A New Migration Period

[jazzeven]

It seems some believe all Americans supported W's invasion of Iraq and the murder of Hussein. I got news for you - the majority of Americans did not support the invasion and were horrified at the treatment of Hussein and the Iraqis in general.

They just reelected Bush. So maybe they didn't like it, but still they thought it was sort of okay.

That is the nature of power in some Islamic countries.

You are aware that the Iraq under Hussein was relatively secular and Christian minorities were safer under him than in the current situation?
Also it is a fallacy to pretend the totalitarian way of ruling would be limited to islamic states (whatever your definition for that term might be), as exactly the same happens under orthodox or catholic or atheist dictators.

In the end the question is not what is the perfect solution but what are the alternatives. By replacing Hussein without having any plan what should happen next, the USA have chosen the wrong one, and no reasoning about Hussein being evil will change anything about the fact that this action set in motion what became ISIS.

I can't say I liked what happened to Hussein but I can say he did far worse to helpless civilians of his own country.

Which the USA were perfectly fine with for quite some time. Which would not make it impossible to change one's mind, but which severly weakens the argument that this was part of the motives for the attack.
Instead what the rest of the world witnessed is how the USA became the bully of the planet and decided that this market (held more or less by europe) should be theirs.

The only way Assad will fall is if Putin cuts him loose.

Good point. Maybe not the only way, but Russia is a factor. Which means had this happened in a climate of cooperation between east and west, a political solution would have been possible by the Russians pressuring Assad to reforms.
In the end they are less interested in keeping him in power than in owning the market. So it is clear that any one-sided action will not lead to a conclusion. Of course it is a matter of balancing and getting involved can create as well an incentive for the involved parties to find a better solution. Would Hussein (or some member of his family) still have the power in Iraq, this might have worked. And of course a Russian leader who is not interested in being the asshole of this planet whenever possible to secure his political power would have been an advantage as well.

ISIS will add Syria to it's territories and then on to the next phase of their blitzkrieg.

You should look up "Blitzkrieg" in a dictionary or even better in a history book. There is nothing Blitzkrieg about all of that. It is a civil war. The reason ISIS desperatly tries to be a state is that in fact they are not. Nobody is born into an ISIS-nation so far. This is their achilles heel. Without a constant influx of new soldiers, they will not be able to hold their territory. So instead of discussing solutions which are in fact no solutions because they will uphold that stream of reinforcements, maybe wondering about why people follow them at all would point towards a solution.

When ISIS finally crosses the border into Iran that will be a spectacle to watch.

So maybe ignoring the Iran like some stubborn child is not the best solution anymore and one can find a basis of common interest? Perhaps not the perfect alternative, but at this stage the best.

If there's anyone left alive after that Iran will be ready to rid the world of Israel once and for all as their Ayatollahs have preached forever.

Or maybe this is not in their political interest at all. The question is the same for everyone: what can be gained. And Iran gains nothing by attacking Israel. People in power want to stay in power. Rhetorics keep them in power in that case, actions won't.
So when discussing about possible outcomes of situations, don't pull some purely fictional fear-driven apocalyptic blitzkrieg scenario out of your own ass, look at what the parties are interested in.

 

[skyward]

Look at Saudi Arabia

Good idea.



Sitting alongside the Saudi King, Obama says "We continue to cooperate extremely closely in countering terrorist activity"

Just to remind you:

"Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria. They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens -- thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadists coming from other parts of the world." [US VP Joe Biden]

Do you feel that the statement "We continue to cooperate extremely closely in countering terrorist activity" is a blatant lie?

 

[W!nston]

Why do some people say 'The Iraq' and 'The Iran'? It's like saying 'The America' or 'The Russia'. It's just one of those little things that grates on my nerves. There was an American beauty pageant contestant who said 'The Iraq' and was a laughing stock :rofl:

Iran gains nothing by attacking Israel? Are you serious? I don't know how you come to that conclusion but I'll consider it as part of your reasoning for loving 'The Iran' and you may continue to defend their politicians while attacking the politicians in the West.

Why is it that people living in the West feel comfortable doing that while people in Iran don't feel comfortable attacking their own politicians? Hmm?

My use of 'blitzkrieg' was meant to liken ISIS aim of global domination to that of the failed Third Reich. ISIS will fail as did the Third Reich. Whatever the hell 'Third Reich' means, lol. I'm serious. I haven't a clue. I don't speak German. Can someone explain the term 'Third Reich' to me please? I won't speculate and give you guys more ammo to use against me, hehe.

One other thing you mentioned made no sense to me. You pointed out that Christians and other secular segments of society were safer under Hussein. What about the Shiites? Were they safer? And the Kurds? How safe were they? I mean I'm sure you can explain what a great guy Hussein was and how his actions were over blown in the media etc

 

[skyward]

Refugees cause chaos in Croatia


Turkey: Clashes erupt as police form human wall in front of refugees

 

[jazzeven]

Do you honestly believe that the most of them really want to be integrated?

Do I honestly think that people would take the opportunity to feel home at the place they moved to? Yes. Indeed, that is what I think. Those people don't come from some tent village in the desert, they left an industrialized nation. They had a social life. If they had the choice to get that again, they will take it.

All what happened now is the fault of the US!

If that is what you get out of the discussion, you are not paying attention or you are just incapable of seeing shades of gray.
It would be easy to discuss points where the USA did the right thing in a smart and generous way in order to secure their interests (there is no fake altruism needed to do a good thing). But I guess bringing up e.g. the Marshall plan would contradict the warmongering and xenophobic opinions presented in this thread.
To point that out is not anti-american at all. In fact I have seen enough US americans to do a much better job in doing so than I ever could and I wish some of them were gay.
However, as those are obviously not available, someone else has to step up and to point out the flaws in the messiah complex of our US american fellows.

I see an off-topic discussion about Russia; it is difficult to discuss Russia when no russians are involved. There are compliments for Obama's policy, which ironically get relativated by his own people. There is discussion about historical examples and context, which unfortunatly is well doented fact.
Also I see US american posters who seriously consider genocide an option.

And the western world has to bear the blame for these events. The western world and the devlish USA.

So basically you say that there is no responsibility and that events set in motion by greed, bad choices and wrong decisions have nothing to do with the power which started them? Because discussing that makes you feel bad?

It is difficult to learn from history when one is not capable of learning from mistakes. Especially as a german you should know that. Acknowledging mistakes and not repeating them becomes a merrit, if you allow it.
Responsibility is not blame, the one who started the machinery is not necessarily the one who keeps it running, solutions do not have to correct the past as much as they should enable a future.

But take Syria: here bombs a ruthless dictator his own people and that with the help of Russia and in other parts of Syria ISIS is rioting the country back to the darkest prehistory.

Exacty. And if we would discuss the correct Russian and Syrian actions, this would be topic. But it is not in the power of the elected leaders of the countries of the commentators to change the Russian and Syrian actions. This in turn means, it makes only sense to discuss the available reactions.
The refugees come to Europe, this means the responsibility of Europe is a topic to discuss. In that context the question what we owe them has to be asked.
Just because others did wrong (and they did!) does not mean one's wrong actions get absolved.

 

[jazzeven]

Why do some people say 'The Iraq' and 'The Iran'?

You can laugh about American Beauty contestants as much as you want. In German the Iraq usually gets an article, Chad and Switzerland as well.

Iran gains nothing by attacking Israel? Are you serious? I don't know how you come to that conclusion but I'll consider it as part of your reasoning for loving 'The Iran' and you may continue to defend their politicians while attacking the politicians in the West.

There is no point in defending their leaders, as I can do nothing to change them. Pretending I could would not help to get any closer to a solution. Obama seems to think that way as well.
But as you seem so convinced that your president is wrong, what do you think Iran gains by wiping out Israel? What would be the consequence? Who would have more power afterwards than he had before?

My use of 'blitzkrieg' was meant to liken ISIS aim of global domination to that of the failed Third Reich.

I guessed so. You used it the wrong way. Also I don't think there is the need to liken two different things in order to make one of them seem worse, as the situation is bad enough without exaggerating it.
ISIS is not interested in global domiantion (neither was the Third Reich btw), they want to create a sunni state. Other than that their goals are diffuse and if the goal should be achieved, one can expect further power struggles within the organisation.

ISIS will fail as did the Third Reich. Whatever the hell 'Third Reich' means, lol. I'm serious. I haven't a clue. I don't speak German. Can someone explain the term 'Third Reich' to me please? I won't speculate and give you guys more ammo to use against me, hehe.

It is an euphemistic term to set the regime into the succession of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (yes, the name is exactly as silly as it sounds) and the German Empire. Ironically Hitler thought the exiled Emperor was and idiot and vice versa (and both were correct).
However, the difference is that Germany had a territory. ISIS does not. Germany still existed after its capitulation (and in fact the encouragement that it would still exist could accellerate this capitulation). Should ISIS give up, it would vanish, as it is the mere idea of something. On the other hand ISIS has nothing to gain by a capitulation. When all their occupied territory is liberated, they can just disappear and fight a partisan war for all eternity. At that stage every strike against them will spawn more support, a lot like the Taliban in Afganistan.

One other thing you mentioned made no sense to me. You pointed out that Christians and other secular segments of society were safer under Hussein. What about the Shiites? Were they safer? And the Kurds? How safe were they? I mean I'm sure you can explain what a great guy Hussein was and how his actions were over blown in the media etc

See, you make the mistake of thinking binary: either someone is good or bad. But outside Hollywood this does not make sense.
At no point I was saying Hussein was good. I am just pointing out that the religious motivation you insinuate did not exist and existed after the USA made it possible. The Shiites were safer than under ISIS. The Kurds were safer than under ISIS. Both groups got suppressed under Hussein, but the reasons were not theological. Hussein even converted during the first gulf war to secure the loyality of the shiite majority. At that point the USA, Germany and France were still on his side (although the USA of course were more or less on both sides and sold their weapons to whoever wanted them). So ironically the Hussein who got deposed was a better person than the one supported by the West.

 

[W!nston]

Well, we share so much in common that is okay with me if we differ on many things as well.

I'm gay. You're gay. We love Gay porn. We share another trait too. We have strong opinions and enjoy discussing them in an open and civil manner.

You have given me much to consider. I'm always open to new ways of seeing things. My opinions are more fluid than static. They change as new viewpoints make the picture clearer to me.

Thanks jazzeven and skyward for politely sharing so much food for thought. I'm happy to meet you both.

And to all the other members who have added pieces to this puzzling tragedy, thank you.

Sniffi

 

[Shelter]

Well, we share so much in common that is okay with me if we differ on many things as well.

I'm gay. You're gay. We love Gay porn. We share another trait too. We have strong opinions and enjoy discussing them in an open and civil manner.

You have given me much to consider. I'm always open to new ways of seeing things. My opinions are more fluid than static. They change as new viewpoints make the picture clearer to me.

Thanks jazzeven and skyward for politely sharing so much food for thought. I'm happy to meet you both.

And to all the other members who have added pieces to this puzzling tragedy, thank you.

Sniffi

:agree::agree::agree::agree::agree::agree:

 

[brmstn69]

Normal uranium is not as hard as tungsten. But a classified technique allows it to be hardened [...] The final advantage of uranium is cost. Machined tungsten is expensive, but governments supply DU more or less free.

Anon URL

The article you cited actually proves my point. While it's true that tungsten is harder that DU, it does not hold it's form as well and mushrooms. As it mushrooms, it loosed velocity and penetration is then reduced. Thus a much larger and more powerful shell is required to attain the same results.

Hate to tell you, but the situation will never be that black and white.

Meanwhile...

Saudi Arabia offers Germany 200 mosques – one for every 100 refugees who arrived last weekend

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which quoted a report in the Lebanese newspaper Al Diyar, Saudi Arabia would build one mosque for every 100 refugees who entered Germany in extraordinary numbers last weekend.

Whether [Merkel] will welcome Saudi Arabia’s reported offer, which Al Diyar noted would “have to go through the federal authorities”, remains to be seen.


Anon URL

That is just plain insulting and Germany should tell them where to shove their mosques.
In case you didn't know, it's Islamic tradition to build a mosque in celebration of newly conquered territory.
Yet another reason to refuse these refugees.

 

[skyward]

Sorry brmstn69 but I for one can't accept the use of depleted-uranium, especially when I look at the birth deformities. Because depleted uranium is supplied more of less cost-free, it becomes a major temptation, with horrific consequences.

Pentagon announces U-turn on use of depleted uranium in Iraq and Syria
The Pentagon has announced that depleted uranium (DU) munitions have not, and will not, be used by US aircraft in the conflict against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The policy U-turn contrasts with statements made over previous months, where Pentagon officials claimed that DU would be used if needed; the decision reflects a growing stigmatisation of the controversial weapons.
Anon URL

So apparently the Pentagon now feels it's use is not warranted after all.

What is your comment on US-Saudi relations? Is the US bending to Saudi-will so as to avoid, at all costs, what happened in 1973 (oil embargo) happening again?

Germany should tell them where to shove their mosques.

