European refugee crisis thread

[Purple]

All I am doing is being consistent. When some western teenager joins a cult, we consider them victims and send in deprogrammers to get them out.

Depends on the cult. It's one thing when someone joins an organization that makes him shave his hair and hand all his money to the church and quite another when he joins the quite possibly most violent organization this side of the Khmer Rouge. We definitively do NOT try and cure people that have gone to such extremes. We put them in prison as the genocidal murdering rapists that they are.

We cannot do that with ISIS, because it is ISIS; the things they do while members of ISIS are not excusable, and the circumstances are such that we dont have much choice but to kill them for the good of everyone. That does not mean we abandon our knowledge of makes someone vulnerable to a cult (or for that matter an abusive boyfriend. Many of the same psychological tricks are used) in a sea of knee-jerk fundamental attribution error.

Honestly I think that this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed in that it is a way of treating the symptoms without attacking the problem. The way to destroy ISIS is to destroy ISIS. As in go down there and kill every last one of them. And once that is done try and dismantle the socio-political situation in the region that makes such cults spring up to begin with.

[Broomstick]

There are probably some who fall into that category. If you're desperately poor, perhaps starving, people are shooting at you, then yes, you become vulnerable to the propaganda of those who have wealth, food, and offer to protect you.

So what? It's still that persons choice to join a genocidal barbaric rape murder cult. The fact that he is somehow "vulnerable" in no way absolves him of any responsibility at all.

Did I SAY that it someone absolved them of blame? No. I did not. Read what I fucking write instead of what the voices in your head say.

I said they become vulnerable to propaganda, not enslaved to it. The offers become tempting when you're desperate. That doesn't make it OK, just more understandable why someone in such a situation might get involved with something like ISIS. Understanding and/or explaining why something happens is NOT the same thing as condoning it.

[Zaune]

And when some Western teenager joints Stormfront or the Red Army Faction or the IRA?

[Broomstick]

Is that "western teenager" in actual danger of starvation? Is that "western teenager" actually being shot at? (well, maybe, if they're an urban minority in the US...) If the answer is "no" then they should be more resistant to propaganda.

On the other hand, if a child is raised in a household where the adults are already members of Stormfront or the IRA or some similar group and daily hears that propaganda it shouldn't be surprising if said kid winds up also being an adult member. That would not excuse any criminal acts arising or inspired by that membership, but like I said, it's not surprising.

People ARE vulnerable to propaganda/advertising/proselytizing/etc. That's why such things exist. No one exists in a vacuum and we are all influenced by things outside of us. We can resist those influences, sometimes, but if you're being realistic about the world you'll acknowledge that if someone is on the fence on an issue that sort of thing can tip the balance.

[K. A. Pital]

None of those people created this crisis. Nobody made tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslims join a doomsday cult and try to murder and enslave their way to a transcontinental theocratic dictatorship. They are not robots or beasts, they chose to do this.

"Nobody"? So KSA and their Gulf buddies, Turkey and the more belligerent Western powers did not support and fund a myriad theocratic murderous cults to topple Assad because they really really hated him?

That is serious news. I suggest you read this. In entirety, but point 8, section C is a very interesting way of saying things that were better left unsaid, I guess.

Nobody made them join, you say? Well nobody "made" America invade Iraq either. Should I follow this to the logical conclusion that citizens of a state that is guilty of a war of aggression should be banned from entering foreign countries? And that they should sit in the US and never ever leave the place because theirs is an international criminal government, that they willingly support in its attacks on other nations? No more EU visas to Americans, that's what I think.

[Purple]

Basically my problem is that by trying to depict them as misguided human beings you are humanizing our enemy. And this is a very bad thing to do at this point. What we need is to dehumanize them to the point where they are seen as nothing but locusts to be exterminated. Only than will we able to actually get the political will to go down there and actually exterminate ISIS.

[madd0ct0r]

Unfortunately purple, history suggests that won't work, and efforts on dehumanizing make peace harder to accomplish.

That said. Daesh is a nihilistic deathe cult. - the only comparable thing i can think of is the Khmer rouge and they were indeed smashed militarily.

