It's Europe's fault for not actively helping the smugglers that finance terror in Libya?



If a Mexican tries to enter the US through the desert but dies of dehydration on the way, is it the fault of the US for not setting up water-dispensers along the border?

then zoom in on Cameron and Sarkozy in Libya.
You can't destabilize an entire region and not expect refugees and migrants.
Still this is hardly the largest disaster at sea re human trafficking - don't forget that good old Atlantic slave trade. Europe and America became filthy rich off that one.
But of course Europe and America are the examples of human rights and dignity - NOT!

Africa with its neverending religious and ethnic wars? With witchcraft and superstition that slaughters albinos for magical rituals?

No, wait. The Middle-East with its neverending religious wars, its autocratic regimes and the institutionalized oppression of women? And maybe the slavery happening right now in Qatar?

How about China, where speaking out against the regime lands you in reeducation camps? The glorious People's Republic of China that pisses its pants at the thought of its citizens engaging in uncensored discourse.

I got it: Russia. Russia with its government-controlled media, with its cabal of KGB-buddies ruling everything and getting filthy-rich while doing it. With hysterical reactions to any criticisms as being orchestrated attacks by "the West". With collusions of state, church and gangs of armed thugs. With the occasional mysterious death of critics of the government.

Or how about South America? With Brazil's ghettos, with environmentalists and native tribes getting killed by loggers, with Caracas in Venezuela having one of the highest crime-rates on the planet...

Humans suck

You want witchcraft - try Salem
Have fun with your search of who is worse than whom
All I know is that what Europe did to Africa to enrich one race of folks was the worst genocide in history, but hey celebrate your superiority.

You: Europe sucks!
Me: There are others who suck more.
You: Everybody sucks!


1. If humans suck, then everybody sucks. If everybody sucks, then what's the point of complaining that a particular person sucks?
2. If Europe and the US suck, why are people trying to get there by all means?

and provided them with weapons to kill all who oppose neo-cons and neo-liberals (today's preferred version of imperialism). People are bombed into submission with Western weapons and you wonder why they flee to anywhere?

Their countries have been destroyed by Western interests. I don't have to present an argumen - I presented facts.

Please decide:
Does everybody suck (meaning that evil is an intentional choice) or do only some people suck (meaning that people are forced into evil)?




Please tell me more how Europe is responsible for the Libyan rebels killing each other.
Please tell me more how Europe is responsible for Assad bombing his own people.
Please tell me more how Europe is responsible for Sunnis and Shias killing each other for centuries.
Please tell me more how Europe is responsible for Boko Haram kidnapping girls in Nigeria.
Please tell me more how Europe is responsible for Morsi abusing his governmental powers until a second coup was staged?

The Germans made a choice when they decided to kill all the Jews.
They were lured into it by propaganda and their dictator but in the end it was their decision, not an external force.

Likewise all the examples I listed are about a choice.
These people aren't pressured into killing each other. They made the willing decision to kill each other.

in the Middle East and North Africa - spouting about human rights and dignity is a sick joke. Just look at how America treats her own poor and minorities.

1. In Europe and America: Does having the wrong religion put you into immediate, mortal danger?
2. In Europe and America: Does being in the wrong ethnicity put you into immediate, mortal danger?
3. In Europe and America: Does having the wrong gender automatically deprive you of human rights?
4. In Europe and America: Does having the wrong sexual orientation put you into immediate, mortal danger?

I'm still not getting it. America and Europe have definitely better human rights situations than other places.



I try to avoid generalizations, but your tone sounds awefully familiar: the Putin-fans, the Israel-fans and now you...
Your kind obviously can't think outside of comfortable good-vs-evil notions. The world is so much simpler when you can decide once and for all that RT is the only news-source you can trust or that Israel is the real victim no matter how many Palestinians die or that all the people hating and killing each other in Africa and the Middle-East are actually doing so because of something the colonial powers did long ago.


The world isn't black and white. It is grey.
The Ukraine-crisis happened because in Putin's outdated Cold War global strategy he interpreted the Ukraine-crisis as somebody's intentional act because he couldn't fathom that such a grave event could happen at random. And when he "counter"-attacks, he wonders that he gets painted as the aggressor.
Israel is still so wounded by the Holocaust and its wars of survival that it refuses to acknowledge the growing fascism and racism in its midst. And then it wonders why people complain about the treatment of Palestinians.
Assad, ISIS, Saudi-Arabia, Iran... They are their own masters. They decide which way they go. Certainly not the US or Europe.

- Or is it humour? That, and having their asses handed to them by America. Twice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6543325

the valid and specific points malaise has raised.

This is a complex and challenging situation, with war, conflict and racism leading to refugees fleeing for safety.

You write of nations or leaders being their own "masters." But the people fleeing had no say or mastery of the situation. They are simply trying to find somewhere they perceive as more stable or safe to go after being caught in the middle of conflict. And, as malaise notes, Europe helped push that conflict.


It's easy to find European reports of special forces from Uk and Europe who took part in the Libyan conflict. Should you add those to your list of sources that those you deride as "your kind" might cite?

But that would not fit your scenario, would it?

Here's just one small example from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16573516
Inside story of the UK's secret mission to beat Gaddafi
British efforts to help topple Colonel Gaddafi were not limited to air strikes. On the ground - and on the quiet - special forces soldiers were blending in with rebel fighters. This is the previously untold account of the crucial part they played.


Amnesty International has been reporting for years about the serious issue of refugees fleeing from Libya due to the conflict there.


From 2011, widely reported in European media, here's France 24's report on this:

http://www.france24.com/en/20110920-eu-shamefully-fails-aid-stranded-libyan-refugees-egypt-tunisia-saloum/

The widespread reports of abuses against black Africans hardly make Libya an agreeable place to return to, and yet, Amnesty International says “more and more refugees” are coming back to Libya in order to try to board Europe-bound boats.

The perils of the sea journey from North Africa to Europe are well documented, with Amnesty International estimating that more than 1,500 people have died attempting the trip since the start of the conflict in Libya.

For many hapless refugees stuck in a no-man’s land between national borders, it’s a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea – quite literally. Given that Europe is the ultimate destination of the perilous sea journey, human rights activists say Brussels must act – and quickly.

"These people stranded on Libya's borders are between a rock and a hard place," said Beger. "It is time for the EU to shoulder responsibility for this crisis."



Amnesty International has continued reporting on this issue over the years, even doing an in-depth study of the ongoing problem. You can find much more at their site, if you would want to.


Adding to the complexity is that the closer ports of Greece and Italy, while more stable than war-torn areas, have economic stability issues themselves, made worse by years of austerity measures forced on them that have made the situation worse rather than better there. And again, some of the same countries that helped foment the conflict are those that have pushed austerity measures.

I am certain malaise would be familiar with the above and am glad to join her as being "your kind" any day of the week.

I've learned so much from you over the years and am happy you are here still contributing.

- Its a waste of time to even try. They think that they're privileged and justified in living off the resources of everyone else's country because they're morally, and otherwise superior in all things that matter.

You know, someone who acknowledges only one slice of history, theirs....

But I agree. It gets absurd to blame the US for the things you list, or Europe.

And if we are so bad, why come to us then? Good point.

Fucked over the whole World and must fix all problems-

Very simple and to the point correct? No nuance at all?

Well that's very unlikely....

"Current estimates are that about 12 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

Just off the top of my head:
About 60 million people died in WWII.

About 16 million people died in WWI.

Genghis Khan:
He was responsible for the deaths of as many as 40 million people.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-genghis-khan

3 to 7 million died in the Holodomor in the Ukraine caused by the government of Joseph Stalin.

Up to 3 million died in Cambodia due to the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot.

Up to 3 million died in the Nigerian civil war of '67-'70, all caused by fighting between 3 ethnic groups, the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo.

and this policy has worked for them. Over a few years the boatloads eventually stopped.

The EU needs to take a firm stand against illegal immigration by force. It's not fair to anyone, the immigrants, let alone the citizens & governments of the countries they're trying to force their way into.

then on top of that deny them entry elsewhere?

Lovely strategy, although a bit genocidal if you ask me.

“We fear the arrival of immigrants that we have drawn here with the wealth we stole from them.” - Patrick Boyle

The truth is painful

Are you assuming all African countries are?

Also each person is given a hearing to determine if they should get asylum. I assume you think that's a travesty and there should be no need for such a hearing; simply grant them asylum. Because our country wrecked yours.

What countries has Italy wrecked?

I don't see them stepping up to let any refugees in...

And I don't recall "the US, the EU, and NATO" single-handedly wrecking Eritrea, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast and Ethiopia...

and what church and state did to them must never be forgiven or forgotten

20 years from now, Europe will be awash in the human tide of the dispossessed. European governments are not going to become more hospitable, and the death toll is not going to decline.

