Jump to content

The ISIS threat to Europe


Ads

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Awol said:

...

Which is worse, extending the state of emergency or potentially absorbing another attack, after which people stop burning Qurans and start burning mosques? 

You'll not be surprised that extending the state of emergency for that length of time is not, in my mind, a good thing or a sign of good things to come.

From what I've read, the state of emergency grants hugely increased powers to security services and police (suspension judicial oversight, no warrants, house arrest and so on); allows the prevention of protest, demonstration and gatherings; allows the impostion of curfews and travel bans; allows for control of the press (though they have apparently said that doesn't apply to this one - whether that may change for the extended version is another thing),  and gives more potential powers to government (some things which would need to be specifically invoked, I think - like transferring some crimes from civilian jurisdiction to military jurisdiction).

Your choice proposed above implies that the imposition of a state of emergency for three months would preclude the potential other attack*, that it is either declare a state of emergency for three months or potentially have another attack.

I can see the case for an immediate short term state of emergency (even though I'm still very uncomfortable with the idea) but a three month long one? That sounds like the ideal time to get people used to a new way of things.

As implied by an earlier post of mine (about borders), it's not the actions of the murderers on the streets of Paris on friday or any future potential murderous events carried out in the name of IS or any other group that will have the lasting, adverse effect upon western (mostly European) nations but the reactions of those nations themselves.

 

*Amended for clarity.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ermie123 said:

Never mind:P

I wonder what Paris will be like during Friday prayers when there are so many Muslims praying outside the mosques that they block the roads and the police just stand and watch,  I can remember being in London watching that preacher with the hook and his followers blocking the roads and our police just stood and watched.  The fact that he was shouting for non Muslims to be beheaded appeared to be irrelevant.

Captain Hook was out in the road because the mosque had banned him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

False question, false premise. it's not an either or. extending the emergency status cannot definitely stop another attack. Hollande knows that (as do you). It could be claimed to reduce the probability of another attack, but in truth is (very sadly) likely to merely delay the inevitable.

There may be good reasons to extend the emergency status period, but it's not a choice between the two things you posit - "extending the state of emergency or potentially absorbing another attack". It's more complicated and that kind of presenting stuff as B&W is fine on a message board but not fine when the people in charge use that kind of "example" to support why they decide to do something

Okay, but I thought I'd managed to included that nuance in part of the post that you didn't quote:

Quote

Given what's happened Hollande may have decided that they need to get a large number of those people off the streets while they reassess how to deal with problem,

particularly if they suspect more active cells are planning attacks

Completely agree that imposing a state of emergency gives no guarantees but it may reduce the chances of further attacks. As you know they may have intelligence leading them to conclude that extending the state of emergency is a necessary precaution, and if so they aren't going to be advertising that information in advance.  Hollande doesn't strike me as the instinctively Stalinist type who would choose to limit people's rights (however briefly) for the hell of it. 

Edited by blandy
quote sorting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omariqy said:

In other news US have agreed to sell $1.29bn worth of bombs to Saudi. Saudi have killed circa 1,000 innocent civilians in Yemen already. That's without counting how many of their weapons end up in other parts of the middle east.

US & Britain sell a huge amount of weapons to Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia quite openly support anti-Assad groups in the area with weapons etc.  One of those groups is the 'Army of Conquest', one of whose more prominent factions is the Nusra Front, which is the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda.  So by proxy and quite knowingly, the USA and GB are profiting from providing weapons to Al Qaeda.  What a tangled web we weave.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Hollande doesn't strike me as the instinctively Stalinist type who would choose to limit people's rights (however briefly) for the hell of it.

I don't know about that. Everyone in power everywhere is a potential Stalinist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You'll not be surprised that extending the state of emergency for that length of time is not, in my mind, a good thing or a sign of good things to come.

From what I've read, the state of emergency grants hugely increased powers to security services and police (suspension judicial oversight, no warrants, house arrest and so on); allows the prevention of protest, demonstration and gatherings; allows the impostion of curfews and travel bans; allows for control of the press (though they have apparently said that doesn't apply to this one - whether that may change for the extended version is another thing),  and gives more potential powers to government (some things which would need to be specifically invoked, I think - like transferring some crimes from civilian jurisdiction to military jurisdiction).

Your choice proposed above implies that the imposition of a state of emergency for three months would preclude the latter, that it is either declare a state of emergency for three months or potentially have another attack.

I can see the case for an immediate short term state of emergency (even though I'm still very uncomfortable with the idea) but a three month long one? That sounds like the ideal time to get people used to a new way of things.

As implied by an earlier post of mine (about borders), it's not the actions of the murderers on the streets of Paris on friday or any future potential murderous events carried out in the name of IS or any other group that will have the lasting, adverse effect upon western (mostly European) nations but the reactions of those nations themselves.

I understand the concerns, obviously. As per my reply above to Blandy they are genuinely facing an emergency at the moment and it may well last for some time, particularly as increased military action against ISIS is likely to further excite the existing 5th column within French society.

I think many people (no dig at you but much more broadly within the European publics) are yet to wake up to the nature of the threat now walking among us. In UK the authorities are now admitting to 450 ISIS fighters having returned from Syria/Iraq, the true number is likely to exceed that by a factor of 2 or 3. France has the same problem. Neither country really knows how to deal with it because the reality of the threat directly contradicts the Government's domestic spin and propaganda on the issue.