[K. A. Pital]

Understanding and humanizing are not the same. I don't think dehumanization will help to "win", whatever that is supposed to mean. Win what? Create another Salafist satellite state for Saudi Arabia's pleasure? What is the "win"?

[Broomstick]

Basically my problem is that by trying to depict them as misguided human beings you are humanizing our enemy.

So, anyone and everyone in ISIS territory is guilty and evil and should be put to death, including women enslaved by the regime and young children? What about the people who were simply living in a village in Syria or Iraq when one faction or the other rolled into town and took over? If they run they're deserters and should go back and fight, but if they stay they're guilty supporters of the new regime?

What we need is to dehumanize them to the point where they are seen as nothing but locusts to be exterminated. Only than will we able to actually get the political will to go down there and actually exterminate ISIS.

Dehumanizing the enemy seems to inevitably result in atrocity. Do you want that?

There was a large faction in WWII that referred to other people as vermin and sought to exterminate them. Do you really want to be associated with that sort?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Basically my problem is that by trying to depict them as misguided human beings you are humanizing our enemy. And this is a very bad thing to do at this point. What we need is to dehumanize them to the point where they are seen as nothing but locusts to be exterminated. Only than will we able to actually get the political will to go down there and actually exterminate ISIS.

What the fuck is wrong with you? No. Seriously. What. The. Fuck.

1) Dehumanizing your enemy completely only helps you kill them. It does not help you convert them to your side, it does not help you stop their recruitment, it does not help you dismantle their support structure or counter their propaganda. You fail basic Sun Tzu when your only objective is to kill.

2) When you dehumanize an enemy too much, you get atrocities when you finally do decide the time has come to go wreck face. You get soviets raping their way across eastern europe, you get einsatzgruppen, you get torture.

3) The claim that no one made people join Daesh is absolutely false, because they employ child soldiers who are recruited under threat of torture ,death, and disfigurement. They also use mass conscription. So fuck you.

I understand that you have problems with empathy but jesus fucking christ.

[K. A. Pital]

Dehumanizing your enemy completely only helps you kill them.

That - and it only works against an enemy who cannot resist, i.e. slaughter of the Jews or the attack on the Tutsi in Rwanda. The Nazis did dehumanize all other Eastern European people, but it did not help them kill more of the population. It actually became counterproductive at some point because people realized that they could be summarily executed, burned alive etc. and they went into underground resistance, which made it harder to kill them.

So in reality, given ISIL is not an unarmed ethnic minority but a well-armed and motivated militia, dehumanizing all of them with the goal of extermination will serve nothing but to solidify their power and make their resistance potential much, much stronger than it is now. It won't help the killing much.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Dehumanizing your enemy completely only helps you kill them.

That - and it only works against an enemy who cannot resist, i.e. slaughter of the Jews or the attack on the Tutsi in Rwanda. The Nazis did dehumanize all other Eastern European people, but it did not help them kill more of the population. It actually became counterproductive at some point because people realized that they could be summarily executed, burned alive etc. and they went into underground resistance, which made it harder to kill them.

So in reality, given ISIL is not an unarmed ethnic minority but a well-armed and motivated militia, dehumanizing all of them with the goal of extermination will serve nothing but to solidify their power and make their resistance potential much, much stronger than it is now. It won't help the killing much.

This is true. I meant that only in the sense that dehumanization only makes the act of killing psychologically easier on the people doing the killing. It can in fact have other consequences, like making psychological warfare designed to persuade said enemy troops to surrender impossible, because they know they will killed.

[Purple]

So, anyone and everyone in ISIS territory is guilty and evil and should be put to death, including women enslaved by the regime and young children? What about the people who were simply living in a village in Syria or Iraq when one faction or the other rolled into town and took over? If they run they're deserters and should go back and fight, but if they stay they're guilty supporters of the new regime??

We are talking about ISIS members here. Not the people they conquered. You know this. So stop trying to wiggle into a different discussion because you think you can win that one.

Dehumanizing the enemy seems to inevitably result in atrocity. Do you want that?

Understanding and humanizing are not the same. I don't think dehumanization will help to "win", whatever that is supposed to mean. Win what? Create another Salafist satellite state for Saudi Arabia's pleasure? What is the "win"?

