Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    I agree, except with your last remark

    The EU is just what the 28 Governments want it to be : they hold the effective political power. How could it contribute to destabilisation ?

    if anytrhing, the EU is ineffective in the present situation, because each Member State follows its national agenda, and does not want to transfer sufficient powers to the EU.

    best
    As that would be highly undemocratic indeed...And since you seem quite the avid believer in conspiracy theories, maybe we could even argue that this entire (unwelcomed) muslim exodus has been encouraged by Merkel in order to further advance the EU's expansion. The recent call for a "common european army" to patrol the southern borders comes to mind. Heck this entire call for "national quotas" sounds like a plea to defer national sovereignty to Brussels. The EU is rotten and the sooner it fails the better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    "What terrorists want". The bad spin off movie of the Mel Gibson film " What Women Want."
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P357)
    As that would be highly undemocratic indeed...And since you seem quite the avid believer in conspiracy theories, maybe we could even argue that this entire (unwelcomed) muslim exodus has been encouraged by Merkel in order to further advance the EU's expansion. The recent call for a "common european army" to patrol the southern borders comes to mind. Heck this entire call for "national quotas" sounds like a plea to defer national sovereignty to Brussels. The EU is rotten and the sooner it fails the better.
    European Governments refer to the EU mainly on two occasions :

    -when they have to take an unpopular decision (cutting benefits, imposing taxes etc), Governments will claim : we are only doing it because the EU (or "Brussels") forces us to do it

    - when they lament that the EU ("Brussels") is doing nothing in face of a crisis

    In both cases, the EU (Brussels) is just a scapegoat for the Governments' inability to reach a decision and face up to their responsibilities

    The Council of the EU is the highest decision authority in the EU system. All 28 Governments are represented and they take decisions. Most decisions in the political, security and fiscal area have to be taken by unanimity of all Member States, while many decisions in other areas (trade, environment, social affairs etc) can by taken by a form of reinforced majority ("qualified majority")

    The role of other EU organs (Commission, European Parliament, ECB) is secondary with respect to Council decisions

    So, when Governments are unable to take decisions, because there is not unanimity or a qualified majority in the Council of the EU, they have only themselves to blame, because they are unable to work out the necessary consensus. Blaming the constitutional structure ("the EU") is absurd. In fact, they (the Member States) have set up the constitutional structure in the first place ...

    As to lack of democracy, all Governments in Member States are the result of national democratic elections and of parliamentary majorities in national Parliaments, which have held confidence votes and continue support for their national Governments

    So, the Council of the EU acts in practice as an indirectly elected Parliament.

    Can this Constitutional structure be improved ? of course it can. If National Governments and Parliaments agree to proceed... but they prefer to simply keep complaining and blaming "Brussels"

    A more effective EU structure would imply more majority voting in the EU Council, and an extension of EU powers to areas which are, at the moment, strictly in the Member States' competence. Are the Governments ready to do this ? the simple answer is ; no. National agendas prevail, and the common European interest is neglected

    Hope this helps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of claims are made that ISIS true goal is to cause us to backlash against our Muslim population, or that the terrorists want us to get rid of our liberties at home, as if they give a crap about what level of legal rights exist in the West.

    If you want to understand the ISIS mentality and strategy, I'd recommend this document called The Management of Savagery, written by a senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq (the ISIS predecessor organisation) member and theoretician. It explains precisely what their intentions are and why they use terrorism as a tool. Specifically, in carrying out terror attacks in the West they are adhering to a concept called "paying the price", which lends itself very well to deterrence theory. Contrary to claims that they want to suck us into a conflict in the Middle East, the reality is that they want us out of the way and they believe carrying out terrorist attacks in the West will cause Western populations to be less inclined to support an interventionist policy.

    Anyway, here is the document

    https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2...-will-pass.pdf
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    There was this article you might be interested in...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35872562

    ...But the most chilling instructions that Abaaoud issued were about the targets Hame was to hit.

    "He just told me to choose an easy target like a place where there are people. Imagine a rock concert in a European country. If we arm you, would you be ready to shoot into a crowd?"

    Abaaoud added that it was best to wait after the attack for the forces to intervene and then to die while fighting.

    "He said that if many civilians were hit, the foreign policy of France would change."

