8 ms·

Traveling, communication, rights - everything is a degraded experience because of 9/11 and the governments have made it a habit. Obviously, Terrorists have won

by mrtksn 5y ago

Traveling, communication, rights - everything is a degraded experience because of 9/11 and the governments have made it a habit. Obviously, Terrorists have won. I don't know how aware the American public is, but Afghanistan is being overrun by Taliban as we speak, causing another refugee crisis in Turkey that could easily spill into the continental Europe and the UK. Just before the pandemic, the Turkish govt was blackmailing EU with letting the refugees go wherever they want, you can expect this to repeat as the Turkish public is overwhelmingly against(polls show %80 want the refugees go) hosting refugees as many as %10 of its population. EU almost went bust with only 1M, Turkey alone hosts 5M to 8M at the moment and the Afghans are arriving in thousands everyday. You can expect the governments to try to manage the situation by increasing their toolset. You can expect increased surveillance and decreased rights trend to continue. You can expect people with different aspirations to try to take advantage of it.

sharken 5y ago
EU should not allow migrants, it should be the Arab countries that should take them. Swedish cities are now plagued by massive problems due to the large influx of migrants. Another wave would destroy any hope of returning to normality in Sweden.
- gambiting 5y ago
  >>EU should not allow migrants, it should be the Arab countries that should take them. Even though it's the EU countries that have contributed to the plight of people in places like Afganistan and Syria? That's super convenient point of view - very nice way to wash your hands of any responsibility. And I'm saying this as an EU citizen - every country, including my own, that has participated in military excurisions in the middle east in the last 30 years has created this crisis for themselves. Saying that "oh, arab countries should take them" is beyond brutal, it's barbaric.
  - sharken 5y ago
    EU simply cannot absorb that many new migrants, that's the truth of it.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Apparently it can. Likely many more. And many more will come. Climate change and all that. If you're looking for static times then you should probably go and invent a time machine, you are headed straight for a period of upheaval, whether you like it or not.
  - randompwd 5y ago
    > Saying that "oh, arab countries should take them" is beyond brutal, it's barbaric. It's really not, so it's quite irrational to include that level of hyperbole to make your point emotionally loaded rather than factual. Afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan and Iran - both countries which are a helluva lot more culturally and religiously aligned with the majority of Afghans. > every country, including my own, that has participated in military excurisions in the middle east in the last 30 years has created this crisis for themselves This is nonsense. Religious fundamentalism & oppression of the populace has created this situation - both of which were aided & abetted by (you guessed it) Iran & Pakistan. Both countries are the biggest funders of the religious fundamentalists as well as offering state level support and safety for those leaders.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Turkey is not an Arab country and has more than an order of magnitude more refugees per capita(and 5x-8X in absolute terms) than EU. Why would Turkey bear the burden? Unless you find a way to make UAE etc. take the refugees to achieve the "Arabs take the migrants" goal, prepare for a dramatic increase in immigrants. If it happens that EU decides to fight it back, they will need all the surveillance power and get the rights removed to be able to enforce the restrictions on the movement of millions.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Spot on. GP is completely unrealistic in both worldview and proposed solutions, the EU will quite simply have to learn how to deal with this in a decent manner or it will cease to exist. The ultra-right fringe that uses every opportunity to protect their precious all-white genepool is in for a rough ride.
- earthnail 5y ago
  I live in Sweden. There are clear problems with gang violence. But non-immigrant Swedish people don’t encounter that at all in their live; crime mostly stays in the migrant communities. For a long time, crime in migrant communities wasn’t even reported of, because of a wrong idea of political correctness. Now you can see it in the news regularly, but I have yet to know a single Swedish person who is actually affected by any of this. Sweden surely has a very difficult immigration problem to tackle. But it’s worth noting that it’s the migrants who suffer from this, not the existing Swedish residents.
  - sharken 5y ago
    Glad that it works for you, but there many many news reports about the situation that sounds serious. Here is an example about shootings: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shootings-have-risen-in-sweden-despite-fall-across-europe-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shooting... The thing is you can't just get the good migrants and those that are bad voids the whole idea. At least until sufficient harsh laws can curb the problem.
    - earthnail 5y ago
      That article underlines my point. There is a significant rise in gang violence. But the people being shot are from the migrant communities, too. I think you may make the mistake of reading “Swedish person killed” and assuming that Swedish person was not an immigrant. Which isn’t to say it’s not a problem. It’s a huge problem. But it’s also important to keep in mind who’s actually suffering here.
gambiting 5y ago
>>Obviously, Terrorists have won. Speaking specifically of 9/11, no, not really. Bin Laden's stated goal was to commit such a crime on American soil that every average American will have to look up Al Queda, find out why they attacked America, and in the process discover all the attrocities comitted by American military and then finally and hopefully turn against their own government. Obviously, none of the above happened - American government used the attacks as a pretext to spend another trillion dollars on a pointless war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and then used them again at home to remove private liberties and introduce laws that would have had no chance otherwise. I'd argue the average American never bothered looking up why US was attacked beyond a "brown people hate freedom brrrrrrrrrr" nonsense. So no, terrorists didn't win. They failed at their stated goals miserably, but the world's population still lost as the noose of global surveilence is getting tighter and tighter every year.
- noduerme 5y ago
  So they'll win when Hollywood makes a movie that portrays them as noble savages? I'd say they certainly did a great deal of damage to our basic freedoms, not to mention sense of self. We were right to go into Afghanistan. And right to kill Bin Laden. We weren't right to use it as a pretext to degrade our own democracy.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  > American soil that every average American will have to look up Al Queda, find out why they attacked America, and in the process discover all the attrocities comitted by American military The way you put it, It looks like Al Queda had a noble goal. It's a shame that they did not win then. But I am more cynical than that, I don't believe in the idealistic goals of these organisations. In my opinion, all local warlords fight for power, glory and spreading their influence. Looking at the final situation, I would say that they achieved exactly that. Globalism is dead, the liberal culture of the west is significantly degraded thus cementing their influence in the region. Their power is now much less contested and they can rule happily thereafter.
  - noduerme 5y ago
ericmay 5y ago
We are pretty aware of what’s going on in Afghanistan. It’s been on the front page of every major news site for the last however many weeks. But I’m not sure why. Are they trying to make me think that leaving Afghanistan is bad for America? I think it’s good. Time to stop spending money there. Trump and Biden are right to leave. Surprising that even media outlets like the NYT seem to be writing doom and gloom about leaving. Biden just not be making globalists very happy with this.
- fsloth 5y ago
  The US is leaving the Afghan government without means to defend itself, after spending two decades there de facto in control. So it's a huge mess, where they've been in control more or less, but they've failed to make the transition into a local civilian state into a stable one. The offshoot of this is a wave of refugees that will engulf the neighboring countries, decreasing political stability in the Eurasian area. This is a clear message to all governments - "Washington can no longer be trusted, it's a game of each for his own sovereignty now on". I'm not saying US should be the guarantor of world piece, but this unmitigated disaster of immediate retreat is causing diminishing of political capital for Washington. It won't be considered as a dependable party from now on. The situation is even more horrific from PR point of view since US helped to empower Taliban in 1980's to retaliate against Soviet forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > So it's a huge mess, where they've been in control more or less, but they've failed to make the transition into a local civilian state into a stable one. I think Afghanistan has failed itself. U.S. put a trillion dollars and 20 years into it and it collapsed within a month (at best). At some point you admit failure and move on. I think the rest of your messaging is confusing. Washington can't be trusted, but we shouldn't be the guarantor of world peace? Should I stay or should I go? What do you want us to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? Where and when does it end?
    - 5y ago