European population will probably be stable.

2.5 billion african folks. Will Rev. Malthus be correct? Or will there by a Dr.Borlaug to save humanity again?

And if there is a widespread famine, what of migration then?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/europe/2351271-migrants-crossing-mediterranean-libya-n-africa.html

When California runs out of water, will the red state governors set up the National Guard on their borders turning back all the black and brown? Will they roll like they did in Ferguson, Mo. with full contempt for fellow Americans? Will they shoot?

Imagine a reverse dust bowl.

Will we be so different than an overpopulated Europe with their own national identities to keep?

Think of a flooded Florida.

Hell, Texas didn't want the Katrina refugees. Imagine a thousand times that or more.

We let people die in the desert. Beats drowning in an instant, eh?

A bit much. Why blame the continent to which refugees are going? Are they supposed to provide transportation?

and have an obligation to protect their lives. So does the U.S. and 130 countries that signed that treaty.

Besides, along with the U.S., the Europeans (France, in particular) had a major role in the regime change operations that generated refugees. Yes, morally and legally, they have an obligation to take in those fleeing the wars NATO helped create.

in the country of origin.

So you are blaming Europe for not taking more refugees at the point of origin and providing better boats?

By your calculation does the US have the moral duty to ship Iraqis here? And Chileans, etc.? Is there a statute of limitations on our interference? Iran was 50 years ago or more now, but we still have a duty to fly Iranians here at our expense?

You are thinking of a separate refugee processing system that normally operates in third-countries of first refuge. Receiving countries are supposed to grant asylum so long as there is "a well-founded fear of persecution."

1. Do you really think that Europe is responsible for people that aren't yet in Europe?

2. What could Europe have done to prevent those deaths that wouldn't have encouraged more illegal immigration and that wouldn't have aided criminal smugglers?

1) Treaty signatories may not block access to asylum. Under the UN Treaty, anyone who arrives at your border is supposed to be given safe harbor until an asylum determination is made.
2) Under maritime law, the passengers and crew aboard any vessel in distress is supposed to be rescued.
3) The logical approach to minimizing refugee flows is to not destabilize countries and states and to set up orderly refugee admission programs in third-countries. Refugees aren't illegal immigrants, and shouldn't be treated as such.

The refugees were not there yet.

The rescue was made when the vessel became distressed.

What European countries have destabilized what other countries? Where in the UN treaty is the Destabilization Clause?

That group of survivors must be accorded an asylum process consistent with the Refugee Convention norms.

If you are unaware that the US, France (and to a lesser extent, the UK), have been involved in destabilizing Iraq, Libya and Syria, and that aggressive wars violate the UN Charter, along with customary international law and several conventions against war crimes, then I'm not sure that you're really interested in this subject. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

So France should take all these refugees?

Any Syrian should be able to go live in France, right?

If a Syrian makes it to France or its territory and seeks asylum, he should be accorded a status determination process consistent with the Convention. Many Convention signatories, such as France, also have an orderly Refugee Admission process that accepts applications from refugees outside of France. Signatories are also obligated to support refugees and displaced persons protected by UNHCR. That is the extent of France's obligation under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951) as modified by the 1967 Protocols.

That is different from the UN Charter and customary international law that make "aggressive war" a war crime.

If French military intelligence operators foment an armed uprising in Libya, which resulted in regime change and civil war, that is a violation of the prohibition against aggressive war in the UN Charter and customary international law unless France can show that has been authorized by the UN Security Council to do so. Both the US and France claim that the aerial bombardment they carried out against regime forces was consistent with UN authorizations. However, that claim does not apply to the covert destabilization that occurred and the arming of factions within the opposition. Organization of Libyan nationals to fight against the Syrian government is a further act of aggression which is not authorized by the UN. Acts of Aggression and Aggressive War amounting to Crimes Against Peace by states are defined as follows:

If, as a result of conditions of civil conflict created, persecuted groups and individuals flee abroad from Libya and Syria in boats, these persons should be treated as Convention Refugees to which any signatory country must extend an asylum process upon arrival and cannot turn them around and send them back to the country of persecution.

Did something in contravention of its requirements?

Any Resolution would be symbolic, anyway, since the US or France would veto anything like that which reached the Security Council.

of refugees weekly, for one thing. And boats so overcrowded that they tip over when the refugees move back and forth? They were never going to make it. It's sadder than hell but I don't see how one crowded area can keep accepting refugees from another crowded area, especially when acceptance means that more and more boats are going to be arriving.

