NationStates Jolt Archive

How is combating criminals 'right', your ignorance is astounding.

Personally, I think it's because whenever there's a terrorist threat or attack in the UK or Australia or the US, they say "Ok, we deserved it, we went to Iraq, let's vote left so they'll get us out". But when there's one in a nation that didn't go the Iraq, they say "What the fuck was that for? We didn't go to Iraq, we don't deserve this! Let's vote right so they'll crack down on terrorists".

Feel free to tear that apart.

Personally, I think it's because whenever there's a terrorist threat or attack in the UK or Australia or the US, they say "Ok, we deserved it, we went to Iraq, let's vote left so they'll get us out". But when there's one in a nation that didn't go the Iraq, they say "What the fuck was that for? We didn't go to Iraq, we don't deserve this! Let's vote right so they'll crack down on terrorists".

Feel free to tear that apart.

If it were the sole cause of voting then maybe but most people feel entirely unaffected by terrorism and therefore vote for other reasons and mostly with the wallet.

We're talking about the minority of swing voters who actually make a difference as opposed to entrenched voters who'd continue voting for party regardless then...

Wallet bin Laden - I'll vote left and let those less fortunate than I get a leg up as we're all family and I'm alright jack.

Wallet not bin Laden - I'll vote right and get me some damn money, which has been stolen by shiftless lazy people, immigrants, probably those gays and certainly those high taxes.

I have no idea over what you are talking about !!!!
I live in "Europe", but we are first of all individual countries that have issues, but we do not vote because of terrorist issues, we have a large immigration influx which has great effects on voting trends. There is no country in Europe that has had a terrorist attack which was not active in Iraq or with other invasive trend. Spain, England were active in Iraq and they have had attacks.

It seems Ferrous doesn't understand European politics.

Typically people vote conservative in order to preserve "traditional" values that they (for one reason or another) feel are being too radically changed or redefined. Right-wing candidates often have strong anti-progressive/anti-immigration rhetoric and that appeals to voters who want to maintain the status-quo or roll back to an earlier era. If conservative != right then ignore this.

Edit: Also, I've yet to meet a normal person who thinks America "deserved" to be attacked by terrorists. No one is sitting around going "Ooops! We sure had that one coming!"

Typically people vote conservative in order to preserve "traditional" values that they (for one reason or another) feel are being too radically changed or redefined.
No, typically they vote "conservative" because there's some problem with the welfare state which the centre-right parties pledge to solve by reforming things.

Now Europeans have been hating the hell out of immigrants for a long time. It's just reached a critical mass where average folks are upset by hordes of third world immigrants causing social and political unrest, rather than just the extremist loonies who hated the old immigrants back in the 50s-70s, who showed up and studied or worked, making no waves. Those on the far right who made immigrant hate their stock in trade back in those days inadvertently created a cover of sympathy that brought about the tolerant-to-a-fault atmosphere among regular Europeans, which Islamic extremists have taken advantage of in setting up their states-within-a-state.

Also, Europeans have realized, through the example of conservative leaders like Merkel and now Sarkozy, that a turn to the right need not mean carrying Bush's water. Usually a united front is the strongest face to show the enemy, but American leadership has been so misdirected for the last 6 years, insulting its friends and ignoring its enemies, Europe is better off going it alone to form their own stance towards the Muslim world.

Also, Europeans have realized, through the example of conservative leaders like Merkel and now Sarkozy, that a turn to the right need not mean carrying Bush's water. Usually a united front is the strongest face to show the enemy, but American leadership has been so misdirected for the last 6 years, insulting its friends and ignoring its enemies, Europe is better off going it alone to form their own stance towards the Muslim world.
Dude, the very last thing that motivated the Germans to vote for Merkel was terrorism. In fact, her stance on Iraq was her biggest stumbling block. And Schäuble's anti-terror stance is just about the most unpopular thing a public figure there has said in recent times.