Grouped these two quotes together because the reply to both is the same.
I spoke of this before on this forum. My idea for an end game is for every single ISIS fighter to be killed and the region to be occupied so that the people can be processed in the same way that was done in 1945 Germany.

There was a large faction in WWII that referred to other people as vermin and sought to exterminate them. Do you really want to be associated with that sort?

Tools do not in their own right hold any morality. It is only the purpose for which you use them that does. Would you deny your self the use of an useful tool just because it reminds you uncomfortably of history?

Right now the western world lacks the political will to do anything but token air actions. Hell the west even lacks the will to question their own allies when they aid, fund and support ISIS. For crying out loud the one sane man in the room doing something good is actually Putin! Right now the one single most important thing is getting public opinion in the west on board with an armed intervention. And people understanding and feeling sympathy for the poor misguided genocidal rape ogres works directly against that.

[K. A. Pital]

My idea for an end game is for every single ISIS fighter to be killed and the region to be occupied so that the people can be processed in the same way that was done in 1945 Germany.

I think you will have to deal with the fact that the only forces capable of doing this are Iraqi Shiite militias with some Iran troops. Plus maybe the Assad army in Syria, despite all the battering it took. It will not be occupied by Westerners; as such, it is dumb to think about reconstruction as in 1945, because it won't any longer be superpowers (US, USSR) doing the reconstruction. Instead, it will be the local powers: Iran, Iraq (whatever's left of the place), I think. Maybe Turkey if Erdogan goes nuts with his neo-Ottoman empire idea.

Dehumanizing ISIL fighters in the Middle East is hardly a mission that needs accomplishing; everyone already hates them.

[Broomstick]

We are talking about ISIS members here. Not the people they conquered. You know this. So stop trying to wiggle into a different discussion because you think you can win that one.

How do you distinguish between real ISIS members and locals who went along with their rule simply to survive and preserve their families (if they could)? It's not a binary thing, the two groups don't wear separate team colors.

Again, WWII had this problem - how to distinguish actual Nazis from those who merely tried to survive under regime, which likely involved things like lip service and paying taxes or even being drafted? Would you execute someone forced to cook food for the ISIS leaders?

Same for Japan - who should be punished for starting the US involvement in the war, who should be left alone?

Rinse and repeat for most conflicts, actually.

Dehumanizing the enemy seems to inevitably result in atrocity. Do you want that?

Understanding and humanizing are not the same. I don't think dehumanization will help to "win", whatever that is supposed to mean. Win what? Create another Salafist satellite state for Saudi Arabia's pleasure? What is the "win"?

Grouped these two quotes together because the reply to both is the same.
I spoke of this before on this forum. My idea for an end game is for every single ISIS fighter to be killed and the region to be occupied so that the people can be processed in the same way that was done in 1945 Germany.

Right, because that was done so perfectly!

Maybe Thanas can speak on the deficiencies of that.

Also - will you kill the fighters who surrender? Wow, that would make you a complete tool. How to distinguish between ISIS fighters and other fighters?

There was a large faction in WWII that referred to other people as vermin and sought to exterminate them. Do you really want to be associated with that sort?

Tools do not in their own right hold any morality. It is only the purpose for which you use them that does. Would you deny your self the use of an useful tool just because it reminds you uncomfortably of history?[/quote]
Yes, I might.

As bad as ISIS is, for example, I don't think we can justify dropping a nuke on them at this point, as an example. I also have issues with "kill them all and let god sort them out" approaches.

For crying out loud the one sane man in the room doing something good is actually Putin! Right now the one single most important thing is getting public opinion in the west on board with an armed intervention.

If Putin has a workable and preferably ethical solution more power to him. I'm completely OK with Russia solving the ISIS problem.

And people understanding and feeling sympathy for the poor misguided genocidal rape ogres works directly against that.

You seem to have a problem with the difference between UNDERSTANDING and EMPATHY.

You can understand something without in any way approving of it. Medical researchers seek to understand cancer so they can know how it happens, how to deal with it, and hopefully how to prevent it. They do not seek to empathize with it. Likewise, some of us seek to understand ISIS, but we do not in any way empathize with it.

