European refugee crisis thread

[K. A. Pital]

I think that uplifting the human society is never an easy task, but Purple is also (regrettably) right in that without a serious occupation effort - which the local powers are unlikely to manage competently, even Iran - Syria and Iraq will likely remain failures in a decade-long state of civil war that will drag on and on. Like the worst examples of African civil wars that could drag on for 20-30 years until the fractured militias ran out of bodies - even child soldiers - and the new (or old?) government forces took over the territory and there began a period of peace... Which, quite often, did not last.

There's no solution to the ISIL problem.

[Grumman]

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.

Exterminating ISIL to the last man might not prevent future generations from wanting their own sex slave or wanting a new caliphate, but it does prevent future generations from thinking they can have these things by joining ISIL 2.0. "And then they all died in vain" is not a good motivational spiel.

[madd0ct0r]

You are talking about a faction distinguished by suicide bombers yes?

[Ralin]

You are talking about a faction distinguished by suicide bombers yes?

Along with a bunch of other things.

I mean, I don't know the statistics but 'suicide bombers' is like third or fourth on the list of things that I think of when I think of ISIS.

[Purple]

You are talking about a faction distinguished by suicide bombers yes?

Even they prefer to fight for a cause that seems winnable. Nobody likes to die in vain, no matter the reward.

[Civil War Man]

Exterminating ISIL to the last man might not prevent future generations from wanting their own sex slave or wanting a new caliphate, but it does prevent future generations from thinking they can have these things by joining ISIL 2.0. "And then they all died in vain" is not a good motivational spiel.

I'd say it's unlikely to discourage them. I'd find it far more likely that they'd think, "They failed because they weren't extreme enough." Or, "They may have failed, but we certainly won't! This time will be different!"

They'd hardly be the first group to respond to a setback by doubling down.

[Purple]

Even if all this is true, which is questionable at the very least we'd get a couple decades worth of respite due to the lack of able bodied living young men to join such a movement. And that's plenty of time to work on implementing a more long term solution.

[Sea Skimmer]

You are talking about a faction distinguished by suicide bombers yes?

Ones whom are in some cases on video breaking down in tears and having to be hugged to get them to do it, particularly when young. Even for a group like that it is not a behavior easily sustained, just as Japan ran short of actual kamikaze volunteers by the time of the Okinawa campaign. Besides which trying to treat ISIL as a single entity for these purposes is basically useless. It is many things under a common banner each of which exists for its own set of reasons. Many of which are linked to decades of tyrannical oppression.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even if all this is true, which is questionable at the very least we'd get a couple decades worth of respite due to the lack of able bodied living young men to join such a movement. And that's plenty of time to work on implementing a more long term solution.

So... the short term solution is to wipe out a generation of young men? Do you have any idea what that does demographically? Economically? It leads to a second generation who are pissed off that we exterminated their fathers and left them without any economic prospects. The collateral effects on...everything...are even worse. You want a really easy way to spawn multigenerational cyclic terrorism? Wipe out a generation.

[Purple]

So... the short term solution is to wipe out a generation of young men? Do you have any idea what that does demographically? Economically? It leads to a second generation who are pissed off that we exterminated their fathers and left them without any economic prospects. The collateral effects on...everything...are even worse. You want a really easy way to spawn multigenerational cyclic terrorism? Wipe out a generation.

Or, and this might be a shock to you we could not kill everyone, just everyone who joined ISIS and is actively shooting back. All those other problems you mentioned become a non issue in this case because there are plenty of other factions (including our refugees) full of young men not susceptible to ISIS and its ilk (or else they would not be fleeing or shooting at them) to take their place in the economy. Seriously, some times I wonder if you people take the 30 seconds it requires to use your brain before impulse posting.

[Tiriol]

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.

First of all, you have expressed a desire to see "every single ISIS fighter killed", which would amount to "slaughter them all", especially since a) ISIS doesn't need to wear uniforms, which makes it highly suspect how you can kill every single ISIS fighter without also exterminating a huge amount of non-combatants and b) with a sentiment like that, you hardly do any favours to those who are fighting against ISIS, whose fighters cannot trust that by surrendering they might be spared and taken in as POWs, since, you know, they should all be killed.

In war, indiscriminate slaughter isn't usually the goal, unless you hold Nazi ideals (and by the way, thinking that your opponents are not humans or are sub-human filth is a good way to develop the callous attitude several Nazis had about their enemies): usually the goal is to defeat the enemy in order to secure land, property etc.

And no, I won't apologize considering how many have tried to tell you that your attitude and ideas would amount to total slaughter and yet you still keep on harping on them.

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.

