at war once they were screened.” When the Russians came over they weren't “sent on to a Russian/Jewish country not at war once they were screened.” They were given actual goddamned sanctuary and allowed to build a new life in a new place.

No, I absolutely reject your “proposal” as bigoted and repulsive to me on a deeply personal level

Would it have been the right of the United States to send your Irish catholic ancestors to Spain perhaps? or the Germans to say South Africa? Or the Russians to Serbia? now you can make the case that those actions would have been in direct violation of the Ideals of the USA, but even so, IF the europeans chose to do so, would it not be their right?

No, it wouldn't - one country can't dictate to another what to do who or who to take in. A country can expel someone, but not obligate a particular other country to take those people in.

If the Arab nations then determine that as a condition of citizenship they join the fight against ISIS, well then I wouldn't have a problem with that... in fact the USA DID do something very similar in recruiting Immigrants off the boat as it were to fight in the civil war. A war that YOU find to be morally correct.

First of all, not one Arab country that I know of is proposing "fighting ISIS" as a test of citizenship.

Second, I highly doubt my ancestor Mary Myers was drafted in any sense of the word for the civil war. It is an entirely different matter if some Irishman chose to join up and fight.

You may not like the idea for all sorts of emotional reasons, but I am stating my OPINON that it would be a better long term option than letting them sit in Europe and letting the Arab league and other Muslim powers A) put a responsibility that is EXPRESSLY stated in their own Holy Books off on Europe B) avoid chipping in on a problem which DIRECTLY threatens their well-being and C) try to throw a guilt trip on the rest of us while they actively avoid reforming their own political systems.

A.1) If the Muslim nations don't live up to the Koran that is not Europe's problem to "solve", that's between Muslims and their God.

A.2) You don't have to let the refugees "sit" in Europe, they can be given the same options to find work as anyone else, just like the US does, in which case they can take care of their own welfare without being a financial burden on anyone else.

A.3) Europe doesn't have to conduct itself to "solve" the problems of other regions, what they need to do is solve the problem already on their own soil. Europe can either welcome the newcomers, or shove them out, or even simply shoot them as they approach. I would hope they are more inclined towards the first choice, admittedly because I find that more pleasant and in line with my own ethics.

B) You're not proposing the Muslim world solve it's own problems, everything you propose is yet another suggestion for the West to meddle in the affairs of others.

C) What Muslims nations are "guilt tripping" anyone here? The "guilt tripping" is coming from Western/non-Muslim nations imposing it on themselves. Frankly, I don't think nations like Saudi Arabia give a flying fuck about 2 million Syrians trying to row across the Mediterranean or walk to Munich. As far as the Middle East is concerned that's 2 million fewer people they have to worry about, good riddance. They don't care. Complete indifference.

[Broomstick]

May I ask why this loathsome little turd isn't banned yet?

So you object to me stating that people should seize their own destinies and NOT leave things up to fate? Curious....

You're pissy because they didn't choose the destiny YOU have in mind for them. How dare they have thoughts, dreams, and aspirations of their own!

You are loathesome and disgusting. I would rather see you sleeping on a sidewalk than any of the people who actually are.

[Wild Zontargs]

May I ask why this loathsome little turd isn't banned yet?

Well, there was a period in the board's history where we encouraged people with minority opinions to post and debate, as long as they were doing so in good faith rather than trolling for the lulz or otherwise deliberately disrupting shit. While the board culture now leans more towards shouting them down and hoping they'll go away, aside from specifically defined Hate Speech and arguing against certain protected ideologies, the admins generally haven't been in the habit of banning posters for crimethink.

[ray245]

May I ask why this loathsome little turd isn't banned yet?

So you object to me stating that people should seize their own destinies and NOT leave things up to fate? Curious....

They have seized their destinies - they have run for their fucking lives, as humans are wont to do when they truly fear an enemy. They are desperate, they are terrified, and there is no morally justifiable reason to not give them shelter in their most dire hour of need. Frankly, you repulse me, and your entire posting history points to an absolute catastrophe of a human being, not just your "contribution" to these threads. That is why I hope the banhammer swingeth your way soon. An early Christmas present, hopefully.

The problem is cmdrjones see them as conservative anti-Christian/anti-liberalism Muslim that will refuse to accept the idea that beating up wives is a good idea, homosexuals are sinners that will never assimilate.

They are seen as people taking the jobs, especially the lower skilled jobs in countries facing high unemployment, forcing locals to rely on benefits that is being cut due to austerity.

It's also the fact that these people aren't anything like the so called greatest generation, who would die fighting against evil than running away.

[cmdrjones]

I don't think Muslims should be forced to live in a Muslim ghetto, and I think religious apartheid is a bad idea. Replace "Muslims" with "blacks" and you sound exactly the racist assholes of prior centuries in the US paternalistically saying "blacks belong with they're own, they'll be happier there".

You're not giving people an option, you're requiring them to live in an area designated for their group and you can't see how fucked up racist/bigoted that really is. It's just another way of saying you don't think Muslims belong in your precious society.