The refugees who board these ships pay a lot of money for passage, although they are fooled into believing that they will actually make it across alive. (The really poor walk to Turkey or another country that will take them in. )

Then, the passengers who arrive in Italy pay even more money to move into northern European countries where the benefits are greater. Italy is doing its part in helping to save these people, but the citizens of Italy also know that most are not going to stay in Italy.

It's a mess. BBC4 radio just did a very informative segment on this topic. These people are desperate, but taking in millions of refugees in a short period of time has a very destabilizing effect on any society.

1. When they land in Italy?
2. When they enter Italy's territorial waters?
3. When they leave Libya's territorial waters (i.e. they are on the "high seas&quot ?
4. When they leave the dock in Libya?
5. When they express a desire to got to Italy?

The UN Treaty on the Status of Refugees creates two separate processes. Signatory states (most in the world, including EU and US) are obligated to process refugees abroad (usually in third-countries) or if those fleeing persecution arrive on their territory (including territorial waters) states must have an asylum process set up and not return asylum applicants until an individual "well-founded fear" determination has been made.

Italy be responsible for them? Why should any other nation, for that matter?

Over nearly 10 years most of Australia's asylum seekers came from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China, and Vietnam and the final wave arriving from Sri Lanka and Myanmar. The overall cost of their operations were over 1 billion bucks.

The people that were taken into custody had to be kept off shore in facilities that were often inadequate and just not ready for so many people. Of the people who declared themselves to be asylum seekers in one report, some 80% were resettled in Australia, NZ and a couple other countries, and more than 30% were deemed not eligible for refugee status and returned to their countries of origin.

There should clearly be a UN & EU policy established, but it seems the best solution is to put the skippers and boats out of business and forcing the boats to turn back whenever possible. These people are being exploited by criminals and thugs, certainly not by anyone attempting to undertake humanitarian efforts, so put the crooks out of business.

is concerned. Australia diverts arriving refugees to small islands for processing. I was not aware that the approval rate for refugee status cases is as high as you claim it is. I know that when it was set up a decade or so ago, Australia's system was roundly criticized by human rights groups and by UNHCR, and the approval rate was nil at that time.

for quite some time.

but shhhhh we can't let that cat out of the bag can we?

...Budget

Of more arabs

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Convenient geographic accessibility and cheap transportation have allowed large numbers of migrants from the Near and Middle East and Africa to inundate the European continent, bringing with them all sorts of problems including terrorism. I think European countries have tried to accomodate them as best they can but the strains on infrastructure and social services must be overwhelming especially at a time when their economies are fairly anemic. It's not surprising that far-right nationalists are ascendant in Euro politics.

Do the Europeans or anybody else really owe anything to large numbers of migrants from anywhere who perhaps foolishly choose to risk their lives on the high seas? Why are they Europe's problem and not China's or Australia's? Just because their destination was Europe?

By all means the humane thing to do is for somebody to pull them out of the water but what to do after that?

The U.S. is fortunate to have a large ocean barrier on either side and a highly developed country to the north limiting access.

...when the ancestors of these very Europeans crammed the ancestors of these same people into boats in order to take them away and enslave them, and then later came back to plunder their countries.

Now, today (like the US itself), the resources have been taken, the gold, the silver, the jewels, the ancient artifacts and history of those peoples, whom they are now rejecting and ignoring while they drown, now lie in museums and vaults (both personal and public), as well as adorning the necks and the bejeweled fingers and wrists of the evening gloves of the 1%.

- But the Karmic Chickens are now coming home to roost. Those past atrocities will not go unanswered. And if these offspring end up repeating what their ancestors did, their Karmic bill will be exponentially greater when they finally are forced to admit the truth of their perfidy.

K&R

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017260453

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017260454

[center]From The: ''How To Commit Genocide'' Manual


[/center]

but do they learn?

you realize, but I appreciate you posting the truth, ugly as it is.

for the same reason the US lets people crossing the border from Mexico die in the desert. In point of fact what the US does is arguably worse; Border Patrol agents have been filmed destroying water jugs left for migrants, removing bags of blankets and other provisions, etc (most of the deaths are from hypothermia, dehydration, heatstroke, and other exposure).

And a to you for recognizing why then numbers jumped so sharply since Q4 last year.