So, in effect, you would want to limit knowledge and information available to public when they vote? That is a sure way to pervert democracy. At which point ISIS and their ilk have already done something far worse to Western world than the Paris bombing. Do you even realize what you are saying?

[Purple]

First of all, you have expressed a desire to see "every single ISIS fighter killed", which would amount to "slaughter them all", especially since a) ISIS doesn't need to wear uniforms, which makes it highly suspect how you can kill every single ISIS fighter without also exterminating a huge amount of non-combatants and

1. You can typically tell who ISIS fighters are on the battlefield by virtue of them fighting back.
2. Of course some civilians will die. It's a war. No war in the history of human kind has ever been won without some civilian deaths. It's just a cost we have to accept.

b) with a sentiment like that, you hardly do any favours to those who are fighting against ISIS, whose fighters cannot trust that by surrendering they might be spared and taken in as POWs, since, you know, they should all be killed.

Why would fighters belonging to groups that fight against ISIS need to surrender to us?

In war, indiscriminate slaughter isn't usually the goal, unless you hold Nazi ideals (and by the way, thinking that your opponents are not humans or are sub-human filth is a good way to develop the callous attitude several Nazis had about their enemies): usually the goal is to defeat the enemy in order to secure land, property etc.

The whole indiscriminate slaughter thing is frankly your insane interpretation of my words. Although in hindsight it was helped by the language barrier. Broom helped me understand that. Basically I seem to have used language that is really not special where I come from but when translated to english has some darker undertones. Like for example exterminate. Where I am from the direct translation of that just refers to getting rid of something completely. It has no evil undertones or anything.

So, in effect, you would want to limit knowledge and information available to public when they vote? That is a sure way to pervert democracy. At which point ISIS and their ilk have already done something far worse to Western world than the Paris bombing. Do you even realize what you are saying?

I am saying that in a western liberal democracy the will of the people must be tempered by sanity. Believe it or not democracy does not mean mob rule and giving the people what they want. It means giving them what they want unless it goes against what they need. And if those two are at odds than there are times you do need to manipulate public opinion to get them to want the thing you know they need. You would have to be insanely idealistic not to see that.

And no, I won't apologize considering how many have tried to tell you that your attitude and ideas would amount to total slaughter and yet you still keep on harping on them.

In that case you can go jump off bridge for all I care. I have done my part to uphold the etiquette of this forum. You have not. Thus I will no longer engage with you after this post.

[Simon_Jester]

Or, and this might be a shock to you we could not kill everyone, just everyone who joined ISIS and is actively shooting back. All those other problems you mentioned become a non issue in this case because there are plenty of other factions (including our refugees) full of young men not susceptible to ISIS and its ilk (or else they would not be fleeing or shooting at them) to take their place in the economy. Seriously, some times I wonder if you people take the 30 seconds it requires to use your brain before impulse posting.

Are you trolling or are you so historically illiterate that you don't know how many times this plan has been "tried" and not worked in the history of warfare?

By the time you get done shooting all the "actively resisting" members of the enemy's ideological guerilla force, there won't be a lot of military age males left in the country.

[Purple]

Or, and this might be a shock to you we could not kill everyone, just everyone who joined ISIS and is actively shooting back. All those other problems you mentioned become a non issue in this case because there are plenty of other factions (including our refugees) full of young men not susceptible to ISIS and its ilk (or else they would not be fleeing or shooting at them) to take their place in the economy. Seriously, some times I wonder if you people take the 30 seconds it requires to use your brain before impulse posting.

Are you trolling or are you so historically illiterate that you don't know how many times this plan has been "tried" and not worked in the history of warfare?

By the time you get done shooting all the "actively resisting" members of the enemy's ideological guerilla force, there won't be a lot of military age males left in the country.

Except this is a civil war where a decent chunk of the local male population is in fact NOT part of said force. So everyone fighting for every single one of those other groups will survive to repopulate. This includes all the refugees, everyone supporting Assad, the Kurds and all the other minor groups.

[Broomstick]

No, they will not all survive.

Read about some fucking history, then come back.

[Tiriol]

First of all, you have expressed a desire to see "every single ISIS fighter killed", which would amount to "slaughter them all", especially since a) ISIS doesn't need to wear uniforms, which makes it highly suspect how you can kill every single ISIS fighter without also exterminating a huge amount of non-combatants and

1. You can typically tell who ISIS fighters are on the battlefield by virtue of them fighting back.
2. Of course some civilians will die. It's a war. No war in the history of human kind has ever been won without some civilian deaths. It's just a cost we have to accept.

