What an horrific piece of news. That 700 or so people would feel the need to board a 20 metre boat, to seek relief, is a really sad occurrence. 
Libya Migrant Boat Sinking.
- Thread starter Cyclonic
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Cyc, this incident is only one of an ongoing situation around the Mediterranean Sea. The body count so far this year is over 1,700 in a number of sinkings.
People traffickers extort vast sums of money from desperate refugees and economic migrants to offer them passage on unseaworthy vessels destined for the European Union.
The United Nations has complained about the way that the EU states have stopped routinely patrolling to find these ships but instead just pick up the few survivors when they go down. As usual they offer no solution other than letting them all in.
The only solution to this situation is one that will be totally unpalatable to the Western powers.
There is no realistic way that the people traffickers can be put out of business as they are too elusive. Stopping the ships from putting to sea also looks unworkable as they leave from a number of sovereign North African countries.
A simple breakdown of where the travellers originate demonstrates the problem, mostly created by the Western powers:
The solution is quite simple: carpet bomb Islamic State and its acolytes out of existence and accept that there will be collateral damage in the short term.
People traffickers extort vast sums of money from desperate refugees and economic migrants to offer them passage on unseaworthy vessels destined for the European Union.
The United Nations has complained about the way that the EU states have stopped routinely patrolling to find these ships but instead just pick up the few survivors when they go down. As usual they offer no solution other than letting them all in.
The only solution to this situation is one that will be totally unpalatable to the Western powers.
There is no realistic way that the people traffickers can be put out of business as they are too elusive. Stopping the ships from putting to sea also looks unworkable as they leave from a number of sovereign North African countries.
A simple breakdown of where the travellers originate demonstrates the problem, mostly created by the Western powers:
Syrian refugees – fleeing civil war and Islamic State fundamentalism
Iraqi refugees – fleeing civil war and Islamic State fundamentalism
Libyan refugees – fleeing civil war
Somali, Eritrean and sub-Saharan Africa refugees and economic migrants – fleeing civil war and various Islamic fundamentalist regimes
Iraqi refugees – fleeing civil war and Islamic State fundamentalism
Libyan refugees – fleeing civil war
Somali, Eritrean and sub-Saharan Africa refugees and economic migrants – fleeing civil war and various Islamic fundamentalist regimes
The solution is quite simple: carpet bomb Islamic State and its acolytes out of existence and accept that there will be collateral damage in the short term.
"The solution is quite simple: carpet bomb Islamic State and its acolytes out of existence and accept that there will be collateral damage in the short term."
I don't think so mate.
I don't think so mate.
Does tend to put things in perspective. We don't know we're born.
Still, lets all talk tough on immigration, eh? While children's bodies are being pulled out of the sea.
Still, lets all talk tough on immigration, eh? While children's bodies are being pulled out of the sea.
yes mate, the little englanders are small minded, petty bourgois was the term for them many years ago -still apt -who can help which fanny you drop out of ?
Clearly those of us living in the Old World are missing the really simple solution to this problem that somebody from Australia is just begging to tell us. So go ahead...
Islamic State is a terrorist organisation funded by criminal extortion in the lands that they occupy plus money from a few deluded wealthy sponsors in the Gulf States. Their friends in North Africa just have different names.
I do not imagine that many young Australian girls are heading for Turkey to sneak across the border into Syria to become Jihadi brides. The stupid few leaving European shores to sign up are oblivious to the fact that they can look forward to a life of servitude whilst they breed the next generation of Jihadists rather than their safe, possibly mundane, suburban life back home.
The people traffickers love Europe’s “open borders” policy. It means they can offer to ship people from Africa and the Middle East into any Mediterranean country, from where they can (theoretically) freely go wherever they want. It is a tempting offer for the displaced and impoverished.
Unfortunately there is no BBC News broadcast in Eritrea, Somalia, Syria or Iraq so the poor devils do not know that many of their number are paying to drown their women, children and themselves; so they continue to come.
QM, it seems like it's the bloke from the old world who's trying to tells us what to do. All I've done is reply to a silly option you offered up. I'm sure that if you asked nicely, the terrorists will place themselves well away from all civilians so they can be wiped out. I'm sorry mate, but that was one stupid piece of advice. If you don't lift your game, you'll run the risk of losing any credibility you still have left.
Maybe we should just send the message "tough **** mate - we're doing fine and you lot just have to live with the fact that you have nothing. Stop complaining and stop trying to come over here".