[jwl]

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the refugee crisis because, as I said, it is more due to Assad than due to ISIS; but militarily, attempting to kill all ISIS members is probably not the most effective way of taking them out. A more efficient approach is to take out the more competent and ideologically loyal leaders and watch the rest of it self-destruct.

[ray245]

You can understand something without in any way approving of it. Medical researchers seek to understand cancer so they can know how it happens, how to deal with it, and hopefully how to prevent it. They do not seek to empathize with it. Likewise, some of us seek to understand ISIS, but we do not in any way empathize with it.

Well, we can empathise with the suffering people went through before they see ISIS as a good option. Yet at the same time, that doesn't mean we can't blame the Syrians and Iraqis for some of the mess they have created.

They could have been more willing to support factions that aren't Islamists or a brutal dictatorship like Assad. Many of the people who were trained by the west chose to defect to ISIS, or at the least simply gave ISIS valuable military equipments. And let's not forget that many of the ISIS strongholds in Iraq also happens to be full of Sunni who were angry with the shia dominated government in Iraq. There are those that felt happy with ISIS taking over initially. ISIS would not survive for so long without local support.

Those people have lost their right to self-determination in my view, at least for a period of time. De-radical Islamism should happen in the same way Germany was de-Nazified after the second world war.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the refugee crisis because, as I said, it is more due to Assad than due to ISIS; but militarily, attempting to kill all ISIS members is probably not the most effective way of taking them out. A more efficient approach is to take out the more competent and ideologically loyal leaders and watch the rest of it self-destruct.

That doesn't really stop the appeal of the movement as a whole. Simply killing the leadership does not end the will of the members to continue to fight under different banners. ISIS after all, arose from those that step into place after all the previous Al-Quaeda leaders were killed.

This would be repeating the same mistake all over again. Until the people believed that radical Islam have lost the war, simply killing the leaders isn't going to be enough.

[Purple]

I think you will have to deal with the fact that the only forces capable of doing this are Iraqi Shiite militias with some Iran troops. Plus maybe the Assad army in Syria, despite all the battering it took. It will not be occupied by Westerners; as such, it is dumb to think about reconstruction as in 1945, because it won't any longer be superpowers (US, USSR) doing the reconstruction. Instead, it will be the local powers: Iran, Iraq (whatever's left of the place), I think. Maybe Turkey if Erdogan goes nuts with his neo-Ottoman empire idea.

Than it will not be done. Simple as that. Leaving this up to the locals is an exercise in futility.

Dehumanizing ISIL fighters in the Middle East is hardly a mission that needs accomplishing; everyone already hates them.

Really? If we hate them so much than why are we not mobilizing to destroy them? Where are the rallies in the streets, the angry news articles, the public cries for war? Hate only exists when you have enough of it to do something concrete against the object of your emotions. What we have is disinterested disapproval.

How do you distinguish between real ISIS members and locals who went along with their rule simply to survive and preserve their families (if they could)? It's not a binary thing, the two groups don't wear separate team colors.

Again, WWII had this problem - how to distinguish actual Nazis from those who merely tried to survive under regime, which likely involved things like lip service and paying taxes or even being drafted? Would you execute someone forced to cook food for the ISIS leaders?

Same for Japan - who should be punished for starting the US involvement in the war, who should be left alone?

Rinse and repeat for most conflicts, actually.

That's just how wars work. So what exactly is your point? Would you have rather had the Nazis win because we refused to shoot German soldiers before having them fill out a questioner to see if they truly back Hitler? Can you not see just how mindlessly idealistic you sound in this?

Right, because that was done so perfectly!

Maybe Thanas can speak on the deficiencies of that.

Last time I checked Nazism is no longer an accepted mainstream ideology in Germany. At least not to the point of ever being able to start another world war.

Also - will you kill the fighters who surrender? Wow, that would make you a complete tool. How to distinguish between ISIS fighters and other fighters?

If necessary. I would give them the same processing I give the rest of the population. Deprogram and reintegrate those willing and exterminate the idealists.

Yes, I might.

