Drowsy Emperor

I wonder how bad it must be that even the "critics" couldn't swallow it.

Its really no different from the Baader Meinhof group and other leftist terrorist organizations of the 70s. They were mostly middle class students who did not have a discernible reason to do the things they do, other than ideology. Every generation needs a flag to fight under and Islamic fundamentalism is this new flag. Unfortunately, the way these things pass (other than police and intelligence activity) is on their own. The idea loses its luster and all of a sudden its as though it never existed. Fundamentally the execution of terrorism is in the hands of the terrorists - its hard for anyone else to have input in the process. So to defeat them, it is necessary to win the battle without stepping on the battlefield - by crushing the idea that causes them to act as they do. How to crush an idea? Well, leftist terrorist organizations never recovered from the fall of the Soviet Union. Without the beacon of socialism as a guiding principle the idea lost its basis (and the organizations were left without outside support) and withered away. Now you would think that this means the Islamic State should be destroyed. But that is not the case, the IS is just the current manifestation of this ideology and is doomed to fail as a state project regardless. The point is - it is not the core. The core is Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries. They're the principal sponsors of the idea even though they're not the role model of the terrorists themselves (a strange combination but that's how it is). Most Islamic terrorists despise the Saudi monarchy. Yet the terrorists are fundamentally their ideological project. To invade and destroy the gulf countries wouldn't achieve the goal. They would be seen as just another victim of imperialism and it would encourage more terrorism. However cutting off Saudi tentacles abroad would go a long way: shutting down Wahhabi mosques, Islamic schools, expelling and imprisoning the worst members, banning local sharia patrols. That is what the EU can do and it can do so gradually and without pomp so as not to inspire resistance. That said, the US holds all the keys in this. They can exert the most influence on the Saudis and the gulf states and wring their necks if necessary. But as long as policymakers in Washington see KSA as a regional ally its not going to happen and funds will be channeled to organizations that ultimately produce terrorists. The US sees itself capable of using jihadis across the world as useful idiots - to topple regimes and such because repercussions of their acts rarely come back to the United States (although September 11 was a spectacular example of that). But this policy is destabilizing the EU and the EU leaders, if there is such a thing, should make it clear that KSA's, Kuwaiti, Qatar's etc. activities need to cease and that it is in the best interest of the continued US-EU alliance that they do. None of this is likely to happen, but that would probably be the best political solution.

The more you know the less you understand. True story

A better question is why USA Today sees fit to champion the cause of Muslim immigrants on the basis of an ideological assumptions rather than a clear cut analysis on what is actually to be gained by this policy. Supporting something by claiming that "it won't be a problem" doesn't sound very convincing. Isn't there a burden to prove that immigration from ME is somehow beneficial instead of automatically assuming it is?

I agree with you on that completely, but that is hardly how most people are approaching this. The explanations that ring of immediacy are much more useful in politics than a long term outcome discussion. So the right has little use for the soft approach when they can point to the smoking ruins of the Brussels airport and blow the terrorism trumpet - and the incumbent left can't allow itself to admit that this sort of immigration has to be curtailed because that would imply that its social policies have been a failure and that there is a serious structural problem in the society they're supposedly doing a good job of governing. The public debate is simply influenced by and reflects these interests.

Now I wonder how many wars were sparked over people's insecurities about how "weak" or "strong" their country will be seen as. Many, because its an important metric. How things appear in the international arena is just or even more important than how it actually is. I'm not convinced. Could you offer examples where the perception of the appearance of things by outside actors was the source of a conflict, instead of the projection of said perception by insider decision-makers? I took the "people's" as referring to decision makers, not the masses. So did I. "Outside actors", in this case, refers to decision-makers in other countries, ready to pounce on any sign of weakness. (The question's asked in good faith, by the way. I'm fairly sure your knowledge of world history is greater than mine, hence asking for examples makes sense.) The relation is that I take issue with your framing of the deal in terms of appearing "weak" or "strong", instead of "does it produce the result it was meant to produce in an efficient manner?". The latter sounds like a meaningful venue of criticism, the former reeks of nationalistic chest-beating. Not everything in politics is adequately resolved by efficiency. However, lets address it. I doubt that this deal will be efficient for two reasons: a. the Turks will not integrate the refugees (Turkey is not exactly a paradigm economy either) and the problem will persist b. because the problem persists they will eventually ask for more money, whether it is for reasons of corruption or because money will be needed to keep the camps and other measures going) Back to the first point. Even if it was effective, it implies that one of the largest economies and political alliances (for lack of a better term) in the world cannot, by itself, secure its borders - which is on the top of the list in the baggage that sovereignty comes with. So: c. This is a message to Erdogan and the like that there is an avenue that can be exploited to force the EU to act in a certain manner. Spurring migrations is one thing that muslim leaders can do - and they did, as witnessed by the large number of economic migrants that made their way from as far as Afghanistan to Sweden. And you better believe they're going to stimulate it it if the European response remains so flimsy. It rids them of their burgeoning underclass and allows for political concessions from the EU - a pure win-win scenario.

