jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
824 points (85% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

europe

unsubscribesubscribe564,233 Europeans readers
405 Europeans users here now
50 (+6) countries, 230 languages, 743M people… 1 subreddit.

Important

What are /r/Europe's rules?
New to reddit?

Events

Topic Schedule
The news in your country Every sunday

Social

Want to web-chat with other /r/Europe users? Join us on our IRC chatroom! #Europe on irc.snoonet.org

Meta

For discussion about this subreddit or its moderation please head over to /r/EuropeMeta
Meta discussion will be removed if posted in /r/Europe

Goodies and Titbits

Other subreddits about europe
Docs and Vids /r/EuroDocs
Curated Discussion /r/EuropeS
Q&A /r/AskEurope
Interrail /r/EuroPics
In-Depth /r/Europeans
Culture /r/EuropeanCulture
EU Parliament /r/EuropeanParliament
Federal Europe /r/EuropeanFederalists
Eurosceptics /r/Eurosceptics
EUROPE YEAH! /r/YUROP
EU Law /r/EUlaw
Interesting threads from the past
European English-language news sources
All European location subreddits

Some local European subreddits

Is the flag of your region not available? Message the moderation team so we can add it!
a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
discuss this ad on reddit
message the moderators

MODERATORS

top 200 commentsshow all 425
[–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
Yes we have to. Either they have to be put in prison for a very long time or else we have to ban them alltogether. They chose not to live in Europe anymore the day they travelled down there to cut innocent people's heads off.
[–]Yerpbutthenigotbetter 65 points66 points67 points  (19 children)
Any talk about locking borders is meaningless prattle so long as thousands of people can cross that border daily, without any form of meaningful oversight or control.
[–]AdrianWerner 37 points38 points39 points  (17 children)
We need to start sending them back to their countries by hundreds of thousands. The travel to Europe is expensive and dangerous. Very few people will be able to attempt it the second time and among those who do even fewer will try for the third time.
[–]USAuthority 10 points11 points12 points  (5 children)
We need to start sending them back to their countries by hundreds of thousands.
Saudi Arabia does it. Europe should too.
[–]Trollaatori 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
I never thought any one would say that unironically.
[–]Ban_all_religion [score hidden]  (0 children)
Even brutes can make shrewd decisions.
[–]Oscaf_ -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
When is let's do it like the saudis a good idea?
[–]cmndrk33n 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
It just shows you how bad the situation is.
[–]SerbiaHulgBears 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Well it isn't a bad one. They're being rejected by hundreds of thousands so why not deport them?
[–]SlovakiaNikopol_SK 9 points10 points11 points  (9 children)
Tell me - how exactly do you want to return syrians or iraqis?
[–]AdrianWerner 32 points33 points34 points  (7 children)
Send them back to camps in countries near Syria. And iraqis can be send back to Iraq, most of Iraq isn't under ISIS control anymore. Keeping those people in Europe is simply immoral. You won't be able to provide anything resembling good life to them here. They will never integrate, never get decent job, never get accepted into society. And creating this ammount of misery for single immigrant into EU still costs so much money that you could help 29 people in those camps.
[–]SlovakiaNikopol_SK 9 points10 points11 points  (4 children)
And why do you think they left those camps? Now I dont know if you are in aye or nay camp when it comes to 3 billion package to Turkey, but those camps are extremely underfunded. Which still wouldnt be the main issue. That is that Syrians in Turkey have to wait 5+ years in order to even get to interview for granting asylum, which would allow them to seek job. Ie most of them are there without citizenship or asylum status, its illegal to employ them with camps unable to provide them with anything else than basic food and hopefully drinkable water - period. And did I mention they hit their full capacity years ago? You can live in those conditions for weeks, or even months, but not for 4 years as many have. As for Iraq, Iraqi government is currently hosting millions of internally displaced with simply no place to put them anymore. Mosques, schools, public buildings - all are full. Henceforth those running from Mosul, Ramadi, Qaim, Hiit or other cities end up on the streets of Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf or Basra. Not to mention there is thing like international treaties like 1951 covnetion that all EU states are members of that prohibit extraditing refugees to countries in war. Which is Iraq, for example. Or Afghanistan, Libya, CAR and given the gross human rights violation also Eritrea (where 18 yo conscripts are sometimes forced to serve 10+ years in army).
As for integration, statistic is your enemy here but there are more than enough all around the internets for you to find it.
You are looking for an easy way out of here. That is something that Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen or other populist can offer you. If you dont mind being lied to, than those are your guys. If you want the truth its that you dont have good options.
[–]AdrianWerner 31 points32 points33 points  (1 child)