    "They just want the [coalition] airstrikes to stop."
    Well after the Paris attacks, it seems France is rather more determined to continue, if not increase it's operations against ISIS. Perhaps Belgium and other countries in Europe and the middle east will take a similar approach.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    Well after the Paris attacks, it seems France is rather more determined to continue, if not increase it's operations against ISIS.
    Absolutely. The hard left claims that ISIS wants us to airstrike them, that it helps them recruit but the reality is that the civilian death toll in our air campaign has been very low (around 3%-5%). We know from ISIS defectors that they are very scared of drone strikes and that they are extremely frustrated at the huge toll the air campaign is taking on their military capabilities.

    They carry out these attacks in the hope that Western populations are decadent and soft, that they would rather simply pull out than suffer any kind of interruption to their sinful, dissolute lifestyles. The reality is that they have misjudged us. And now they are finding this out, to their misfortune
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    Terrorists want to cause a backlash against Muslims in the West .. IMHO it is essential that we stand without hesitation behind the principle of non-discrimination
    Essential to what? If we don't discriminate then the social devastation continues. The capacity to discern, and act in relation to danger, is what sets us apart from other animals. IDGAF if it's what terrorists want. If terrorists want to see the EU split does that mean we vote to stay in? Be serious

    Any Muslim, just like any other citizen, is strictly responsible for his/her actions only
    True, and these actions include: A) Ignoring/tacitly accepting and/or condoning anti-social behaviour on the part of fellow members of their communities; B) Subscribing to a retrograde ideology, wholly inconsistent with our modern, progressive values and way of life

    Let us make no unnecessary gifts to the terrorists by presenting them with some (even vague) justification for their crimes
    So now you're arguing we shouldn't act to secure ourselves in case it serves as to legitimise the actions of murderous savages in the minds of their puerile audience? That is the definition of giving in to terrorism. No Sir. Yours is the path of weakness and ruin
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Essential to what? If we don't discriminate then the social devastation continues. The capacity to discern, etc
    sorry : no time now. But, will answer tomorrow

    good night
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    The capacity to discern, and act in relation to danger, is what sets us apart from other animals.
    Fascinating, tell me more.
    .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by knapdarloch)
    Fascinating, tell me more
    See conquest, persecution, and natural disasters throughout human history. Capacity to discriminate, and act accordingly so as to preserve life/way of life, has been shown time and again to be integral to survival et. prosperity. We're conditioned to do it, but have had it brainwashed out of us
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    See conquest and persecution throughout history. Capacity to discriminate, and act accordingly so as to preserve life/way of life, has been shown time and again to be integral to survival et. prosperity :yy:
    And this is unique to humans?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by knapdarloch)
    And this is unique to humans?
    Adaptive strategic thinking, in the context of nuanced sociological discernment, on the level employed by humans, is unique to our species, aye
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Adaptive strategic thinking, in the context of nuanced sociological discernment, on the level employed by humans, is unique to our species, aye
    Isn't that pretty much true for all thought on the level employed by humans though? Conquest, persecution and discrimination not so much.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    If you want to understand the ISIS mentality and strategy, I'd recommend this document called The Management of Savagery, written by a senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq (the ISIS predecessor organisation) member and theoretician.

    https://azelin.files.wordpress.com/2...-will-pass.pdf
    Thanks, I'll have a look.

    I will get back to the point of ISIS objectives and strategies shortly

    best
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    If we don't discriminate then the social devastation continues. The capacity to discern, and act in relation to danger, is what sets us apart from other animals. IDGAF if it's what terrorists want. If terrorists want to see the EU split does that mean we vote to stay in? Be serious
    if we discriminate against Muslims, we negate the basic value on which our societies are based : equality before the law

    how could we, then, accuse shariah of discriminating against non-Muslims if we practice religious discrimination ourselves ?

    Muslims are already accusing us (and, sometimes, not without reason) of practicing double standards : this discrimination would simply confirm them in their ideas

    But it would also corrupt the essence of our societies : if we introduce religious discrimination, why not racial, sexual, political etc discrimination ? in the end, we could end up being better off with shariah...