Germany's election last time was decided by economic issues, and the same is true to a lesser extent in France (where some social issues largely due to economic problems played a role as well).

And the rest of Europe isn't exactly swinging right either. Spain and Italy switched from centre-right to centre-left. And in Scandinavia I'm hard-pressed sometimes to see any differences at all between the parties.

Poland is really the only hardcore right-wing conservative government of the major EU countries, and that government isn't exactly popular.

I have no idea over what you are talking about !!!!
I live in "Europe", but we are first of all individual countries that have issues, but we do not vote because of terrorist issues, we have a large immigration influx which has great effects on voting trends. There is no country in Europe that has had a terrorist attack which was not active in Iraq or with other invasive trend. Spain, England were active in Iraq and they have had attacks.

Don't forget Scotland

Or maybe you meant the UK. The UK is not a synonym for England

No, typically they vote "conservative" because there's some problem with the welfare state which the centre-right parties pledge to solve by reforming things.
Yes, that's another valid reason. The other party broke stuff and someone new needs to fix it. I was thinking of more "right" candidates rather than "centre-right" though.

I'll agree that the crushing weight of the European welfare state brought the Conservatives victory. But the conservatives in countries outside the Coalition of the Bribed were not encumbered with the record of failure that Berlusconi and the Spanish right had hung on them. Sarkozy and Merkel were attractive options for the voters not only because they could enact sensible economic policies, but because they could plot their countries own responses to Islamism without the millstone of Iraqi failure around their necks.

Sarkozy and Merkel were attractive options for the voters not only because they could enact sensible economic policies, but because they could plot their countries own responses to Islamism without the millstone of Iraqi failure around their necks.
And Royal and Schröder could have done the same thing. Neither was weighed down by Iraq (in fact, the latter was popular almost solely due to his stance on Iraq and the US), both had plans to deal with the issue. In Germany, those plans were no different from Merkel's. In France, it wasn't Sarkozy's stance against immigrants that appealed, but his stance on "scum", meaning kids from the Banlieues that don't behave.

And besides, if strong anti-Islam stances had been the key, voters would have chosen Le Pen and the DVU/NPD.

I've followed both elections quite closely, and I can tell you that yes, there were some concerns about Islamism, Terrorism and Immigration. But they were absolutely outweighed by actual, real-life issues, namely the economy, unemployment and the state of government finances.

I've followed both elections quite closely, and I can tell you that yes, there were some concerns about Islamism, Terrorism and Immigration. But they were absolutely outweighed by actual, real-life issues, namely the economy, unemployment and the state of government finances.

Yeah, terrorism isn't a real life issue. Heh.

Yeah, terrorism isn't a real life issue. Heh.
When you take into consideration the infinitesimally small chance of it, it may as well be. Terrorism just didn't 'start' after 9/11 you know, it's been going on for centuries in some way or another, and it will be with us until the end of time, because some people will always be annoyed enough to use asymmetrical violence against society, and it will never ever stop. 'Terrorism' if I can use such a silly weasel word, if not 'owned' by any political side, every side wants to protect the state, if anything the Left is more effective in combating crime because it looks to the causes (such as poverty, unemployment etc), rather than conservatives who just rage about it an awful lot, yet do very little.

Yeah, terrorism isn't a real life issue. Heh.It isn't.

But even if it was, all the right has ever proposed to do about terrorism, is to curb the rights of the citizens. You know, take away our freedom. Same thing they say the terrorists wants to do. So... If it was really an issue, the European nations would presumably have turned into an anarchist paradise by now.

Erm, I think you're making the mistake of assuming that terrorism is something that would influence European voters.
Have a look at the last, say, 20-30 years of European history, Every single country has had terrorist attacks in that time, similar to the ones occuring now. The only difference is in the motives, not the attacks themselves.
Europeans have long ago learned that the only way to deal with terrorists is to go on with life as usual. Terrorism is completely ineffective without public attention.
The only scary new thing I see is US politics stating to create an atmosphere of fear in some places, and THAT has me seriously worried now.