It seems to me, then, that you should have plenty to say about the extremely close relations the US has with Saudi Arabia. If you remain 'quiet as a mouse' on that front, then that is an answer in itself.

 

[skyward]

Slovenia in chaos as thousands of refugees cross its borders

SLOVENIA is in chaos after it became the latest hotspot in Europe's escalating migration crisis as thousands of refugees attempt to cross its borders.

Tensions reached breaking point overnight on the Slovenian border with Croatia as thousands of migrants began to gather after rail services travelling north were suspended.

Slovenian riot police used tear gas to disperse several hundred migrants - some with children - that were pushing against a police cordon.

Anon URL

 

[haiducii]

Slovenia in chaos as thousands of refugees cross its borders

Thousands??? 1.287 refugees crossed Croatia's border with Slovenia yesterday.

Croatia's police has been passive and Slovenia's Ministry of the Interior has decided to activate the country's auxiliary police. ''The ministry strongly reacted to Croatia's decision to stop registering migrants and offer them organized transport towards Hungary and Slovenia. Slovenia's government is deeply concerned because of the decision'', says security State Secretary Boštjan Šefic. "Such an approach and method is not in accordance with any EU rules, let alone the rules of the Schengen system, which Croatia also wishes to join. Such an uncontrolled process represents a great challenge for Slovenia's authorities, especially the police," Šefic was critical towards Croatia's decision.

 

[skyward]

German government adopts drastic measures to deter refugees

According to the Süddeutscher Zeitung, which has seen the text of the bill, it represents the “harshest restriction of support for refugees in the history of post-war Germany”. So-called “Dublin refugees” would have no right to receive pocket money, accommodations and medical aid, but would merely be provided with a return ticket and some provisions.

Anon URL

I don't necessarily accept the various points made by wsws.org or in quoted German publications. German posters here are more likely to have access to more context and to be more familiar with the dynamics of German politics...

Is the text of the bill described accurately?

Will it pass?

How much traction is the issue of this bill getting in the German media?

 

[Shelter]

German government adopts drastic measures to deter refugees

According to the Süddeutscher Zeitung, which has seen the text of the bill, it represents the “harshest restriction of support for refugees in the history of post-war Germany”. So-called “Dublin refugees” would have no right to receive pocket money, accommodations and medical aid, but would merely be provided with a return ticket and some provisions.

Anon URL

I don't necessarily accept the various points made by wsws.org or in quoted German publications. German posters here are more likely to have access to more context and to be more familiar with the dynamics of German politics...

Is the text of the bill described accurately?

Will it pass?

How much traction is the issue of this bill getting in the German media?

Look at the title of this web site: WORLD SOCIALIST..... and you know all. I would be really very angry if I read this hateful, perverting all facts article of these socialist or communist starry-eyed idealists, which surely to no time ever have done practically anything for the refugees. The only thing the really can do very good is add fuel to the fire.

Currently we have in Germany 190.000 refugees/migrants whose applications of asylum was denied. Nevertheless 138.000 from these denied persons can stay because of illness, infirmity and "missing" doents.

Some Bundesländer (federal states) generally renounce to deport such persons during the winter months (so for instance Schleswig-Holstein).

Every refugee/migrant will get a place to stay, he will get to eat and to drink (surely it will not be as if he is check in to a 6-star hotel!)

And this is what this hate-commentator is writing in his shitty web-site:
The German government wants to drive away refugees by leaving them to starve and refusing them all medical support.

The real message:
Einem der Nachrichtenagentur Reuters vorliegenden Gesetzentwurf zufolge sollen Personen von gesetzlichen Leistungen ausgeschlossen werden können, deren Asylverfahren nach den sogenannten Dublin-Regeln eigentlich in einem anderen EU-Land abgewickelt werden müssten und die somit ausreisepflichtig sind.
Translation: In a draft law which the news agency Reuters could see, shall persons, whose asylum procedures, conform to the rules of Dublin, would be handled in another EU-country, are barred from legal services - and from this reason they are obliged to leave the country.

So what is cruel on this law and what is inhuman?

Migrants which are coming from so-called safe countries of provenance who must not reckoning with political persecution or inhuman punishment, will not be allowed to stay in Germany.

Tell me what is wrong with this and what is inhuman with this?

Safe countries of provenance will be in Germany currently all countries of the EU, Bosnia-Hercegowina, Ghana, Senegal and Serbia. New shall be Kosovo, Albania and Montenegro.

But the asylum law in Germany provides for that EVERY case will be in detail considered and deceided by a court. - The quote of allowance is at the moment at 40 %.