Than you are needlessly and pointlessly crippling your self.

As bad as ISIS is, for example, I don't think we can justify dropping a nuke on them at this point, as an example.

Me neither. The environmental impact just isn't worth it.

I also have issues with "kill them all and let god sort them out" approaches.

It's called fighting a war. You can't win a war without also killing some people whose heart is not 100% into it.

If Putin has a workable and preferably ethical solution more power to him. I'm completely OK with Russia solving the ISIS problem.

Me 2. But I am even more OK with the entire world coming together to solve it. Why? Well for a number of reasons including but not limited to the notion that it is fundamentally unfair to demand the Russians fix the problem for us whilst we sit around doing nothing. If we do agree with his plans than let us help him. If we do not, than let us construct better ones. But we must at all times be proactive in this and not just sit idly by.

You seem to have a problem with the difference between UNDERSTANDING and EMPATHY.

You can understand something without in any way approving of it. Medical researchers seek to understand cancer so they can know how it happens, how to deal with it, and hopefully how to prevent it. They do not seek to empathize with it. Likewise, some of us seek to understand ISIS, but we do not in any way empathize with it.

You can understand something without empathizing with it. But you can not empathize without understanding. One is a prerequisite of the other. Thus if you wish to cull empathy you would do good to avoid understanding lest you fall into the trap of feeling for genocidal rape ogres. You must filter the information you receive and acknowledge as opposed to those you reject carefully thus ensuring you have those which are needed to defeat your opponent but not those that would weaken you in doing so.

[Tiriol]

I also have issues with "kill them all and let god sort them out" approaches.

It's called fighting a war. You can't win a war without also killing some people whose heart is not 100% into it.

Yes, in war, innocent people tend to get killed and also people who don't really support the regime for which they have been forced to fight. However, you seem to lack the desire to minimize casualties and destruction wrought by such a war while Broomstick and others clearly would prefer to minimize those. You see, if you start slaughtering everyone you encounter as an ISIS fighter, you will soon have the entire population as an enemy, since they realize that no matter what they do, you will still kill them. At that point you are no better than ISIS for them when it comes down to actually surviving.

You seem to have a problem with the difference between UNDERSTANDING and EMPATHY.

You can understand something without in any way approving of it. Medical researchers seek to understand cancer so they can know how it happens, how to deal with it, and hopefully how to prevent it. They do not seek to empathize with it. Likewise, some of us seek to understand ISIS, but we do not in any way empathize with it.

You can understand something without empathizing with it. But you can not empathize without understanding. One is a prerequisite of the other. Thus if you wish to cull empathy you would do good to avoid understanding lest you fall into the trap of feeling for genocidal rape ogres. You must filter the information you receive and acknowledge as opposed to those you reject carefully thus ensuring you have those which are needed to defeat your opponent but not those that would weaken you in doing so.

So... you would prefer us NOT to understand how and why ISIS got its start and is doing what it is doing? You do realize that even if we killed every last ISIS fighter the causes and conditions for the appearance of this monstrous organization would still exist and would probably spawn something similar? You would want to stick your fingers into your ears and go "lalalalalaa can't hear you" whenever some piece of intelligence comes up that isn't all about bombs and devastation when it comes to ISIS?

If so, you are an utter fool and utter fools like you have created the problem in the first place.

[Purple]

Yes, in war, innocent people tend to get killed and also people who don't really support the regime for which they have been forced to fight. However, you seem to lack the desire to minimize casualties and destruction wrought by such a war while Broomstick and others clearly would prefer to minimize those. You see, if you start slaughtering everyone you encounter as an ISIS fighter, you will soon have the entire population as an enemy, since they realize that no matter what they do, you will still kill them. At that point you are no better than ISIS for them when it comes down to actually surviving.

Honestly I do not see where you people got the "slaughter everyone" thing. Because it sure ain't from me. Either provide a direct quote of me saying something to the effect or apologize. And no, me saying that we should not see ISIS fighters as humans does not count because it is explicitly directed at fighters. So don't even try that one.