by mrtksn 5y ago

sharken 5y ago

EU should not allow migrants, it should be the Arab countries that should take them. Swedish cities are now plagued by massive problems due to the large influx of migrants. Another wave would destroy any hope of returning to normality in Sweden.

gambiting 5y ago
>>EU should not allow migrants, it should be the Arab countries that should take them. Even though it's the EU countries that have contributed to the plight of people in places like Afganistan and Syria? That's super convenient point of view - very nice way to wash your hands of any responsibility. And I'm saying this as an EU citizen - every country, including my own, that has participated in military excurisions in the middle east in the last 30 years has created this crisis for themselves. Saying that "oh, arab countries should take them" is beyond brutal, it's barbaric.
- sharken 5y ago
  EU simply cannot absorb that many new migrants, that's the truth of it.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Apparently it can. Likely many more. And many more will come. Climate change and all that. If you're looking for static times then you should probably go and invent a time machine, you are headed straight for a period of upheaval, whether you like it or not.
- randompwd 5y ago
  > Saying that "oh, arab countries should take them" is beyond brutal, it's barbaric. It's really not, so it's quite irrational to include that level of hyperbole to make your point emotionally loaded rather than factual. Afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan and Iran - both countries which are a helluva lot more culturally and religiously aligned with the majority of Afghans. > every country, including my own, that has participated in military excurisions in the middle east in the last 30 years has created this crisis for themselves This is nonsense. Religious fundamentalism & oppression of the populace has created this situation - both of which were aided & abetted by (you guessed it) Iran & Pakistan. Both countries are the biggest funders of the religious fundamentalists as well as offering state level support and safety for those leaders.
mrtksn 5y ago
Turkey is not an Arab country and has more than an order of magnitude more refugees per capita(and 5x-8X in absolute terms) than EU. Why would Turkey bear the burden? Unless you find a way to make UAE etc. take the refugees to achieve the "Arabs take the migrants" goal, prepare for a dramatic increase in immigrants. If it happens that EU decides to fight it back, they will need all the surveillance power and get the rights removed to be able to enforce the restrictions on the movement of millions.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Spot on. GP is completely unrealistic in both worldview and proposed solutions, the EU will quite simply have to learn how to deal with this in a decent manner or it will cease to exist. The ultra-right fringe that uses every opportunity to protect their precious all-white genepool is in for a rough ride.
earthnail 5y ago
I live in Sweden. There are clear problems with gang violence. But non-immigrant Swedish people don’t encounter that at all in their live; crime mostly stays in the migrant communities. For a long time, crime in migrant communities wasn’t even reported of, because of a wrong idea of political correctness. Now you can see it in the news regularly, but I have yet to know a single Swedish person who is actually affected by any of this. Sweden surely has a very difficult immigration problem to tackle. But it’s worth noting that it’s the migrants who suffer from this, not the existing Swedish residents.
- sharken 5y ago
  Glad that it works for you, but there many many news reports about the situation that sounds serious. Here is an example about shootings: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shootings-have-risen-in-sweden-despite-fall-across-europe-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/fatal-shooting... The thing is you can't just get the good migrants and those that are bad voids the whole idea. At least until sufficient harsh laws can curb the problem.
  - earthnail 5y ago
    That article underlines my point. There is a significant rise in gang violence. But the people being shot are from the migrant communities, too. I think you may make the mistake of reading “Swedish person killed” and assuming that Swedish person was not an immigrant. Which isn’t to say it’s not a problem. It’s a huge problem. But it’s also important to keep in mind who’s actually suffering here.