Nice try. Do you think Muslims DON'T belong with other muslims?
YOU think religious Apartheid is a bad idea? Many do not agree. Do you know what the term "ummah" means?
Also, Blacks =/= Muslims
One is a race, one is a religion.
So stop trying the 'guilt by association' card and changing the subject.

and (hopefully) for the last time, I am not REQUIRING anything. I DON'T live in Europe. The Scenario I describe was EXPLICITLY a wartime alliance (described earlier) wherein Muslim refugees were offerred a place within it to retake thier own homelands.

Further, the "little brown germans" phrase is me mocking the notion that these refugees can or SHOULD be 'assimilated' against their will. I am not stating that they are interchageable, the policy of ASSIMILATION is saying that. I am saying that sending them back armed and trained to defeat ISIS is as viable if not MORE viable than that policy.

There are no options in your world.

Here's a funny notion: why don't we ASK these people what they actually want? i suspect there will be a couple dozen different goals ranging from "safety for my family" to "I want to go back and fight". They should have OPTIONS, you are not giving them that. You are giving the men only one route to worthiness - being drafted to go back and fight in a war you deem suitable - and ignoring the fate of the non-men. You are insisting that they go live with their own kind, where you (despite not being one of them) decide rather than allowing them to choose where they want to live.

I think they've made thier desires clear enough. My Opinion as to which option they should choose is exaclty that. Disapprove all you like.

No, it wouldn't - one country can't dictate to another what to do who or who to take in. A country can expel someone, but not obligate a particular other country to take those people in.

Quite right, then Europeans are not REQUIRED to either. The key difference is the Muslim nations that expressley incorporate their religion into their law codes
ARE obligated to aid their fellow Muslims, I am simply suggesting a course of action that would also result in other positive effects.

If the Arab nations then determine that as a condition of citizenship they join the fight against ISIS, well then I wouldn't have a problem with that... in fact the USA DID do something very similar in recruiting Immigrants off the boat as it were to fight in the civil war. A war that YOU find to be morally correct.

First of all, not one Arab country that I know of is proposing "fighting ISIS" as a test of citizenship.

They should.

Second, I highly doubt my ancestor Mary Myers was drafted in any sense of the word for the civil war. It is an entirely different matter if some Irishman chose to join up and fight.

Again... I agree.

You may not like the idea for all sorts of emotional reasons, but I am stating my OPINON that it would be a better long term option than letting them sit in Europe and letting the Arab league and other Muslim powers A) put a responsibility that is EXPRESSLY stated in their own Holy Books off on Europe B) avoid chipping in on a problem which DIRECTLY threatens their well-being and C) try to throw a guilt trip on the rest of us while they actively avoid reforming their own political systems.

A.1) If the Muslim nations don't live up to the Koran that is not Europe's problem to "solve", that's between Muslims and their God.

A.2) You don't have to let the refugees "sit" in Europe, they can be given the same options to find work as anyone else, just like the US does, in which case they can take care of their own welfare without being a financial burden on anyone else.

A.3) Europe doesn't have to conduct itself to "solve" the problems of other regions, what they need to do is solve the problem already on their own soil. Europe can either welcome the newcomers, or shove them out, or even simply shoot them as they approach. I would hope they are more inclined towards the first choice, admittedly because I find that more pleasant and in line with my own ethics.

B) You're not proposing the Muslim world solve it's own problems, everything you propose is yet another suggestion for the West to meddle in the affairs of others.

C) What Muslims nations are "guilt tripping" anyone here? The "guilt tripping" is coming from Western/non-Muslim nations imposing it on themselves. Frankly, I don't think nations like Saudi Arabia give a flying fuck about 2 million Syrians trying to row across the Mediterranean or walk to Munich. As far as the Middle East is concerned that's 2 million fewer people they have to worry about, good riddance. They don't care. Complete indifference.

A 1) NOW you're getting it!!!
A 2) Again, agreed. I think that's a little foolish, but Europeans have a tradition of doing things like this, so, hey, To each his own.
A 3) I'd chose 2 to avoid 3, 1 will lead to many more than they can handle arriving and make 3 much more likely. 2, while unpleasant makes 3 MUCH less likely.
B) if the Arab League came up with this themselves, I suspect you'd be praising them for their foresight and wisdom
C) largely agreed, though the Refugees are demanding all sorts of special treatment. only Some has come directly from Muslim governments. Also agree with the last part which makes my whole concept nothing but a mental exercise. The Arab league would never DO it BECAUSE they are hypocritical assholes.
But they should...

[Broomstick]

I don't think Muslims should be forced to live in a Muslim ghetto, and I think religious apartheid is a bad idea. Replace "Muslims" with "blacks" and you sound exactly the racist assholes of prior centuries in the US paternalistically saying "blacks belong with they're own, they'll be happier there".

You're not giving people an option, you're requiring them to live in an area designated for their group and you can't see how fucked up racist/bigoted that really is. It's just another way of saying you don't think Muslims belong in your precious society.