Erm, I think you're making the mistake of assuming that terrorism is something that would influence European voters.
Have a look at the last, say, 20-30 years of European history, Every single country has had terrorist attacks in that time, similar to the ones occuring now. The only difference is in the motives, not the attacks themselves.
Europeans have long ago learned that the only way to deal with terrorists is to go on with life as usual. Terrorism is completely ineffective without public attention.Not entirely true. All previous attacks, be they the result of the IRA, the RAF, ETA, the guys who blew up stuff in Tyrol & Greece et all, were done by, for lack of a better word, 'Natives' - they were murderers, but they were, in a way, 'Known'. Familiar. Modern - more to the point, muslim - terrorism is not familiar in this fashion, which adds a additional element of fear (From the unknown), and among other things leads to suspecting everyone with such a background to be at least passively supportive of the radicals - something that was either not at all (RAF), or not on the same scale (ETA) the case for 'Indigenous' terrorist movements.

It's received in a different fashion. So far, we see little reactions mostly because the wannabe-terrorists are laughably inept - unexploding bombs, cells so open about their intentions they can be taken out before attacks happen, the likes - that the bodycount is, frankly, not particularly impressive when compared to the past. But once this changes, I figure the abovementioned, additional elements will lead to some rather different reactions.

Not entirely true. All previous attacks, be they the result of the IRA, the RAF, ETA, the guys who blew up stull in Tyrol & Greece et all, were done by, for lack of a better word, 'Natives' - they were murderers, but they were, in a way, 'Known'. Modern - more to the point, muslim - terrorism is not familiar in this fashion, which adds a additional element of fear (From the unknown), and among other things leads to suspecting everyone with such a background to be at least passively supportive of the radicals - something that was either not at all (RAF), or not on the same scale (ETA) the case for 'Indigenous' terrorist movements.

It's received in a differnet fashion. So far, we see little reactions mostly because the wannabe-terrorists are laughably inept - unexploding bombs, cells so open about their intentions they can be taken out before attacks happen, the likes - that the bodycount is, frankly, not particularly impressive when compared to the past. But once this changes, I figure the abovementioned, additional elements will lead to some rather different reactions.

You're trying to tell me people were less scared of the RAF cause they knew what they were all about and what their aims were? Seriously?
And if I recall correctly, two of those 3 gits who planned an attack on Hanau recently were Germans, born there and grew up there.
The only thing that's different is the ideology, and the RAF's was just as strange and foreign as the Islamists' is today.

And let's face it, the RAF wasn't exactly all that effective, either. They did manage to pull of a kidnapping and a few car bombs, but if I recall correctly they had some very big plans that failed just as badly as some of the big attacks today do.

You're trying to tell me people were less scared of the RAF cause they knew what they were all about and what their aims were? Seriously?No. I'm telling you that people were less scared of the RAF because they knew the milieu the RAF came from - it was their own.

This time around, the suspicion is not 'One in a million of people just like me', but 'Holy shit that vegetable shop owner five minutes off is a muslim! He could be one of them!'.

And let's face it, the RAF wasn't exactly all that effective, either. They did manage to pull of a kidnapping and a few car bombs, but if I recall correctly they had some very big plans that failed just as badly as some of the big attacks today do.Well, yes. But the RAF didn't rexactly start off with multiple total failures. It managed to attract some attention through initial success before everything started to fall apart.

It’s just a trend. Next elections they will swing to the left. It worked always like that.

Btw, what’s ‘right’ anyway?

What’s right in Europe is in USA centre or even a little left.

The American Republicans could be stamped as an extreme right party according European standards.

No. I'm telling you that people were less scared of the RAF because they knew the milieu the RAF came from - it was their own.

This time around, the suspicion is not 'One in a million of people just like me', but 'Holy shit that vegetable shop owner five minutes off is a muslim! He could be one of them!'.