So your solution is to keep spending billions to ensure relatively few that came here have fast wifi and letting the many times more in the camps rot? We should send them all back and then put dozens of billions into those camps. Don't just give money, but actually take over those camps, organize them, improve conditions there, give people work and education..all there. In any case of big war the only sensible way to help refugees is to help them as close to their home country as possible. Also..rcent history have shown that muslims do not integrate. And that was before, when comparitively few of them came to Europe and when their countries were much less radical than they are now. If you think Germany will be able to integrate 1+ mln people who don't know language and have no high-end skills you're living in alternate reality. Not to mention that Germany's civil services are completely overwhelmed. Most of those people will still have to wait years before they get their asylum petition considered and they won't be able to get work till then.
Taking those people in instead of helping them in camps is cruel, inhumane, shortsighted and just plain stupid. It serves no purpose other than to stroke one's humanitarian ego.
[–]with_BIG_ASS_FRIES 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
You are looking for an easy way out of here. That is something that Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen or other populist can offer you.
And what do you think we should do, nothing?
[–]The NetherlandsJasper1984 -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Plus, we should call antidemocratic/anti-civil-rights shit in Turkey what it is, having the camps there might hamper that.
Unfortunately we can say similar threat to anti-free-speech etcetera about Frances' "state of emergency". It seems like states and the EU are not exactly good. I mean i wish we could do better than "I guess what we have here is better".
[–]TheHandsominator 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
You just sound like you are talking about animals which are taking out of their natural environment, that's disgusting.
[–]Germanybakuninsbart -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
Laughably delusional.
[–]CyprusDigenisAkritas 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
[–]The Big Bad Liberal They Warned You Aboutancylostomiasis 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
And it's where the 'get together' part comes in. Some countries would rather erect and defend their own border fences than actually contribute to Frontex and EU Navfor.
[–]Francejustkjfrost 22 points23 points24 points  (89 children)
How to deal with the returning jihadis is certainly a problem.
  • Letting them walk out unwatched is pretty dangerous, that's quite clear
  • Refusing them is taking a risk they try getting in back illegally or keep doing the same thing in another country.
  • Jailing them forever and tossing the key then forgetting about them carries the risk keeping them radicalized till they exit jail as in.
Damnit, no good options. Well, maybe jail then forced social reintegration programs (mandatory job provided with military-like discipline etc) ? And separate prison wings for radicals.
[–]cyril1991 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
20% of all Isis members are French speakers, good luck intercepting them, especially if they have a fake passeport and are foreign-born (ie, they are not already in French intelligence databases).
[–]United Kingdomcluelessperson 9 points10 points11 points  (0 children)
Jailing them forever and tossing the key then forgetting about them carries the risk keeping them radicalized till they exit jail as in.
deradicalisation programmes in jail. deradicalisation programmes everywhere. working constructively with muslim communities to alleviate social problems.
[–]United States of AmericaFurious_Scientist 25 points26 points27 points  (79 children)
you know bullets are cheap
[–]Francejustkjfrost 42 points43 points44 points  (67 children)
You can't kill your way out of everything. Plus there's no death penalty in Europe. And reducing human life value to a bullet (re)set a very dangerous precedent.
[–]The Netherlandsvanlynxnaarrechts 70 points71 points72 points  (23 children)
There comes a point where you have to decide: Is the life of your enemy more important than your own freedom? After Charlie Hebdo, many people said we have to stop "provoking" islamic terrorists, and that the cartoonists actually deserved it.
This is a precedent I consider much more dangerous than killing killers, to be honest.
[–]Francejustkjfrost 7 points8 points9 points  (18 children)
Is the life of your enemy more important than your own freedom?
I'm not sure you are asking the right questions. And there's quite a difference between how you handle dangerous jihadis shooting at you on the battlefield (well you shoot back, obviously), and how you handle disarmed people in your custody under your own hands (in Europe there's no death penalty, again).
and that the cartoonists actually deserved it.
In my humble opinion, anybody that think that is an idiot. I do think it was a disguised insult but i certainly don't think those warrants murder or attack under any circumstances. Being a grown up is being able to take and handle a comment you don't like. Killing people for saying things you don't like is against occidental values.
(and for the context i'm not religious)
[–]The Netherlandsvanlynxnaarrechts 12 points13 points14 points  (17 children)