Nice try. Do you think Muslims DON'T belong with other muslims?

I think Muslims should be as free to live in a pluralistic society as anyone else. "Belong with" implies they should only live with other Muslims, whether they want to or not. Are you going to propose Christian-only, Jewish-only, Buddhist-only enclaves next? Sure, some choose to live in predominately Muslim countries but that is a choice, it's not a mandate such as you are suggesting, that they only live where they "belong" and stay out of the rest of the world.

YOU think religious Apartheid is a bad idea? Many do not agree. Do you know what the term "ummah" means?

Yes, it means the community of Muslims. One could also speak of the "Catholic community". It does not denote a specific geographic region, although just as one could say "the Christian world" one can say the "ummah of Islam". A practicing and committed Muslim is part of the ummah regardless of where he or she lives, though.

Also, Blacks =/= Muslims

Never said it did. You should stop listening to the voices in your head.

The Scenario I describe was EXPLICITLY a wartime alliance (described earlier) wherein Muslim refugees were offerred a place within it to retake thier own homelands.

What if they don't want to go back?

I grew up in Southeast Michigan where there have long been a LOT of Arabs and Muslims and other people from the Middle East. A lot of them came here and did NOT want to go back, even when their homelands were relatively stable and prosperous, much less now.

I am saying that sending them back armed and trained to defeat ISIS is as viable if not MORE viable than that policy.

Why is that more viable? All I'm getting is that you WANT these guys to fight instead of run. How does your favoritism make it a more viable policy?

Quite right, then Europeans are not REQUIRED to either. The key difference is the Muslim nations that expressley incorporate their religion into their law codes
ARE obligated to aid their fellow Muslims, I am simply suggesting a course of action that would also result in other positive effects.

As I have said, many of Syria's nearest neighbors already have aided 3 million refugees. How many more will it take to satisfy you?

First of all, not one Arab country that I know of is proposing "fighting ISIS" as a test of citizenship.

They should.

Why?

A.1) If the Muslim nations don't live up to the Koran that is not Europe's problem to "solve", that's between Muslims and their God.

A 1) NOW you're getting it!!!

If you actually do agree with that then why are you talking about compelling male refugees to fight as a condition of citizenship? That's coercion, not choice.

A.2) You don't have to let the refugees "sit" in Europe, they can be given the same options to find work as anyone else, just like the US does, in which case they can take care of their own welfare without being a financial burden on anyone else.

A 2) Again, agreed. I think that's a little foolish, but Europeans have a tradition of doing things like this, so, hey, To each his own.

This is unclear - what are you declaring foolish, Europe not letting them work or the US encouraging them to do so? I'm sure this sounded grand in the echo-chamber of your own skull but the rest of us aren't mind readers.

A.3) Europe doesn't have to conduct itself to "solve" the problems of other regions, what they need to do is solve the problem already on their own soil. Europe can either welcome the newcomers, or shove them out, or even simply shoot them as they approach. I would hope they are more inclined towards the first choice, admittedly because I find that more pleasant and in line with my own ethics.

A 3) I'd chose 2 to avoid 3, 1 will lead to many more than they can handle arriving and make 3 much more likely. 2, while unpleasant makes 3 MUCH less likely.

OK, you vote to shove them out.

What do you think happens when the refugees realize their own numbers and a thousand or more zerg rush a weak point of the fence? When you shove them out they don't just turn around and go home, currently, they're piling up along the border of Hungary in greater and greater numbers. No, simply shoving them back does NOT make shooting them, in the end, less likely.

B) You're not proposing the Muslim world solve it's own problems, everything you propose is yet another suggestion for the West to meddle in the affairs of others.

B) if the Arab League came up with this themselves, I suspect you'd be praising them for their foresight and wisdom

Self-determination is a wonderful thing – that would be Arabs deciding for Arabs, not some foreign jackass storming in to impose his pet theories.

C) What Muslims nations are "guilt tripping" anyone here? The "guilt tripping" is coming from Western/non-Muslim nations imposing it on themselves. Frankly, I don't think nations like Saudi Arabia give a flying fuck about 2 million Syrians trying to row across the Mediterranean or walk to Munich. As far as the Middle East is concerned that's 2 million fewer people they have to worry about, good riddance. They don't care. Complete indifference.

C) largely agreed, though the Refugees are demanding all sorts of special treatment. only Some has come directly from Muslim governments. Also agree with the last part which makes my whole concept nothing but a mental exercise. The Arab league would never DO it BECAUSE they are hypocritical assholes.
But they should...

What “special treatment” are the refugees asking for? Something radical like a safe place to live? Give details or go home.

If the Middle East is welcoming the departure of 2 million people that's because the nations there that do give a damn are exhausted – they are bursting with refugees, they have no more money to give aid to these people, and they simply can't cope with more.

[Thanas]

They have now destroyed the triumphal arch.




And they did this earlier, but this is a satellite image of the previous temple destruction: