Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Angela Merkel calls for full-face veil ban in Germany

A bit late, but better late than never.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What nonsense. She won't try to stop local politicians from covering up crimes by Muslims out of fear of being perceived as racist, but she'll openly tell women what they're allowed to wear?

LW was right about you, Europe. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

[Sergarr]

What nonsense. She won't try to stop local politicians from covering up crimes by Muslims out of fear of being perceived as racist, but she'll openly tell women what they're allowed to wear?

LW was right about you, Europe. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

That first part was before she realized that AfD had a real chance of dethroning the Eternal Chancellor. That thing she did is probably an opening move in the upcoming general right-wing shift, to try and swing some of the AfD voters back to her side.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I swear, it's like governments are just compelled to always take the single most simultaneously destructive yet also ineffective path towards every issue. Expect whatever law that comes out of this to also be used as an effective ban on protestors via "face coverings". If I recall correctly, that already actually happened in France's version of it.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, this is the same nation that two months ago announced a zero tolerance policy on clown costumes due to their "terrorism". What really gets me is how many people buy line and sinker this "we don't cover our faces in our culture" propaganda line that politicians keep spouting.

[smjjames]

What nonsense. She won't try to stop local politicians from covering up crimes by Muslims out of fear of being perceived as racist, but she'll openly tell women what they're allowed to wear?

LW was right about you, Europe. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

That first part was before she realized that AfD had a real chance of dethroning the Eternal Chancellor. That thing she did is probably an opening move in the upcoming general right-wing shift, to try and swing some of the AfD voters back to her side.

Well yeah, she is running for another term, so, no surprise she is taking a rightward swing.

Somewhat more info on it than CNN does: http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/6/13854214/germany-angela-merkel-burqa-ban

The ban while driving part at least seems practical though, you really don't want anything that can obscure your vision (and no, I don't mean like sunglasses).

[Loud Whispers]

She's trying to appease voters who are growing more and more frustrated with the road she's driving Germany down, but so long as she stays behind the wheel there'll be no real change.

Appeasing german voters? Check the channel for uboats, that's some alarm bells right there

Hopefully German voters will see through it, but I'm not particularly hopeful. All that collective guilt indoctrination we did on them after WWII is really coming back to bite us in the ass.

This is the grim dark future we chose
At least we have top bants in the great decline though
Something weird with the psyche of Germany. So many Germans who don't want to be Germans whilst I'm reminded of one of the mass shooters screaming "I'm German"
Like the whole culture has become about trying to be what you can't, instead of being happy with who you are and being a good person

What nonsense. She won't try to stop local politicians from covering up crimes by Muslims out of fear of being perceived as racist, but she'll openly tell women what they're allowed to wear?
LW was right about you, Europe. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

I swer on me nan's blessed grave that yesterday's irony is tomorrow's sincerity
I'm not even sure if ironic irony is safe from becoming sincerity anymore

[Kot]

I think that Germany is trying it's best to not be violent while it's okay to be a bit violent. USA does it all the time and nobody gives a shit.
Be violent Germany, fight the IS and other terrorists, just don't go genocidal. You can be strong and have good military tradition without becoming Hitler.

[TheDarkStar]

Spoiler: armchair general-type hypothetical scenario (click to show/hide)

Step one: conclude current mid-east wars/revolutions, although there will still be tension with Israel and there might be some remaining terrorism
Step two: increase xenophobia in Europe until there's either forced migration or people from the middle east in the EU voluntarily leave for their own safety/freedom
Step three: the EU/various EU countries invades mid-east now that the mideast hates them, probably under the excuse of stopping terrorism but actually to get oil
After that, things get interesting and depend on how the US, Russia, and China side. With current world politics, Russia sides with the middle east, China stays out as much as possible, and the US sides with the EU + Israel. Unless the EU invades Israel too, in which case the US sides with Israel against the EU and may or may not be aligned with Russia or other middle-eastern countries.