We could, of course, work hard to change the way that aid is delivered so it doesn't go into the wrong pockets and brings about real change and improvement to their way of life but no - let's just bomb them so that a few of them don't turn into terrorists and blow us all up or police the Mediteranean to stop them even trying to get over here..
I promised Ron some time ago that I wouldn't be abusive on here so I'm out of this thread. Some people really make me sick.
We could, of course, work hard to change the way that aid is delivered so it doesn't go into the wrong pockets and brings about real change and improvement to their way of life but no - let's just bomb them so that a few of them don't turn into terrorists and blow us all up or police the Mediteranean to stop them even trying to get over here..
I promised Ron some time ago that I wouldn't be abusive on here so I'm out of this thread. Some people really make me sick.
As an atheist, I have no problem with billions of people around the planet wasting their lives grovelling to their non-existent deities, provided that they do so peacefully.
Taking Syria as an example, the United Nations cannot resolve the problem of the civil war against Assad because Russia and China both back his regime and sit on the Security Council. This means that any action taken will have to be unilaterally by a coalition of Western powers, who currently have no stomach for it.
There is no peaceful option available to solve the problem of the Islamic State rabble so I do advocate wiping them out. The collateral damage to which I referred will be the civilians who have not already fled to refugee camps elsewhere or tried to get trafficked into Europe. We carpet bombed Dresden and the Americans dropped the A-bomb on Japan in WWII as a means to an end despite civilian casualties so there is a historical precedent.
I presumed that Australia was not offering to set up a home in the Outback for the Islamic State caliphate rather than have them fighting in large parts of the Northern Hemisphere where their perceived objective is an abhorrent religious regime with no democratic freedoms. In a couple of weeks Natalie Bennett will be available to go to the Middle East as an envoy.
Whether I have any credibility or not is largely irrelevant: the problem is not going to go away and these idiots are not open to negotiation. A thousand years ago they only had swords and sandals but technology has moved on and the ideology has not.
Risking that I might be seen to be remotely sensible or raving mad.
Instead of all these people coming over here for a better life, how about sending people over there to provide them with a better life somewhere safe and less densely populated; educating them, teaching skills in order to build modern roads, well policed cities and towns, schools etc. No admittance for terrorists.
I'm a great believer of the quote from the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”.
Instead of all these people coming over here for a better life, how about sending people over there to provide them with a better life somewhere safe and less densely populated; educating them, teaching skills in order to build modern roads, well policed cities and towns, schools etc. No admittance for terrorists.
I'm a great believer of the quote from the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”.
That's pretty much the point of the foreign aid budget which David Cameron, to his credit, ring fenced for the life of the last parliament. If he gets in again though, he'll be under massive pressure to make cuts in this area from the right in his party, and of course Ukip if they have any influence.
Most first world countries do contribute to varying degrees, the USA being easily the biggest donor. They all do so out of enlightened self interest, pretty much as you suggest. Because it helps no one if Africa continues to be a disaster area. But these contributions are an easy target for right wing populist movements which as we know have been on the rise in most developed countries since the recession started.
As for Europe helping Africa to sort out her problems, you'd have to worry whether the political will exists to do that, given the fact we can't even help Greece to stop unravelling.
My mate's girlfriend works for a charitable organisation which sends people to under-developed countries to try and help with some basic education. She has just spent 5 weeks in Vietnam trying to teach the locals, amongst other things, not to eat dogs which have been drinking sewage (well actually, not to eat any dogs at all). All very noble and all privately funded. In my previous job in Sweden, I had a 60-year old guy working for me who had quite a lot of time off work to look after his daughter. She had been to Ethiopia as an aid worker in her late twenties and been raped.
As I think someone else alluded to the other day, the problem is that those who actually run the world (the rich and powerful) have no conscience about helping any sort of unfortunates, since all they care about is money and power. Politicians of any country will always be constrained by budgetary considerations and public opinion, and the body which was created specifically to deal with humanitarian crises after WW2, the United Nations, is about as effective as a chocolate fireguard. They actually seem to be getting even less effective. Anyone remember the massacre at Srebrenica during the Yugoslavian conflict in the 90s? At least there were some "blue helmets" there (admittedly they effectively allowed the slaughter to happen, against overwhelming Serb forces). What is needed throughout these troubled countries is an internationally backed force which will go in there, wipe out the militants, depose dictators, establish democratic government and ensure that the people actually start benefitting from the countries natural resources. The famed "International Police".