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    True, and these actions include: A) Ignoring/tacitly accepting and/or condoning anti-social behaviour on the part of fellow members of their communities;
    not acting to prevent a crime, when you were in a position to do so, is already punishable in most of our legal orders. No need for special legislation
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    B) Subscribing to a retrograde ideology, wholly inconsistent with our modern, progressive values and way of life
    this, on the contrary, is not a crime. No need to found a "thought police"

    However, if you preach, advocate, justify a crime, you can be punished (depending from the concrete situation)

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    So now you're arguing we shouldn't act to secure ourselves in case it serves as to legitimise the actions of murderous savages in the minds of their puerile audience? That is the definition of giving in to terrorism. No Sir. Yours is the path of weakness and ruin
    as I said, there is no point, in opposing those who would like to impose an unjust social order, to create an equivalent (or worse) social order

    best
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps we could draw up a list of possible aims for the terrorists, both as persons and as a political movement

    As individuals:

    - terrorists in our countries are, quite often, social misfits. Petty or even more serious criminals. Several former drug addicts or traffickers, failed burglars and robbers etc. to a certain extent, persons who seem to have given up on society (and, perhaps, society gave up on them). Several were radicalised in prison.
    Islam gives an aim in life, some rules, a social framework. However, most Muslims (including converts) don't turn terrorist. Perhaps the terrorists, because of their past, were already particularly fragile, and this may explain (but only to a certain extent) their destiny

    So, their personal objective is : to regain a role, an importance, even a "dignity". Simply, to finally exist (even if just in another life). The wide-eyed houris in paradise may be considered as "fringe benefits".

    as a movement:

    the final objective pursued by ISIS is very clear. To ensure Islam's victory in the final confrontation between good and evil (Armageddon, the Dajjal, Gog and Magog, all that). They see themselves as an active tool of Allah, in fulfilling the end-times prophecies. So, the Caliphate will have not only to re-conquer "Muslim lands" occupied by the Kuffar (Andalusia, Sicily, Southern France, the Balkans etc) but also to conquer Rome (as predicted by the ahadith) or even to re-conquer Constantinople (so as to put it under proper Islamic rule) etc etc

    with regard to short-term objectives:
    -to solidify their conquests in Syria and Iraq, connect them with Lybia, Mali, Nigeria etc etc
    -to export their activities to the West : not so much in order to occupy it (which, at the moment, is not possible), but to weaken it. Also, to persuade the Kuffar to leave them alone in Syria, Iraq, Mali etc, so that they can consolidate
    - also, in order to weaken the West, to cause social discord, fear, internal strife

    and this is where terror attacks prove particularly useful : the numerous Muslim communities in Western countries are, potentially, a huge asset for ISIS : if these communities could somehow be further radicalised, the West would be decisively weakened. It would be entirely absorbed with its internal troubles, and incapable of projecting any power

    for this reason, I claimed that Muslims communities in the West are, for the moment at least, the main objective of the terror attacks. ISIS know that Western Governments are unlikely to stop their intervention against them just in order to avoid terror attacks (at least for the moment). But this could change if Western Governments are faced with serious internal troubles caused by radicalised Muslim communities (and not just individuals) within their own States, to a much greater extent than what is happening now

    These are just a few reflections : please, feel free to comment

    Best



    (Original post by Boss_Rhythm)
    x
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    x
    (Original post by Legendary Quest)
    x
    (Original post by RivalPlayer)
    x
    (Original post by Al_94)
    x
    (Original post by whorace)
    x
    (Original post by Reformed)
    x
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    x
    (Original post by skunkboy)
    x
    (Original post by Multiculturalism)
    x
    (Original post by brent_)
    x
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    x
    (Original post by P357)
    x
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    x
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    x
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    x
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    x
    (Original post by knapdarloch)
    x
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    x
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    Perhaps we could draw up a list of possible aims for the terrorists, both as persons and as a political movement

    As individuals:

    - terrorists in our countries are, quite often, social misfits. Petty or even more serious criminals. Several former drug addicts or traffickers, failed burglars and robbers etc. to a certain extent, persons who seem to have given up on society (and, perhaps, society gave up on them). Several were radicalised in prison.
    Islam gives an aim in life, some rules, a social framework. However, most Muslims (including converts) don't turn terrorist. Perhaps the terrorists, because of their past, were already particularly fragile, and this may explain (but only to a certain extent) their destiny

    So, their personal objective is : to regain a role, an importance, even a "dignity". Simply, to finally exist (even if just in another life). The wide-eyed houris in paradise may be considered as "fringe benefits".