Well, not exactly. My grandfather still calls all long-haired men and students terrorists.
It wasn't everybody's milieu, the RAF originated from the student revolts of the late 1960s, and the majority of people soon had every left-leaning young person classified as potential car-bomber. Just as they have every muslim down as suicide pilot these days.


Well, yes. But the RAF didn't rexactly start off with multiple total failures. It managed to attract some attention through initial success before everything started to fall apart.

So did Al-Qaida, really. From their point of view, you can only call the attack on the World Trade Center a complete success. And now it seems to be falling apart, with the last couple of attacks more or less turning them into a laughing stock.

I'll tell you why Sweden swinged right in last year's election. The social democrat prime minister Göran Pärson was boring old news. He did a good job overall but had been in power for too long, people wanted anything new. The left didn't have anyone else to market due to his authoritarian way to lead the administration, everything was centered around him. So the right was the only alternative.

That was the reason, other issues such as the war between US/UK and the middle east didn't have much to do with it.

Today Sweden is swinging to the left fast. The right wing coalition are making big changes that hurts the economy of the lower class badly and improves the situation for the upper class. People are getting more and more annoyed with them for every such change they do.

It is? Such is the moribund state of British politics that Blameron is our nominally right wing option.

That sir, given that he was preceded by, amongst others, the admirable Michael Howard, and my hero William Hague, would suggest otherwise.

Personally, I think it's because ...
Feel free to tear that apart.

I will.

Germany. Centre coalition led by Merkel.
Italy. Centre-left coalition led by Prodi, following centre-right coalition led by Berlusconi.
Spain. Left, led by Zapatero, following right led by Aznar.

...

This accounts for... hmmm... about 170 M continental europeans, more or less.

Don't forget Scotland

Or maybe you meant the UK. The UK is not a synonym for EnglandThe n00bs that tried to attack Glasgow airport hardly count as terrorists.

I will.

Germany. Centre coalition led by Merkel.
Italy. Centre-left coalition led by Prodi, following centre-right coalition led by Berlusconi.
Spain. Left, led by Zapatero, following right led by Aznar.

Two of those went to Iraq, one is right leaning.

I will.

Germany. Centre coalition led by Merkel.
Italy. Centre-left coalition led by Prodi, following centre-right coalition led by Berlusconi.
Spain. Left, led by Zapatero, following right led by Aznar.

...

This accounts for... hmmm... about 170 M continental europeans, more or less.

I know little of European politics, so I'm most likely wrong, but Germany is led by the 'Christian Democratic Union', so...

The n00bs that tried to attack Glasgow airport hardly count as terrorists.

I'd still have publically hung them.

Two of those went to Iraq, one is right leaning.
Merkel, personally, is right-leaning on economic issues. On social issues, she's quite open and tolerant, as far as I know. She's a lady of science.

She's got Schäuble in her parliament, and Mr. "Screw the Constitutional Court, I'd order a hijacked plane to be shot down anyways" Jung, but that's it. Her Family Minister is spending her time offending conservatives, her foreign minister is Schröder's former secretary.

I'd still have publically hung them.

I loved the irony of the firefighters trying to save them.

I loved the irony of the firefighters trying to save them.

Quite ludicrous to even waste the effort.They have contempt for the UK, I see no reason why we should lift a finger to save them.

I know little of European politics, so I'm most likely wrong, but Germany is led by the 'Christian Democratic Union', so...

Not exaclty. They have what is called a grand or big coalition at the moment because the Christian Democrats couldn't get the necessary majority. What this means is that both the biggest left-wing party and the biggest right-wing party currently form the government.

Two of those went to Iraq, one is right leaning.What are you basing your argument on. That people who haven't suffered terrorist attacks will vote in politicians who promise to protect them from terrorist attacks - even over someone who promises to reform the lack-lustre economy.

France voted for Sarkozy mainly because of his stance on immigration, crime and the economy.

Eastern and Central Europe still vote predominately right because their economies are still recovering from Soviet repression.

Greece has a centre-right PM, and has a centre left President. Not much commitment either way there.

Scandinavia is in much the same position as Greece.

Germany voted in the CDU as the SDP failed to perform on the economy.

Finally, Italy, Spain and Portugal all have left leaning governments.

Over all, Europe is pretty much right in what it considers the central ground. Which wouldn't dream of getting rid of the welfare state - ie. still to the left of the US.

Quite ludicrous to even waste the effort.They have contempt for the UK, I see no reason why we should lift a finger to save them.

Ummm humanitarin compasion?

Ummm humanitarin compasion?

Yeah, right.

Quite ludicrous to even waste the effort.They have contempt for the UK, I see no reason why we should lift a finger to save them.
Because we have compassion for our fellow human; unlike the terrorist and the murderer.

We see the futility of an eye for an eye; the cycle of violence>retribution>violence. We are better than them.

Why stoop to their level?

How is combating criminals 'right', your ignorance is astounding.

Your not one to point out any other persons ignorance...you above and beyond all others when it comes to that...

Outside of Poland, no one's electing extreme right-wingers. It's natural to oscillate about the political centre, and Europe right now is probably averaging out quite neatly. And then consider the increasing divisions within countries: Scotland (and Wales) lean significantly to the left of England, north-east Italy is well to the right of the national 'consensus', Bavaria is a law unto itself, Alsace-Lorraine still gets misty-eyed about le Pen...

The blessed Chris: William Hague is your hero, huh? Kudos for the novelty value; maybe I should start idolising David Steel.

Feel free to tear that apart.
I will.

Continental Europe isn't swinging to the right, France and Germany have. This is largely because people are fed up of the unemployment now being blamed largely on immigration past and present, and also fed up with paying high taxes when they finally get a job. So there you go.

Italy elected a leftist, Greece very nearly put in the socialists, as did France to be honest, New Labour is centre-right but not exactly mental right wing. All in all, it's about a fifty-fifty split in most cases.

The real problem for the conservatives in the UK is that their leader David Cameron stands for everything and hence nothing.

Because we have compassion for our fellow human; unlike the terrorist and the murderer.

We see the futility of an eye for an eye; the cycle of violence>retribution>violence. We are better than them.

Why stoop to their level?

Cheaper than life imprisonment. Far cheaper, which, really, is the key issue; they are unsafe to be at liberty, hence the most expediant way of ensuring this must be found.

Cheaper than life imprisonment. Far cheaper, which, really, is the key issue; they are unsafe to be at liberty, hence the most expediant way of ensuring this must be found.
So it’s better to act like terrorists to save a few quid than to act like human beings? Nice.

Fortunately for humanity, cost effectiveness isn’t the overriding factor in imprisonment/rehabilitation. Letting those who wish to harm us run free or executing them aren’t the only two options available.

Luckily we won’t be joining the USA in the 19th century. Executing criminals can be left to the barbarians.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

So it’s better to act like terrorists to save a few quid than to act like human beings? Nice.

Fortunately for humanity, cost effectiveness isn’t the overriding factor in imprisonment/rehabilitation. Letting those who wish to harm us run free or executing them aren’t the only two options available.

Luckily we won’t be joining the USA in the 19th century. Executing criminals can be left to the barbarians.
I resent that comment. There are many states in the US that have outlawed capital punishment. My home state of Michigan is one of them. So watch whom you call "barbarians."

So it’s better to act like terrorists to save a few quid than to act like human beings? Nice.

Fortunately for humanity, cost effectiveness isn’t the overriding factor in imprisonment/rehabilitation. Letting those who wish to harm us run free or executing them aren’t the only two options available.

Luckily we won’t be joining the USA in the 19th century. Executing criminals can be left to the barbarians.

I object, as a historian of sorts, to the use of "Barbarian" as a perjorative term denoting a lack of civilisation. It smacks of latter day Roman ignorance.

Equally, you are quite wrong. Remorse is a sentiment few of those touched by zealotry feel, hence all one does is imprison them, pissing public money away which could be put to better use educating young migrants or saving lives in the NHS.

Don't forget Scotland

Or maybe you meant the UK. The UK is not a synonym for England

As Americans is not synonym to US, Correction humbly accepted. Are you talking about Lockerby ? because that was caused by a terrorist action that went haywire ( an oxymoron I guess), It was meant to explode over the ocean, not much difference that would have made for the passengers and crew.

I know little of European politics, so I'm most likely wrong, but Germany is led by the 'Christian Democratic Union', so...

Don't worry, I live in Europe and it took me awhile to understand that what is considered left in north America is actually right in Europe. Don't ask me why ? but it can lead to some bizarre discussions.

Cheaper than life imprisonment. Far cheaper, which, really, is the key issue; they are unsafe to be at liberty, hence the most expediant way of ensuring this must be found.

is also the basis to defend capital punishment through execution ! thank god that not everyone thinks that way.

I object, as a historian of sorts, to the use of "Barbarian" as a perjorative term denoting a lack of civilisation. It smacks of latter day Roman ignorance.

Equally, you are quite wrong. Remorse is a sentiment few of those touched by zealotry feel, hence all one does is imprison them, pissing public money away which could be put to better use educating young migrants or saving lives in the NHS.I thought Barbarian originally came from Greek - essentially meaning anyone who wasn't Greek.

So you are willing to kill in cold blood? If you are willing to kill one person if it makes economic sense, then who else are you willing to kill?

is also the basis to defend capital punishment through execution ! thank god that not everyone thinks that way.You can quote multiple posters by pressing the grey quote square by the post of each person you want to quote and then press reply.

The n00bs that tried to attack Glasgow airport hardly count as terrorists.

Why not?

As Americans is not synonym to US, Correction humbly accepted. Are you talking about Lockerby ? because that was caused by a terrorist action that went haywire ( an oxymoron I guess), It was meant to explode over the ocean, not much difference that would have made for the passengers and crew.

I was thinking more along the lines of the attack on Glasgow Airport

Why not?
Terrorists in the way Brum (http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/71302633.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193F669B259AB992A04CE02CA8B28D8C69D423F9DB0F93A49CD) is a car.

Ineffectual bams, more like.

Terrorists in the way Brum (http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/71302633.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193F669B259AB992A04CE02CA8B28D8C69D423F9DB0F93A49CD) is a car.

Ineffectual bams, more like.

Failed terrorists but terrorists all the same

Failed terrorists but terrorists all the same

Terrorists are supposed to instill terror. These weren't terrorists, they were feckless incompetents.

Trilby63;13066954']Terrorists are supposed to instill terror. These weren't terrorists, they were feckless incompetents.

Their goal was terrorism. Whether they achieved that or not is not the point

If the public had reacted differently to the car bombs planted (and called in) by the IRA that wouldn't have made them any less of a terrorist organisation than if they had went for a more Omagh-esque style

Not that we'll really be able to agree since it's quite a subjective term

Their goal was terrorism. Whether they achieved that or not is not the point

If the public had reacted differently to the car bombs planted (and called in) by the IRA that wouldn’t have made them any less of a terrorist organisation than if they had went for a more Omagh-esque style
I wouldn’t go as far as to say the men involved weren’t terrorists, even if they were completely ineffectual in their task, but there isn’t any semblance of organisation behind the Glasgow nonsense remotely like the IRA, UDF, et al.

I wouldn’t go as far as to say the men involved weren’t terrorists, even if they were completely ineffectual in their task, but there isn’t any semblance of organisation behind the Glasgow nonsense remotely like the IRA, UDF, et al.

What I meant was that the IRA didn't necessarily have to cause a loss of life or property to achieve their goals. They called in many of their bombs.