Terrible though the deaths in the mediterranean are, the answer cannot simply be to open the floodgates and allow millions of migrants to sweep into Europe. The basic infrastructure could not cope with it, health systems would be swamped, as would other social services, and it would so significantly impact the way of life in the western world that it would effectively destroy it. In this respect I am a selfish twat - I want a good life for me and my children, I want them to grow up happy and safe. I don't want million of immigrants flooding my country because it will undoubtably affect our quality of life. I can't care about every single victim of every single unjust action in the whole world. I can't accept that I am morally responsible for looking after every human being in the world who is having a ****ty time.
Accountability for a people starts and ends with the government of their country. More must be done by the international community to take decisive action against dictators, warlords, religious fundamentalists and downright criminals to ensure peace and stability throughout the world. Unfortunately there seems to little motivation to do this, probably because there is no money in it.
That's my take on it, fuelled by a bit of beer and wine, so there you go.
As I think someone else alluded to the other day, the problem is that those who actually run the world (the rich and powerful) have no conscience about helping any sort of unfortunates, since all they care about is money and power. Politicians of any country will always be constrained by budgetary considerations and public opinion, and the body which was created specifically to deal with humanitarian crises after WW2, the United Nations, is about as effective as a chocolate fireguard. They actually seem to be getting even less effective. Anyone remember the massacre at Srebrenica during the Yugoslavian conflict in the 90s? At least there were some "blue helmets" there (admittedly they effectively allowed the slaughter to happen, against overwhelming Serb forces). What is needed throughout these troubled countries is an internationally backed force which will go in there, wipe out the militants, depose dictators, establish democratic government and ensure that the people actually start benefitting from the countries natural resources. The famed "International Police".
Terrible though the deaths in the mediterranean are, the answer cannot simply be to open the floodgates and allow millions of migrants to sweep into Europe. The basic infrastructure could not cope with it, health systems would be swamped, as would other social services, and it would so significantly impact the way of life in the western world that it would effectively destroy it. In this respect I am a selfish twat - I want a good life for me and my children, I want them to grow up happy and safe. I don't want million of immigrants flooding my country because it will undoubtably affect our quality of life. I can't care about every single victim of every single unjust action in the whole world. I can't accept that I am morally responsible for looking after every human being in the world who is having a ****ty time.
Accountability for a people starts and ends with the government of their country. More must be done by the international community to take decisive action against dictators, warlords, religious fundamentalists and downright criminals to ensure peace and stability throughout the world. Unfortunately there seems to little motivation to do this, probably because there is no money in it.
That's my take on it, fuelled by a bit of beer and wine, so there you go.
Sorry QM, but I don't think I'll travel any further down this road. There will no doubt be millions of good folk who will embrace your sentiments on the issue, to each there own I suppose. I just can't agree with them mate. Being dragged into the Middle East wars has stirred up a hornet's nest, just imagine how much **** would hit the fan if huge tracts from several countries had to be hit. Carpet bombing would see massive numbers of innocents killed. I expect that what I've had to say will probably mean little but there you go. Finis.
Oddy it would be wonderful to have an "International Police" force that could do all that you've outlined. Sadly it is something that can never happen. The world is too big and fragmented for any force to control. A lot, if not most of the tinpot dictators lead countries mired in strife. Oust one despot, and the leadership has to be left in the hands of another ruthless and corrupt official who will probably have to be propped up by outside forces. And quite a few of these states are bogged down in some sort of civil war. Even if a free vote can be managed, the losing ethnic side won't be happy. This of course isn't a situation that applies to all troubled spots, but the nature of human emotion will still see a lot of the "failed states" continue to struggle. Look at the trouble we've found ourselves for ourselves in the Middle East, imagine multiplying it ten fold. Maybe a hundred fold. We can't stabilize one small part of the globe, how can we calm a planet? The USA is up to it's neck in debt due to it's foreign policy. I'm with you on this Oddy, I wish it could happen, but I think Utopia is a myth.
Watched a program on TV last night, "The Richest Terrorists" (or something like that). Horrific. Seems as though the terrorists are making a fortune from ransom money to fund their operations and, with their *barbaric activity, are "recruiting" terrorised innocent people into joining the ranks of terrorism
A long term view needs to be taken. It's the only way to come up with the right solution. Every option must be considered (palatable or not) and assessed as to how it will ultimately end. If the right solution is unpalatable then it must be worked on to make it less unpalatable until it becomes acceptable (for the benefit of future generations - the planet).
It seems to me as though we have a choice to make for our future generations:
(a) a planet eventually run by terrorists
(b) a planet free from terrorism
I know which one I'd go for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* beheading, burning people alive ...
A long term view needs to be taken. It's the only way to come up with the right solution. Every option must be considered (palatable or not) and assessed as to how it will ultimately end. If the right solution is unpalatable then it must be worked on to make it less unpalatable until it becomes acceptable (for the benefit of future generations - the planet).