The primary problem of the refugees is not that terrorists will sneak in alongside them but rather that the many of them are likely to end up poor and potentially steeped in criminality which can only serve to exacerbate the problem of terrorism five, ten or twenty years down the line. Belgium, France, Germany, the UK - all have large Muslim ghettos where most of the terrorists grew up. What is to be gained by enlarging them? Are we presuming that the economic trends, which point to a gradual decline in living standards across the West are going to reverse and improve to the point where everyone in the ghetto (the lowest rung of the social pecking order with least access to resources) becomes a middle class citizen? This isn't even just a question of a cultural and religious clash, its basic mathematics. To claim that these people can have a positive economic impact is madness in the light of the continued existence of individuals similar to them, already living in Europe, unemployed or unemployable.

*Yawn*, next. If only someone could bury this franchise out of the reach of any corporate tomb raiders, we could all count ourselves blessed. Preferably next to Agent 47, Solid Snake and all the other festering corpses still held together by profit necromancy.

Now I wonder how many wars were sparked over people's insecurities about how "weak" or "strong" their country will be seen as. Many, because its an important metric. How things appear in the international arena is just or even more important than how it actually is. I'm not convinced. Could you offer examples where the perception of the appearance of things by outside actors was the source of a conflict, instead of the projection of said perception by insider decision-makers? I took the "people's" as referring to decision makers, not the masses. The masses aren't a source of anything without someone to direct them. Not sure how that relates to my initial comment. Paying millions to Erdogan to keep the refugees in Turkey instead of spending those same millions to secure the border is a move that a strong actor wouldn't make. Simply because: a. there is no guarantee that Erdogan will keep his word b. even if he does, why would you empower an Islamist hard liner that cooperated with ISIL by keeping the borders open for their volunteers. A part of the problem can hardly go to sleep and wake up as a solution? c. it implies that the EU can't control its borders and needs external actors to secure them

Now I wonder how many wars were sparked over people's insecurities about how "weak" or "strong" their country will be seen as. Many, because its an important metric. How things appear in the international arena is just or even more important than how it actually is.

Yes, a friend from Turkey explained to me that they don't allow the refugees to work there by not giving them the necessary paperwork. So they're eventually going to get rid of them by dumping them on someone else.

I see paying off the Turks to keep the masses off your hands as a sign of tremendous weakness. It smells more of desperation - throw money at the problem until it hopefully goes away, than a 'deal'. Besides he can use the refugees to blackmail the EU like that for years to come.

And I'm curious what constitutes a win scenario for the EU, since they aren't dialing down their immigration policies and the entire handling of the refugee crisis was bizarre from the start. Never have I seen nominally powerful nations with so little control over what happens at their borders. What are we hoping for here? To destroy ISIS? So what, a new ISIS will emerge somewhere else under some other name. Relocate and reeducate the entire ME? lol wut

Didn't even know that meme. Turns out its Serbian :D

No US leader is going to go back to isolationism. Its simply not feasible (and arguable whether it ever existed in the first place).

Me too. Save Israel, lol

Cruz is more Believer than Spartan. Cruz is more gelatinous cube than human Roll for initiative!

CEO Trump of Trump Industries, Sister Hillary of the Believers, Colonel Cruz of the Spartan Federation and Chairman Bernie of the Hive. Commence dystopia project! Brian Reynolds saw it coming back in 1999

Understatement of the year, dude doesn't have a single fan outside the USA. Drowsy likes him and he's from Serbia so that's false. Not that I wouldn't believe Trump is largely disliked outside burgerland, but "a single fan" is a bit overboard.[/pedant] Yes, but while accepting that there are Trump fans outside the US (some of whom probably aren't trolling either) the spirit of pedantry compels me to note that Boo's political quiz results indicated he's actually a BernieBro, not a TrumPet. The only reason I like Trump is because of his comments on foreign policy. And because he seems to annoy all the people I dislike even more than him. If I was American I'd detest the democrats because they have no notion of nationality and I'd despise the republicans because they have too much of it and in all the wrong places. As for Bernie, and the socialdemocrat policies he seems to resemble - I always though they lead to a humane society but the problem in Europe currently is that there isn't a single real economic socialist among them, that their cultural and immigration policies are failing and counter-productive and they're blaming the essentially powerless and excluded right (aka the "far right" in the media) for their own mistakes. That is a bitter pill to swallow.

So, basically, she will say anything. You have to love how utterly devoid these people are of any solid principles that aren't subject to change overnight. Come the election, no one will be able to say what any of the candidates stand for cos by that time they'll have slept with every ideology under the sun

Vampire is a Serbian word (the only one to enter the "world vocabulary"), although the legend has many variations and names in Eastern European and Balkan mythology. Incidentally, the local term for Werewolf ("vukodlak" - "wolf-fur") was used interchangeably with it in folk tales. One of the terms used, "upir" points to its origin - Slavic folk belief that people who were not burnt on a funeral pyre would be unable to depart from the world and would haunt it. This was probably an explanation for the "inexplicable" in local events and the phenomenon of a body bloated with gas looking ruddy and "alive". Everything else is layering on top of this (alleged) base legend. Since there are very few sources of Slavic mythology, if any, that's probably the best explanation there is.

Out of the blue, but, never would describe you as condescending in the past. I mean, considering the crowd of people here, you're not condescending. I want out of this universe LET ME OUT

Vampires originally weren't a sex metaphor. Since their introduction into pop culture from Dracula they've become a lot of different things, including a metaphor for sexuality.

And her best quality is that she's never seen a war she didn't like! Because shooing brown people and trying to slap Putin is never a bad policy!