1) Yes, on a battlefield, but you very specifically didn't mention "only in battle", you have talked about killing every single ISIS fighter, period. Then it becomes that much harder.
2) I know that, dimwit, but you certainly exhibit a callous disregard for those civilians. Try to get this: unless you are ready to commit war crimes or really try to re-live the glory days of Crusades, you should at least try to limit civilian casualties. Apparently that is a hard concept for you to graps.

b) with a sentiment like that, you hardly do any favours to those who are fighting against ISIS, whose fighters cannot trust that by surrendering they might be spared and taken in as POWs, since, you know, they should all be killed.

Why would fighters belonging to groups that fight against ISIS need to surrender to us?

This might have been my mistake, so I'll clarify: I was talking about the possibility of ISIS fighters surrendering. By making known that you will kill every last one of them, you give them very little reason to surrender, since all they can expect is death either way.

In war, indiscriminate slaughter isn't usually the goal, unless you hold Nazi ideals (and by the way, thinking that your opponents are not humans or are sub-human filth is a good way to develop the callous attitude several Nazis had about their enemies): usually the goal is to defeat the enemy in order to secure land, property etc.

The whole indiscriminate slaughter thing is frankly your insane interpretation of my words. Although in hindsight it was helped by the language barrier. Broom helped me understand that. Basically I seem to have used language that is really not special where I come from but when translated to english has some darker undertones. Like for example exterminate. Where I am from the direct translation of that just refers to getting rid of something completely. It has no evil undertones or anything.

It has nothing to do with "insane interpretation": you have clearly stated your desire to kill every ISIS fighter and you have a callous disregard for any damage done to civilian population in the process. You simply refuse to believe that your ideas are quite frankly morally bankrupt.

So, in effect, you would want to limit knowledge and information available to public when they vote? That is a sure way to pervert democracy. At which point ISIS and their ilk have already done something far worse to Western world than the Paris bombing. Do you even realize what you are saying?

I am saying that in a western liberal democracy the will of the people must be tempered by sanity. Believe it or not democracy does not mean mob rule and giving the people what they want. It means giving them what they want unless it goes against what they need. And if those two are at odds than there are times you do need to manipulate public opinion to get them to want the thing you know they need. You would have to be insanely idealistic not to see that.

Ah, so we have a realpolitik wanker here. I don't know how you derived mob rule from my objection to the idea that voters should only get access to information those in power see positive for their end goals, but you clearly think in a very strange fashion. By the way, your idea has been tested before with the US invasion of Iraq and that turned out to work splendidly. And taken to its logical extreme it would mean that the state will start monitoring all news networks and censor everything that doesn't fit their narrative. That doesn't create stable societies in the long run, or at least healthy ones.

And no, I won't apologize considering how many have tried to tell you that your attitude and ideas would amount to total slaughter and yet you still keep on harping on them.

In that case you can go jump off bridge for all I care. I have done my part to uphold the etiquette of this forum. You have not. Thus I will no longer engage with you after this post.

Boo-hoo.

[Thanas]

He whines about Forum etiquette and then refuses to engage....which is against Forum etiquette.

The irony, it burns.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So... the short term solution is to wipe out a generation of young men? Do you have any idea what that does demographically? Economically? It leads to a second generation who are pissed off that we exterminated their fathers and left them without any economic prospects. The collateral effects on...everything...are even worse. You want a really easy way to spawn multigenerational cyclic terrorism? Wipe out a generation.

Or, and this might be a shock to you we could not kill everyone, just everyone who joined ISIS and is actively shooting back. All those other problems you mentioned become a non issue in this case because there are plenty of other factions (including our refugees) full of young men not susceptible to ISIS and its ilk (or else they would not be fleeing or shooting at them) to take their place in the economy. Seriously, some times I wonder if you people take the 30 seconds it requires to use your brain before impulse posting.

1. The people in europe and other parts of the middle east? They are not going back. You know Afghanistan? The shit it is currently in started in the 1970s. Let that sink in for a minute.

2. When you kill everyone who has joined ISIS, how do you go about actually doing it? How do you avoid civilian casualties? Protip: You cant. And because ISIS fighters are going to use what is left of the civilian population for concealment, your soldiers get itchy trigger fingers. As do your drone operators etc. How do you distinguish ISIS fighters from Anti-ISIS fighters? Oh, right. You cant. You end up shooting both groups. How do drone and attack chopper pilots distinguish between armed men, and men carrying construction supplies, camera equipment, or even messenger bags? Oh right. They cant.

3. The only way to actually eliminate ISIS (other than letting the civil war burn out on its own with outside air support for major field operations in areas under ISIS's de facto control, which will only create cyclical power vacuums in the long run) is to put a few hundred thousand mechanized infantry on the ground with armor and close air support in the form of ground-controlled drones. Then keep them there securing and rebuilding infrastructure for 10 years before you even think about anything but puppet governments back into civil administration.