It seems to me as though we have a choice to make for our future generations:
(a) a planet eventually run by terrorists
(b) a planet free from terrorism
I know which one I'd go for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
* beheading, burning people alive ...
I too watched this Ron, and the implications are chilling.
IS is the richest terror organisation there has ever been, they control oil fields and extract huge amounts in ransom and by threats and coercion. It is widely believed that governments (probably French) have paid ransoms despite their denials. They are ransacking ancient tombs and archeological sites for valuable items to be sold to collectors who don't care where they came from. They actively encourage converts to cause havoc in their own countries and wish to carry their campaign as far and wide as possible. They are absolutely fanatical about their aims and stopping them will not be easy, given the geographically widespread extent of their reach.
The only apparent chink of weakness, is that for all their wealth, it is all cash. They can't just do an online transfer, but have to smuggle the money across borders for it to be any use. Oil has to be smuggled out of oil fields by devious means and they have a huge amount of expenditure despite their income streams.
Radicalisation is a massive ongoing event - they upload 95000 videos a day vilifying the west and it's cultures, extolling the virtues of their own beliefs and encouraging violent action where ever possible.
Sorry, this is off-topic but still very relevant to the world situation
IS is the richest terror organisation there has ever been, they control oil fields and extract huge amounts in ransom and by threats and coercion. It is widely believed that governments (probably French) have paid ransoms despite their denials. They are ransacking ancient tombs and archeological sites for valuable items to be sold to collectors who don't care where they came from. They actively encourage converts to cause havoc in their own countries and wish to carry their campaign as far and wide as possible. They are absolutely fanatical about their aims and stopping them will not be easy, given the geographically widespread extent of their reach.
The only apparent chink of weakness, is that for all their wealth, it is all cash. They can't just do an online transfer, but have to smuggle the money across borders for it to be any use. Oil has to be smuggled out of oil fields by devious means and they have a huge amount of expenditure despite their income streams.
Radicalisation is a massive ongoing event - they upload 95000 videos a day vilifying the west and it's cultures, extolling the virtues of their own beliefs and encouraging violent action where ever possible.
Sorry, this is off-topic but still very relevant to the world situation
I was not going to reply to Dan’s remark as he reckoned that he was not going to return to this thread, but since he has relented...
Given a choice between living in Europe, the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, I think I can safely say that everybody on this forum would opt for Europe. Clearly those in the latter two want the same option.
So let us invite everyone to come and live in the European Soviet Socialist Republic. We can offer them all a home, food, work, health care and great economic prosperity as the streets are paved with gold. Let us gloss over the failed economies of many of the E.S.S.R. states and the youth unemployment levels of nearly 25 per cent in countries like Spain and Italy. Indigenous young people do not need any future prospects if that is the price we must pay so that refugees and economic migrants can be safe while terrorists rampage in their home countries in perpetuity.
Get Bob Geldof and his music business mates onto it and they can set up a brand new daily ferry service from Tripoli in Libya to Catania in Italy rather than immigrants paying those criminal gangs for passage on a rickety unseaworthy junk with good prospects of a watery grave.
We could arm the refugees and let them fight for their own countries. I am sure Lao Tzu would agree with the intent but it is not really practical. Whatever the European leaders come up with is certainly not going to be a solution as almost all of them have proven incompetent at running their own countries.
Given a choice between living in Europe, the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, I think I can safely say that everybody on this forum would opt for Europe. Clearly those in the latter two want the same option.
So let us invite everyone to come and live in the European Soviet Socialist Republic. We can offer them all a home, food, work, health care and great economic prosperity as the streets are paved with gold. Let us gloss over the failed economies of many of the E.S.S.R. states and the youth unemployment levels of nearly 25 per cent in countries like Spain and Italy. Indigenous young people do not need any future prospects if that is the price we must pay so that refugees and economic migrants can be safe while terrorists rampage in their home countries in perpetuity.
Get Bob Geldof and his music business mates onto it and they can set up a brand new daily ferry service from Tripoli in Libya to Catania in Italy rather than immigrants paying those criminal gangs for passage on a rickety unseaworthy junk with good prospects of a watery grave.
We could arm the refugees and let them fight for their own countries. I am sure Lao Tzu would agree with the intent but it is not really practical. Whatever the European leaders come up with is certainly not going to be a solution as almost all of them have proven incompetent at running their own countries.
Thanks for filling in the details Reebs. It was a real eye opener to what our children and grand children could be faced with. Frightening.