[Sergarr]

Spoiler: armchair general-type hypothetical scenario (click to show/hide)

Step one: conclude current mid-east wars/revolutions, although there will still be tension with Israel and there might be some remaining terrorism
Step two: increase xenophobia in Europe until there's either forced migration or people from the middle east in the EU voluntarily leave for their own safety/freedom
Step three: the EU/various EU countries invades mid-east now that the mideast hates them, probably under the excuse of stopping terrorism but actually to get oil
After that, things get interesting and depend on how the US, Russia, and China side. With current world politics, Russia sides with the middle east, China stays out as much as possible, and the US sides with the EU + Israel. Unless the EU invades Israel too, in which case the US sides with Israel against the EU and may or may not be aligned with Russia or other middle-eastern countries.

There isn't that much oil in Middle East if you don't go to the Saudi land, and I don't think Russia is going to suddenly align with the decades-old strategic allies of USA.

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler: armchair general-type hypothetical scenario (click to show/hide)

Step one: conclude current mid-east wars/revolutions, although there will still be tension with Israel and there might be some remaining terrorism
Step two: increase xenophobia in Europe until there's either forced migration or people from the middle east in the EU voluntarily leave for their own safety/freedom
Step three: the EU/various EU countries invades mid-east now that the mideast hates them, probably under the excuse of stopping terrorism but actually to get oil
After that, things get interesting and depend on how the US, Russia, and China side. With current world politics, Russia sides with the middle east, China stays out as much as possible, and the US sides with the EU + Israel. Unless the EU invades Israel too, in which case the US sides with Israel against the EU and may or may not be aligned with Russia or other middle-eastern countries.

Spoiler: armchair general analysis (click to show/hide)

Step 1 is not possible. "Concluding current mid east wars" is not in the power of Europe to do, besides maybe France and UK, and UK will not be an EU nation for long, even so the absence of European actors (even including Russia) would not put the middle east at peace
Step 2 is possible, but very difficult. I don't know how you go about deliberately exacerbating xenophobia to induce forced migration, sounds more likely to just cause civil war. Nah deportation is much finer a tool and would get the job done far quicker without needing to alter the psyche of whole generations or driving unnecessary wedges between civil society
Step 3 there is not enough oil in the middle east to cover the cost of such a war. Alternative funding would be needed, which would make the war a war for the sake of war. I suppose such a thing could be justified in geopolitical terms, but given the density of nuclear armed nations interested in such a corner of the world at the same time, it is a poor life choice and likely to end in more european civilians slaughtered by jihadists than usual, with the added fun of failure and civilizational collapse. Simply put when your civilization is crumbling it is not the time to try end someone else's civilization, when Rome and Parthia fought, Arabia arose, their decline became terminal.
Russia will not side with the middle east, nor is there or would there be a middle east bloc. Russia would be focused on getting its middle eastern allies to align with Russia, so as to benefit from their being in Russia's influence without falling afoul of the mistakes of the USSR, or even the USA, getting bogged down in military interventions that strain the state's economy
Israel would not side with the EU or USA, though it would probably offer logistical support to invading forces and employ its military towards securing the levant. Reason being it would not have a lot to gain from sending its soldiers to fight for an EU coalition, whilst it could stand to lose everything in the event of a defeat. Remaining an independent actor would allow it to act in whatever manner most likely to ensure its survival

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of the hypothetical scenario is. It doesn't seem like the objective benefits anyone, and would be to the detriment of everyone

[TheDarkStar]

Spoiler: armchair general-type hypothetical scenario (click to show/hide)

Step one: conclude current mid-east wars/revolutions, although there will still be tension with Israel and there might be some remaining terrorism
Step two: increase xenophobia in Europe until there's either forced migration or people from the middle east in the EU voluntarily leave for their own safety/freedom
Step three: the EU/various EU countries invades mid-east now that the mideast hates them, probably under the excuse of stopping terrorism but actually to get oil
After that, things get interesting and depend on how the US, Russia, and China side. With current world politics, Russia sides with the middle east, China stays out as much as possible, and the US sides with the EU + Israel. Unless the EU invades Israel too, in which case the US sides with Israel against the EU and may or may not be aligned with Russia or other middle-eastern countries.