And at the end - this yukky article of the socialist web site is only worth to use it as toilet paper - but I think my ass would get pimples if I would try it!

 

[skyward]

Let's wait & see if Jazzeven agrees or disagrees.

 

[skyward]

Refugee crisis: Five-year-old girl dies and 14 people missing after latest boat disaster

A five-year-old girl is among more than a dozen refugees feared to have died when their boat sank off a Greek island.

The latest disaster came the day after another young child, a four-year-old Syrian girl, was washed up dead on a Turkish beach on the other side of the Aegean Sea.

Twenty-two refugees drowned and 200 more were rescued trying to reach the Greek island of Kos on Tuesday and 34 refugees, almost half of them babies and children, died when their boat sank off the small island of Farmakonisi last Sunday.

The UNHCR says more than 442,440 people have crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Europe so far this year and 2,921 have died attempting the voyage.

Anon URL

 

[Shelter]

Let's wait & see if Jazzeven agrees or disagrees.

I don't have to wait if anyone will agree or disagree - nonsense is nonsense. And if anyone will agree to nonsense - it will always be nonsense. I have nobody to ask what is right or wrong!

This article is, what I call, "disinformation". And nothing is more obnoxious than this one. :angry:

 

[gb2000ie]

That is just plain insulting and Germany should tell them where to shove their mosques.

You do know that are literally millions of German Muslims - they have every bit at much of a right to houses of worship as Chritains and Jews do.

In case you didn't know, it's Islamic tradition to build a mosque in celebration of newly conquered territory.
Yet another reason to refuse these refugees.

I'm sure you have a reliable source to back up that assertion?

Also, that some mosques were built at some time in history to celebrate some victory does NOT mean that all mosques are like that!

Christians built churches to celebrate conquests in the past too, but that does not mean that all churches are monuments to conquest!

Your view of Islam is such a caricature that it would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous!

Finally - the level of Islamophobia I see on this board week after week makes me very sad. We, as gay people, know what it's like to be the victims of bigots, we really should be self-aware enough not to do it to others!

The way some people here talk about Muslims is equivalent to the way some Christians loonies talk about all gays as being pedos.

As long as people spew out gross generalisations and hate against all Muslims, I am going to respond and call out the hypocrisy.

B.

 

[Shelter]

What do you think the Muslims a speaking about us gays? How do you think they would treat us if we would go to them and reveal us as gays?

And what to you think how many christian churches are in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Turkey? Not long ago a catholic priest has been murdered in Turkey and nothing happened. Because the murderer was feeling offended by the christians in his neighborhood!

Go to such a country and try to live openly as a gay man - I think your time of living there will be very short.

 

[gb2000ie]

What do you think the Muslims a speaking about us gays? How do you think they would treat us if we would go to them and reveal us as gays?

What? So if someone does something we dissaprove of an find horrible, we should do it too? That's a non-argument if ever I heard one.

Also, you are doing it again! You are pretending ALL Muslims are homophobic - they are not! There are millions of gay Muslims, and millions of Muslims who have no problem with it.

Every Muslim I know has no problem with gays. Obviously it would be stupid to pretend all Muslims are like those I know, but it is just as ridiculous to pretend all Muslims are homophobes.

The Christian Churches just about all teach homosexuality is wrong, so by your logic, all Christians are homophobes. That is of course bollox.

And what to you think how many christian churches are in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Turkey? Not long ago a catholic priest has been murdered in Turkey and nothing happened. Because the murderer was feeling offended by the christians in his neighborhood!

So again, your argument is that it's OK for us to do horrible things because other people do too. Yea, what a great way THAT is to campaign for a better world!

Go to such a country and try to live openly as a gay man - I think your time of living there will be very short.

Indeed - because the ruling elite are homophobes, just like our ruling elite were not all that long ago!

You can condemn the policies of specific Muslim states, and the utterances of specific Muslim clerics without pretending ALL Muslims are the same!

Do you think it's OK to assume all Christians approve of the Vatican's antics? Or to pretend ALL Christians are the same? Probably not, but that is exactly what you are doing when you pretend all Muslims are in Muslim theocracies, and that the rulers of those theocracies speak for all Muslims. Only a TINY percentage of the BILLIONS of Muslims in the world live in the places you have mentioned.

Your attempt to defend your bigotry with MORE generalisations, and MORE bigotry doesn't impress me at all. It's a very very long way from a convincing argument.

B.