    as a movement:

    the final objective pursued by ISIS is very clear. To ensure Islam's victory in the final confrontation between good and evil (Armageddon, the Dajjal, Gog and Magog, all that). They see themselves as an active tool of Allah, in fulfilling the end-times prophecies. So, the Caliphate will have not only to re-conquer "Muslim lands" occupied by the Kuffar (Andalusia, Sicily, Southern France, the Balkans etc) but also to conquer Rome (as predicted by the ahadith) or even to re-conquer Constantinople (so as to put it under proper Islamic rule) etc etc

    with regard to short-term objectives:
    -to solidify their conquests in Syria and Iraq, connect them with Lybia, Mali, Nigeria etc etc
    -to export their activities to the West : not s much in order to occupy it (which, at the moment, is not possible), but to weaken it. Also, to persuade the Kuffar to leave them alone in Syria, Iraq, Mali etc, so that they can consolidate
    - also, in order to weaken the West, to cause social discord, fear, internal strife

    and this is where terror attacks prove particularly useful : the numerous Muslim communities in Western countries are, potentially, a huge asset for ISIS : if these communities could somehow be further radicalised, the West would be decisively weakened. It would be entirely absorbed with its internal troubles, and incapable of projecting any power

    for this reason, I claimed that Muslims communities in the West are, for the moment at least, the main objective of the terror attacks. ISIS know that Western Governments are unlikely to stop their intervention against them just in order to avoid terror attacks (at least for the moment). But this could change if Western Governments are faced with serious internal troubles caused by radicalised Muslim groups within their own States, to a much greater extent than what is happening now

    These are just a few reflections : please, feel free to comment

    Best
    An interesting read. I agree. ISIS takes advantage of vulnerable people or those who feel as though their life has no purpose or meaning. These people turn to religion so it can guide them. It's sad that some genuinely think that they are making their lives better by going down this extremist, radical road. Terrorism is what, to them, (I suppose) gives them a reason to live but more importantly, it makes them immune to the fear of death. They are not afraid of dying which, to me, is quite frightening. It is for this reason that so many of them will blow themselves up - they think that they will go to a better place. They won't. Why do you think we so rarely see their 'leaders' getting their hands dirty? -.-

    Then you have, as you mentioned, the long term goals. The 'wider' goals which go beyond the desires of the individuals. The increased radicalisation of Muslims in Western countries can be advantageous to them. It is easier for them to conduct attacks through people who are already in Western countries than it is to try and smuggle people in.

    How do you think we should tackle this issue?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    if we discriminate against Muslims, we negate the basic value on which our societies are based: equality before the law
    Not necessarily, depends on what basis on discriminates. There should be no discrimination at law, naturally, but policies are, and should still more, be targeted at certain areas in society (goes for all ‘at risk’ groups)

    this discrimination would simply confirm
    Unfortunately the Muslim community has breached the threshold at which the general public are terribly concerned about Muslim sentimentality. We, the people, demand that public servants (the establishment) do their job: serve and protect (constituents, as a whole)

    not acting to prevent a crime, when you were in a position to do so, is already punishable in most of our legal orders
    Not unless you actively conspire, assist, or pervert the course of justice, and very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt

    there is no point, in opposing those who would like to impose an unjust social order, to create an equivalent (or worse) social order
    I agree, which is why we must be intelligent and focused in the manner in which we actively discriminate, going forward

    (Original post by mariachi)
    ISIS know that Western Governments are unlikely to stop their intervention against them just in order to avoid terror attacks (at least for the moment). But this could change if Western Governments are faced with serious internal troubles caused by radicalised Muslim communities (and not just individuals) within their own States, to a much greater extent than what is happening now
    This is entirely possible, but unfortunately does not mean that we sit on our hands. We will not be cowed by terrorists/held to ransom by failed multiculturalism vs. the risk of further division/radicalisation. That is not the British way, in the face of fascism
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ISIS wants to make people in Europe afraid of Muslims, so that they alienate them, discriminate against them and cause further divisions within society. They want us to reject the refugees and make it seem like ISIS are the only ones defending these people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    ISIS wants to make people in Europe afraid of Muslims, so that they alienate them, discriminate against them and cause further divisions within society. They want us to reject the refugees and make it seem like ISIS are the only ones defending these people.
    Exactly!

    The best way to fight them is through unity, love and tolerance!

    We should force the media to report one good news story featuring Muslims as bad news stories featuring Muslims, so there isn't a bias against them. At the moment, western media is extremely biased against Muslims.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.