[jwl]

So, in effect, you would want to limit knowledge and information available to public when they vote? That is a sure way to pervert democracy. At which point ISIS and their ilk have already done something far worse to Western world than the Paris bombing. Do you even realize what you are saying?

I am saying that in a western liberal democracy the will of the people must be tempered by sanity. Believe it or not democracy does not mean mob rule and giving the people what they want. It means giving them what they want unless it goes against what they need. And if those two are at odds than there are times you do need to manipulate public opinion to get them to want the thing you know they need. You would have to be insanely idealistic not to see that.

Ah, so we have a realpolitik wanker here. I don't know how you derived mob rule from my objection to the idea that voters should only get access to information those in power see positive for their end goals, but you clearly think in a very strange fashion. By the way, your idea has been tested before with the US invasion of Iraq and that turned out to work splendidly. And taken to its logical extreme it would mean that the state will start monitoring all news networks and censor everything that doesn't fit their narrative. That doesn't create stable societies in the long run, or at least healthy ones.

I think there's a difference between government-limited information (what you think Purple is advocating), political spin (what Purple is actually advocating), and incompetent secret services mixed with confirmation bias (what happened in Iraq).

[Civil War Man]

Even if all this is true, which is questionable at the very least we'd get a couple decades worth of respite due to the lack of able bodied living young men to join such a movement. And that's plenty of time to work on implementing a more long term solution.

Or, you know, we'd serve up a massive propaganda victory to ISIS. Your strategy would result in their numbers swelling every time we kill someone's son, father, brother, or husband, and skyrocketing whenever our soldiers fuck up and bomb a school or a hospital. Because people in the region who are currently on the fence about ISIS will look at your slaughter of ISIS fighters and disregard towards the deaths of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire and think, "Hmm, maybe they had a point when they said that the West is conducting a campaign of extermination against Islam."

2. Of course some civilians will die. It's a war. No war in the history of human kind has ever been won without some civilian deaths. It's just a cost we have to accept.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

How's that view of the abyss?

[Tiriol]

I am saying that in a western liberal democracy the will of the people must be tempered by sanity. Believe it or not democracy does not mean mob rule and giving the people what they want. It means giving them what they want unless it goes against what they need. And if those two are at odds than there are times you do need to manipulate public opinion to get them to want the thing you know they need. You would have to be insanely idealistic not to see that.

Ah, so we have a realpolitik wanker here. I don't know how you derived mob rule from my objection to the idea that voters should only get access to information those in power see positive for their end goals, but you clearly think in a very strange fashion. By the way, your idea has been tested before with the US invasion of Iraq and that turned out to work splendidly. And taken to its logical extreme it would mean that the state will start monitoring all news networks and censor everything that doesn't fit their narrative. That doesn't create stable societies in the long run, or at least healthy ones.

I think there's a difference between government-limited information (what you think Purple is advocating), political spin (what Purple is actually advocating), and incompetent secret services mixed with confirmation bias (what happened in Iraq).

What happened in Iraq WAS "political spin", not incompetent secret services. From the very onset of the conflict Bush Administration demanded very specific set of information from its intelligence agencies so they could sell the conflict to the public. The intelligence agencies were incompetent in the fact that they bended over to the demands. The entire world was shouting bullshit at US (and UK) claims, but the US government went away anyway without UN mandate.

And no, political spin as understood by most is NOT limiting information. It would be showing the better sides of the situation or the claim or explaining how the information revealed is not so bad or meaningful and getting the public to believe it. Purposefully denying information and knowledge so that plebes will do what they're told at voting booths is something far worse.

[K. A. Pital]

Meanwhile Norway starts deporting those who crossed over from Russia back into Russia using the "safe country of passage" concept.

How long until Turkey and non-EU Balkan countries that offered passage from Syria start receiving the same treatment? Not very long, I think.

[cosmicalstorm]

Russia is not accepting the refugees they sent back from Norway, the FSB is making a fuss about it.

I see a lot of border controls are coming up now that the realization is dawning on the transit countries that the migrants will not be sent along to Germany and Sweden.
Some are saying these are temporary measures, they have to say that, and I doubt that.

Well, maybe now that winter makes migration harder I would not be surprised if some border controls are removed again, before spring, due to intense EU pressure. But those controls will be reinstated in a hurry when summer comes around if that happens.

[Edi]

News from Russian Border Patrol sources (who for obvious reasons declined to give their name) said that the FSB is actually coordinating the transfer of refugees to the Finnish border n the north. We should just shut the entire border down. No entry without full and proper documentation, including visa granted by the Finnish consulates in Russia.

[jwl]

Isn't the Finnish border a bit big? I was criticised for suggesting that a small area of English coastline alongside the busiest shipping lane in the world can prevent border crossings.