So... you would prefer us NOT to understand how and why ISIS got its start and is doing what it is doing? You do realize that even if we killed every last ISIS fighter the causes and conditions for the appearance of this monstrous organization would still exist and would probably spawn something similar? You would want to stick your fingers into your ears and go "lalalalalaa can't hear you" whenever some piece of intelligence comes up that isn't all about bombs and devastation when it comes to ISIS?

If so, you are an utter fool and utter fools like you have created the problem in the first place.

I would like that to be understood by the people in position to use that understanding. As in the ones coordinating the post war denazification process. I would not want those things to be understood by the average voter who would use that information to gain empathy for the average ISIS fighter and thus not support the means necessary to acomplish this war. Shocking as that might sound different information will to people in different positions mean different things.

[Broomstick]

What makes you think that by understanding why and how ISIS arose it would, in any way, make me approve of these people?

Here's another example: At a certain point, it was discovered that a lot of serial killers start with animal killing. That didn't make society more sympathetic to serial killers, it had the effect that the authorities started to take animal cruelty cases a lot more seriously.

You're advocating keeping people ignorant, and then you use words like "exterminate" which makes you sound like a Dalek. You also seem totally clueless that it is these very things that are alarming other people.

[jwl]

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with the refugee crisis because, as I said, it is more due to Assad than due to ISIS; but militarily, attempting to kill all ISIS members is probably not the most effective way of taking them out. A more efficient approach is to take out the more competent and ideologically loyal leaders and watch the rest of it self-destruct.

That doesn't really stop the appeal of the movement as a whole. Simply killing the leadership does not end the will of the members to continue to fight under different banners. ISIS after all, arose from those that step into place after all the previous Al-Quaeda leaders were killed.

This would be repeating the same mistake all over again. Until the people believed that radical Islam have lost the war, simply killing the leaders isn't going to be enough.

I'm not talking about the leadership as a whole, I'm talking about the more competent and ideologically pure aspects of the leadership. Meaning what's left is a lead by a load of half-hearted incompetents, which effectively neutralises the movement.

[Purple]

What makes you think that by understanding why and how ISIS arose it would, in any way, make me approve of these people?

Here's another example: At a certain point, it was discovered that a lot of serial killers start with animal killing. That didn't make society more sympathetic to serial killers, it had the effect that the authorities started to take animal cruelty cases a lot more seriously.

Not all understanding. But the posts I responded to made them look like misguided teenagers joining a gang and not a bunch of monsters willingly joining a genocidal rape cult. There were even people in this very thread that made posts to the effect of "Well if they were our teenagers we wouldn't be looking to kill them but fix them." That sort of thinking is corrosive to morale in times of war.

You're advocating keeping people ignorant,

Not everyone needs to know everything. Like seriously. In this thread you've come off as such an idealist that I basically don't know how to approach a conversation with you any more.

and then you use words like "exterminate" which makes you sound like a Dalek. You also seem totally clueless that it is these very things that are alarming other people.

English is not my first language, not even close. So that is probably a reason why the way I am wording these things seems to upset you. I am just using the words in their literal meaning. But maybe it comes off as extreme or something. I don't rightly know.

And at this point I am certain it is the phrasing because the meaning really can't be wrong. I want ISIS removed from the face of this earth in a way that makes sure they or someone like them can newer rise again. There is nothing wrong about that.

[Broomstick]

OK, consider it an education in English nuance. Using words like "exterminate" in reference to human beings is the verbal equivalent of threatening nuclear warfare and most of the time for anyone over 30 (and many under) it's going to conjure up images of either Nazis, Daleks, or both (the Daleks having been conceived as a sort of cybernetic stand-in caricature of Nazis). You exterminate cockroaches, not human beings.

And yes, I am an idealist. I am also old and experienced enough to be a ruthless pragmatist at times, too.

The evil that is ISIS is, regrettably, part of the human repertoire of behavior. Even if you did in succeed in totally eliminating that group of people the potential for another such group to arise will continue to exist as long as our species continues to exist. Of course, we should still try to eliminate such groups to the extent possible, just we shouldn't fool ourselves that any solution will be permanent.

[Thanas]

A policy that fails to understand ISIS and the reasons for its existence will just end up creating another ISIS down the road. It would be incredibly incompetent.