Mass sexual assaults in Cologne

[slimmouse]

Oh , For sure. Isnt any fucking conclusion bias?

What do you base your own bias on?

[Occult Means Hidden]

Maybe. I think not necessarily though. You can have objective mathematical conclusions. Sorry I'm not grooving with your clique's vibes, Slim.

[slimmouse]

Maybe. I think not necessarily though. You can have objective mathematical conclusions. Sorry I'm not grooving with your clique's vibes, Slim.

So, I guess what youre saying is that youre own subjective conclusions are more solid than those of SLAD, or my own.

Good luck with that

I mean, that is what youre saying isnt it?

[Occult Means Hidden]

Actually all what I'm doing is challenging the validity and logic of SLAD's conclusions. No one should take that personal. In this thread I say a lot of things like, "I'm open to", or "maybe". and such. Declarative statements like "IMF = Syrian migration as a weapon" leaves no room for a "maybe", now does it? Again, challenge my biases please. I'm interested in truth. Not speculation treated as truth. That's religion.

[seemslikeadream]

MF = Syrian migration as a weapon"

could you please point to where I said that?.....speaking of truth

[slimmouse]

Actually all what I'm doing is challenging the validity and logic of SLAD's conclusions. No one should take that personal. In this thread I say a lot of things like, "I'm open to", or "maybe". and such. Declarative statements like "IMF = Syrian migration as a weapon" leaves no room for a "maybe", now does it? Again, challenge my biases please. I'm interested in truth. Not speculation treated as truth. That's religion.

Indeed you are. And indeed youre doing it from your own subjective experience. And thats not religion, thats spirituality.

Since humans share almost all common values, what we dont need is religion. What we need is spirituality.

[Occult Means Hidden]

MF = Syrian migration as a weapon"

could you please point to where I said that?.....speaking of truth

You're right. You didn't say this. I'm summarizing your thesis, which appears to be that the IMF is using Syrian migration as a weapon. Do I really need to clarify this?

[seemslikeadream]

not my thesis ...I didn't make it up ...that's what my links provide....this is not some shit some anonymous person posted on the net

Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion


Broader Implications and Further Applications
This proposed theory and analysis offered in this article have clear policy implications in today’s immigration anxiety-ridden environment. Long before September 11 galvanized a new preoccupation with border security, issues surrounding refugees and illegal migrants had transmuted in many countries from a matter of low politics to high politics, involving a shift in the definition of national security threats and in the practice of security policy. And while the potential significance of this kind of coercion has been underappreciated by many migration scholars, the same cannot necessarily be said for potential target states.[136] For example, U.S. National Intelligence Estimates have included warnings of U.S. vulnerability to this kind of coercion and have recommended taking steps to guard against future predation.[137] Similarly, in 2007 Australia shut down the Pacific Solution in no small part to guard itself against future coercive attempts by the tiny island of Nauru. Likewise, in 2003 alone the European Union committed to spending 400 million euros to increase border security, at least in part to deter future migration-driven coercion; and in 2006, China constructed a fence along part of its border with North Korea to impede cross-border movements.[138] Some states have even conducted military exercises designed to leave them better prepared to respond to potential massive influxes across their borders.[139]
Moreover, the related political and national security implications extend far beyond the politically charged realms of immigration, asylum, and border security policy. Indeed, it has been suggested that the non-spontaneous “flood of refugees from East to West Germany in 1989 . . . helped to bring down the Berlin Wall, expedited the unification of the two German states, and generated the most significant transformation in international relations since World War II.”[140] Migration and refugee flows have likewise been identified as one of the most significant causes of armed conflict in the post-Cold War period.[141] Since 2004 alone, we have witnessed the consequences of coercive engineered migration in arenas as significant and diverse as economic sanctions and arms embargoes (the EU lifted the last remaining sanctions against Libya in exchange for assistance in staunching the flow of North Africans into western Europe);[142] ethnic conflict, military intervention, and interstate war (between Sudan and Chad, over refugees from Darfur); and nuclear proliferation and regime change (in that China’s fears of a mass influx of North Koreans have tempered its posture toward, and dealings with, both North Korea and the United States over the North Korean nuclear program).[143]
Vol. 9 (1) Spring/Summer 2010
145 Strategic Insights
At the same time, although the analysis herein focused specifically on migration, the theory it develops regarding the leverage weak actors can exercise through skillful exploitation of political heterogeneity and normative inconsistencies (the instrumental use of norms) is more broadly generalizable. Indeed, the theory may be applied to any issue area in which the rhetorical pronouncements and/or juridical and normative commitments of actors and governments come into conflict with their observed behavior.[144] Additional potential applications include humanitarian intervention; wartime rules of engagement; and policies regarding sanctions, embargoes, and other non-lethal instruments of persuasion. Furthermore, states and their leaderships are also not the only targets of hypocrisy-based political pressure. Norms, just like human beings, can be wielded as coercive weapons, and they can be wielded in the service of beneficent and altruistic goals, as well as self-serving and immoral ones. While further research is necessary to better understand how, where, and how successfully this unconventional method of influence can be employed outside the migration realm, the significance of this kind of norms- driven, two-level coercion should be neither underestimated nor ignored.

Europe Must Deal With the Breeding of Terrorism Within Its Borders

Kelly M. Greenhill
Kelly M. Greenhill is an associate professor of international relations and security studies at Tufts University and a research fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center. She is the author of "Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion and Foreign Policy."

UPDATED NOVEMBER 16, 2015, 3:20 AM

In light of the revelation that at least one of those responsible for the attacks in Paris may have entered Europe with a group of asylum seekers, it will be tempting for European leaders to heed calls from far right parties and fearful citizens to abandon existing laws and policies that afford protection to those fleeing violence and persecution.

Unfortunately, while heeding such calls may be politically appealing, doing so won’t stop terrorism within Europe. Indeed, barring the door to refugees would be akin to sticking a finger in a leaking dike while water threatens to pour over the top.

Restricting migration would do nothing to address the cause of such attacks: radicalization of the marginalized within the E.U., many of them citizens.
For one thing, tightening migration policies would do nothing to address the fundamental underlying causes of terrorist attacks: namely, the appeal of radicalization to a small, but committed, segment of the marginalized and disaffected already living within the European Union, many of whom are citizens. While tragically misguided, participation in such attacks can give psychologically disenfranchised individuals a sense of power and belonging. However effective and proactive law enforcement and counterterrorism units may be, until the sources of alienation and discontent are vanquished, more homegrown terrorists are likely to emerge.

Unfortunately, many European Union countries have reduced expenditures designed to combat security threats, even while they seem to be steadily increasing. Until security and defense expenditures match demands, such dangers can be expected to grow not abate.

Moreover, abandoning normative and juridical commitments to displaced people will likewise do nothing to address the problem of the many thousands of E.U. nationals who have traveled to the Middle East to serve as foreign fighters with ISIS, Al Qaeda or other radical groups. Some of these individuals become disillusioned after arriving in the field — their romanticized notions of life as a jihadi dispelled — but others become true believers. Such individuals can pose significant security threats to the countries of which they are citizens upon their return home.

All this being said, E.U. member states may have compelling political, economic and/or social reasons for revisiting their immigration and asylum policies. The disjointed, uneven and inequitable distribution of responsibility for caring for the currently displaced provides compelling evidence in support of the need for reform and a rethinking of current approaches toward burden-sharing, off-shoring and resettlement. But to think that abandoning traditional liberal values and policies toward the world’s most vulnerable is going to halt terrorist attacks or defeat ISIS is simply wishful thinking.

Robust and comprehensive responses to ISIS and other extremist groups are required, but the targets should be violent nonstate actors and their sponsors not those fleeing the wrath of these loathsome monsters.

[backtoiam]

occult means hidden wrote:
If you owe somebody, they own you. If you don't, then they don't have leverage over you. Turkey doesn't owe the IMF so there is less room to do its bidding.

Having your country bombed into the stone age by IMF controlled NATO air force, or being slowly economically strangled to death, is a fairly good incentive to cooperate.

[Wombaticus Rex]

IMF controlled NATO air force

When did our institutional analysis shit the bed like this?

This is like saying the FBI controls the CIA; it is not a coherent statement.

How does the IMF control NATO's air command? Is cooperation and collaboration in Kosovo really proof of control? Why would NATO subject itself to the bureaucratic overhead of covertly embedding all of their most senior commanders into an economics think tank in Washington, DC? Does a doctorate in Keynesian Econometrics qualify you to plan and coordinate air strikes? Is the US State Dept also controlled by the IMF? If Turkey has paid off their debts to the IMF and increased their voting power, does that mean the IMF controls them, or does that mean they have more control over the IMF? If House Republicans blocked the ratification of the IMF's new quota system for years, does that mean they're more powerful than NATO?

So many questions. I could go on for days.

[backtoiam]

Ok "controlled" was a bad word. Can I use "influenced?"

[Occult Means Hidden]

SLAD, again your sources are impeccable and interesting. They cannot be challenged. The thesis can be as it applies here, however. Your thesis or your advocation of someone else's thesis, it does not matter.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Ok "controlled" was a bad word. Can I use "influenced?"

I don't know -- can you? I mean, I know you can type it out since I'm replying to it, but can you make that case?

What was the influence? Was there a Country Report that called for a bombing campaign to fix exchange rate fluctuations? Was there a Staff Discussion Note that said the best way to fix structural unemployment was laying waste to a few major cities? Did Lagarde give a speech outlining what kind of munitions would be used, should IMF guidance get ignored by the local finance ministry?

These institutions get used -- influenced -- by a cabal of uneasy alliances between transnational capital, a fairly select crew of unelected shadow leaders which one recent estimate put at approximately 62 people. The primary role of all this alphabet soup is to insulate the levers of power with generous heapings of plausible deniability. This is achieved through compartmentalization. All of these institutions are autonomous, generally to the precise extent they need to be, in order to keep up appearances.

I really think placing the power/control/influence as seated somehow within these institutions is a mistake. If it were that straightforward, it never would have been necessary to sabotage DSK -- and indeed, he never would have had the chance to become a problem in the first place.

[seemslikeadream]

SLAD, again your sources are impeccable and interesting. They cannot be challenged. The thesis can be as it applies here, however. Your thesis or your advocation of someone else's thesis, it does not matter.

Again the ONLY reason I posted in this thread is because YOU inserted my name into this thread...I had NO intention of posting in this thread until you did that...so it is on your back that I posted this thesis here at all.....and you can jump to all the conclusions you want and put all the words you want into my mouth but it does not change the truth as to what I posted and what I did NOT post...YOU are the one that invited me into this thread and now you complain question why I post about it


and there is your precious dialog ...I'm done

[backtoiam]

These institutions get used -- influenced -- by a cabal of uneasy alliances between transnational capital, a fairly select crew of unelected shadow leaders which one recent estimate put at approximately 62 people. The primary role of all this alphabet soup is to insulate the levers of power with generous heapings of plausible deniability.

I sort of thought that was assumed...