gambiting 5y ago

>>Obviously, Terrorists have won. Speaking specifically of 9/11, no, not really. Bin Laden's stated goal was to commit such a crime on American soil that every average American will have to look up Al Queda, find out why they attacked America, and in the process discover all the attrocities comitted by American military and then finally and hopefully turn against their own government. Obviously, none of the above happened - American government used the attacks as a pretext to spend another trillion dollars on a pointless war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and then used them again at home to remove private liberties and introduce laws that would have had no chance otherwise. I'd argue the average American never bothered looking up why US was attacked beyond a "brown people hate freedom brrrrrrrrrr" nonsense. So no, terrorists didn't win. They failed at their stated goals miserably, but the world's population still lost as the noose of global surveilence is getting tighter and tighter every year.

noduerme 5y ago
So they'll win when Hollywood makes a movie that portrays them as noble savages? I'd say they certainly did a great deal of damage to our basic freedoms, not to mention sense of self. We were right to go into Afghanistan. And right to kill Bin Laden. We weren't right to use it as a pretext to degrade our own democracy.
mrtksn 5y ago
> American soil that every average American will have to look up Al Queda, find out why they attacked America, and in the process discover all the attrocities comitted by American military The way you put it, It looks like Al Queda had a noble goal. It's a shame that they did not win then. But I am more cynical than that, I don't believe in the idealistic goals of these organisations. In my opinion, all local warlords fight for power, glory and spreading their influence. Looking at the final situation, I would say that they achieved exactly that. Globalism is dead, the liberal culture of the west is significantly degraded thus cementing their influence in the region. Their power is now much less contested and they can rule happily thereafter.
- noduerme 5y ago

ericmay 5y ago

We are pretty aware of what’s going on in Afghanistan. It’s been on the front page of every major news site for the last however many weeks. But I’m not sure why. Are they trying to make me think that leaving Afghanistan is bad for America? I think it’s good. Time to stop spending money there. Trump and Biden are right to leave. Surprising that even media outlets like the NYT seem to be writing doom and gloom about leaving. Biden just not be making globalists very happy with this.

fsloth 5y ago
The US is leaving the Afghan government without means to defend itself, after spending two decades there de facto in control. So it's a huge mess, where they've been in control more or less, but they've failed to make the transition into a local civilian state into a stable one. The offshoot of this is a wave of refugees that will engulf the neighboring countries, decreasing political stability in the Eurasian area. This is a clear message to all governments - "Washington can no longer be trusted, it's a game of each for his own sovereignty now on". I'm not saying US should be the guarantor of world piece, but this unmitigated disaster of immediate retreat is causing diminishing of political capital for Washington. It won't be considered as a dependable party from now on. The situation is even more horrific from PR point of view since US helped to empower Taliban in 1980's to retaliate against Soviet forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
- ericmay 5y ago
  > So it's a huge mess, where they've been in control more or less, but they've failed to make the transition into a local civilian state into a stable one. I think Afghanistan has failed itself. U.S. put a trillion dollars and 20 years into it and it collapsed within a month (at best). At some point you admit failure and move on. I think the rest of your messaging is confusing. Washington can't be trusted, but we shouldn't be the guarantor of world peace? Should I stay or should I go? What do you want us to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? Where and when does it end?
  - 5y ago