There isn't that much oil in Middle East if you don't go to the Saudi land, and I don't think Russia is going to suddenly align with the decades-old strategic allies of USA.

Russia has sided with the Syrian government and they've sided with other nearby countries in the past (Turkey, Afganistan [technically after invading though]). But I'll admit that oil is a really tenuous reason for the EU to invade the middle east. It's much more likely that a major conflict will start in the South China sea between China and neighboring countries or in Eastern Europe with Russia or even between the US and Russia as they support different sides in the Middle East (which still isn't likely because, as LW has pointed out, a war like this would be bad for everyone).

IDK why I posted this. It was mostly an interesting idea I had.

[Silverthrone]

What nonsense. She won't try to stop local politicians from covering up crimes by Muslims out of fear of being perceived as racist, but she'll openly tell women what they're allowed to wear?

LW was right about you, Europe. It's like I don't even know you anymore.

Imagine, Sir, having to live with it. It is as if one woke up one thursday morning and noticed how the whole house has slowly turned into meringue.

[martinuzz]

Four Dutch companies, including two large banks, have been put on a black list by the state of New York, because according to NY, they boycot Israel.
They are given three months time to prove they are not boycotting Isreal, or face boycot themselves by the state of New York.

The companies deny boycotting Israel. They do boycot certain companies in Israel that are operating in illegal occupied territories, but they are not boycotting Israel as a whole. The most publicly known boycot is the company Vitens, which pulled out of it cooperation with the Israeli water company Mekorot, after a UN report accused it of pumping water out of occupied territory to sell it to Israelis.

It is official Dutch policy that companies are discouraged from trading with companies that profit from the occupied territories. It's not a ban, but it is a strong advice.

There's a difference between 'boycotting Israel' and boycotting certain companies that breach international law though. All four companies still do business with and in Israel, just not with Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories.

So wtf New York?

The blacklist, which totals 13 companies, is an initiative by New York governor Andrew Cuomo. He has banned companies from doing business with companies that boycot Israel. (Does that mean that New York cars will run out of gas soon? I'm quite sure that that ban would include doing business with most oil producing countries. Or does Cuomo want all New York cars to run on Russian petrol?)

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/staat-new-york-zet-nederlandse-bedrijven-op-zwarte-lijst-om-israel-boycot~a4429116/

[smjjames]

I think it would be very naive to assume that Merkel is taking a genuine 'rightward swing'. She's had three terms to do whatever she wanted to do, and she's shown before that she'll say whatever she thinks will get her more votes ('Multiculturalism is dead', anyone?). It doesn't mean a thing as regards her actions.

She's trying to appease voters who are growing more and more frustrated with the road she's driving Germany down, but so long as she stays behind the wheel there'll be no real change.

Hopefully German voters will see through it, but I'm not particularly hopeful. All that collective guilt indoctrination we did on them after WWII is really coming back to bite us in the ass.

I never said that she was taking a genuine rightward swing, just that she was swinging to the right a bit to appeal to the rightwing party and conservatives. Normal tactics when a politician is facing an election.

[martinuzz]

I think it would be very naive to assume that Merkel is taking a genuine 'rightward swing'. She's had three terms to do whatever she wanted to do, and she's shown before that she'll say whatever she thinks will get her more votes ('Multiculturalism is dead', anyone?). It doesn't mean a thing as regards her actions.

She's trying to appease voters who are growing more and more frustrated with the road she's driving Germany down, but so long as she stays behind the wheel there'll be no real change.

Hopefully German voters will see through it, but I'm not particularly hopeful. All that collective guilt indoctrination we did on them after WWII is really coming back to bite us in the ass.

I still don't get that. 'We feel collectively guilty for our grandparents killing 6 million jews, so let's allow 900000 people into our country of whom a large part have been raised from birth to want jews dead'. Right. Makes sense I guess.