The emperor has no clothes, a fact brutally pointed out by 8 psychopaths in Paris two nights ago.    

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omariqy said:

In other news US have agreed to sell $1.29bn worth of bombs to Saudi. Saudi have killed circa 1,000 innocent civilians in Yemen already. That's without counting how many of their weapons end up in other parts of the middle east.

US & Britain sell a huge amount of weapons to Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia quite openly support anti-Assad groups in the area with weapons etc.  One of those groups is the 'Army of Conquest', one of whose more prominent factions is the Nusra Front, which is the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda.  So by proxy and quite knowingly, the USA and GB are profiting from providing weapons to Al Qaeda.  What a tangled web we weave.

I knew deals like this existed, I didn't realise to what extent, I imagine you can get a decent return spending £1bn. Why isn't this news too, why don't people discuss this? £££

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Awol said:

I understand the concerns, obviously.

I'm not sure the rest of your post says that you do (and that's not a dig but an observation).

As my last paragraph suggests, I consider the biggest danger to be the consequences of the reactions to the events not the events themselves.

We obviously differ on that and that's fair enough as we see the world differently.

What I have a real problem with, though, is the politicians and decision makers who claim to try and protect a 'way of life' and 'values' by virtually always putting these things to one side when they see fit, when it's expedient or in the name of 'security'.

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PongRiddims said:

I knew deals like this existed, I didn't realise to what extent, I imagine you can get a decent return spending £1bn. Why isn't this news too, why don't people discuss this? £££

They do, we are. Corbyn talked about it yesterday. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Okay, but I thought I'd managed to included that nuance in part of the post that you didn't quote:

Completely agree that imposing a state of emergency gives no guarantees but it may reduce the chances of further attacks......

Exactly - I think if they know it will definitely reduce the risk, then they can make the case and follow through with it. It was the rather stark "either/or" that I disagreed with. And as snowy said, unfortunately these things have a usual kind of mission creep to them and tend to end up having permanent or long term impacts on freedoms - to the extent that terrorists get a "win" because they've worsened our free societies, made them less free and more fearful - not just temporarily but permanently.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PongRiddims said:

I knew deals like this existed, I didn't realise to what extent, I imagine you can get a decent return spending £1bn. Why isn't this news too, why don't people discuss this? £££

The BBC accidentally revealed this in a recent article, and once they realised what the direct quotes had disclosed, they hurriedly re-wrote the quotes.  It was picked up by The Intercept.  The fact is it doesn't get talked about because most media actively won't cover it, and when they cover it by accident they cover it up.

It's fairly obvious why.  The US and UK on one hand are profiting hugely and then when those guns are pointed at their own people, they get to further restrict civil liberty.  So they are profiting and providing the weapons to the very people who create the environment that then justifies the likes of Theresa May mining your data, all while turning a blind eye to the direct atrocities being carried out by Saudi Arabia.  Talk about an elegant win-win.  Why on earth would they change that?

It's all terribly **** up isn't it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Exactly - I think if they know it will definitely reduce the risk, then they can make the case and follow through with it. It was the rather stark "either/or" that I disagreed with. And as snowy said, unfortunately these things have a usual kind of mission creep to them and tend to end up having permanent or long term impacts on freedoms - to the extent that terrorists get a "win" because they've worsened our free societies, made them less free and more fearful - not just temporarily but permanently.

Situations where domestic freedoms have been reduced during and then reinstated after wars are not uncommon in our history - and we are currently talking about a 90 day period of emergency powers in France. It's not, IMO, the thin end if the wedge.

Sadly for all of us war is in a sense reverting to type, by which I mean that which existed prior to the modern era of state on state conflict, with fixed laws observed (in the main) by all sides.

Ironically the end of the Cold War has seen the return of religious and ethnic conflict that had been largely dormant since the establishment of the Westphalian system at the end of the 17th Century. Now it is turbo charged by technology, the lethality of modern light weapons and the global connectivity of communications.

That's not to suggest state on state warfare is over - as the Russians have been keen to remind us - but the evidence suggests that sub-state irregular warfare fought for ideologies rather than conventional economic interests is back in vogue.

The proper response to that will take a lot of thought, but in the here and now governments have a responsibility to protect their populations from some highly motivated people who are not wearing uniforms, and whose goal is to cause carnage against civilians.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BOF said:

...The US and UK on one hand are profiting hugely and then when those guns are pointed at their own people, they get to further restrict civil liberty.  So they are profiting and providing the weapons to the very people who create the environment that then justifies the likes of Theresa May mining your data, all while turning a blind eye to the direct atrocities being carried out by Saudi Arabia.  Talk about an elegant win-win.  Why on earth would they change that?

That's both true, but also perhaps a bit of a simplification in the analysis. I believe it is the case that in essence the UK and US (and others) at a basic level "make money and keep people in jobs etc. from the arms deals with the Saudis. It's undeniable.

But I also believe that there are other reasons to work with them. So it's not solely about money and jobs.

What's a shame, to put it mildly, is that the BBC and others collude in concealing the truth and as per the example can lead people to have a false understanding of the world and the situation - on the one hand you just get - "they're our ally so we sell them arms", and on the other you get "we only sell them arms to get money and they're all bad"

Neither is wholly true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â