I wouldn't support the death penalty for returning jihadi's. But I would support extraditing them to the regimes against which they committed their crimes, and no doubt they would be executed by those regimes. I do not see that we have an obligation to protect their rights in these specific cases, especially considered that we consistently extradite citizens to countries with draconic laws (drug dealers to the US, for instance). The exact difficulty of the question is the international nature of the acts. We are proposing putting people in jail for something they did abroad, but we already have laws in place for that, as we do for joining foreign fighting forces. But we do not apply them because we are refusing to treat Muslims as equals, ironically enough. We should treat someone who fought in the Jihad exactly as we would someone who joined any other rebel group.
In short, I do not think that European nations have any obligation to stand up for the rights of people who reject those rights, and travel abroad to fight for that. I believe taking them in and even putting them in prison here will make us a base for terrorist activity worldwide. Our own soft policy would be directly responsible for terrorism, domestic and abroad.
There is also the matter of social signals. Many people saying that the attacks were justified in combination with us being soft on jihadi's sends the signal that we are weak, and accept this. I have even seen a professor at a university have a seminar about how Bataclan was our fault for being "racist" against Muslims! "Racist", because he cited numbers without source that can not be verified in any way, like "thousands of Muslim women being spit upon". These people also exist in an uncomfortable limbo between supporting terrorism and condemning it. They condemn the acts, but they support the reasoning.
[–]I'll probably end up africanmrhotpotato 16 points17 points18 points  (0 children)
I wouldn't support the death penalty for returning jihadi's.
And I fucking would support it.
[–]GTFErinyes 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
I believe taking them in and even putting them in prison here will make us a base for terrorist activity worldwide. Our own soft policy would be directly responsible for terrorism, domestic and abroad.
Exactly. And there is ample evidence that prisons are great places for people to radicalize other prisoners - which makes the whole idea of bringing them back home to prisons a short-sighted one.
[–]imnamenderbratwurst 2 points3 points4 points  (12 children)
But I would support extraditing them to the regimes against which they committed their crimes, and no doubt they would be executed by those regimes. I do not see that we have an obligation to protect their rights in these specific cases, especially considered that we consistently extradite citizens to countries with draconic laws (drug dealers to the US, for instance).
Your approach is just as good as implementing the death penalty yourself. That is why european law doesn't allow it. We might deport drug dealers to the US, but we wouldn't e.g. deport a citizen if they face the death penalty (not sure about crimes committed in the US by US citizen who afterwards fled to Europe. Can anybody enlighten me there?)
As long as those assholes are citizen of Europe, like it or not, we have to deal with them when they return. And we have to deal with them according to our laws and values, the very ones we like to defend against ISIS and Co. If that means locking people up because they committed murder abroad: do it. The laws allow that. They don't allow the death penalty and by that extend extraditing them to certain death.
[–]seius 0 points1 point2 points  (11 children)
Fighting for an enemy of the state should put you on trial for treason, the punishment for treason should be death. As long as we are weak in the west other nations won't take us seriously, the rest of the world is laughing at us for our insane policy of social justice. Hand holding and coddling is not going to make a jihadist suddenly love you, these people want our laws to be changed, and they would very much love to rape your wives and daughters, wake the fuck up, this problem is not going to go away without getting knee deep in blood.
[–]imnamenderbratwurst 2 points3 points4 points  (10 children)
Not even the Americans have the death penalty for treason any longer. And the concept of fighting for a foreign state would first require to recognize ISIS as a state - something which nobody wants to do for obvious reasons.
As for the rest of your statement: bullshit. Nobody considers "the West" as weak. And just because a few (and let's be realistic here: we're still talking about a few, all things considered) idiots want to "rape our wives and daughters" we're not going to give our values up. One of which would be to not indiscriminately kill people, especially outside an active war zone.
[–]seius 5 points6 points7 points  (6 children)
You are giving your values up, your core values. Not killing people that are trying to sabotage your way of life is a relatively new and progressive idea that has mainly come up due to the absolutely horrific crimes committed during WW2 on all sides.
The core value of liberty, property, and secularism are under attack in a big way. Freedom of speech and freedom of mobility are being decimated by this.
Nobody? Putin is laughing at us over Ukraine, he probably regrets not taking all of it, his muscle in syria is putting NATO to shame. China is laughing at us, they produce everything, we produce ... services, specifically financial services.
Mexico is laughing at the U.S., we can't secure our borders anywhere in the world, and people like you are the main issue, you're too weak to stand up for yourself because of some disillusioned high ground, but in reality your countries leaders are the main cause of death and violence in this world, and a lot of it is going to leak into Europe now, our weakness will be exploited, it's a new form of warfare, and it's putting children on the front lines.
[–]United States of Americaizuerial 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
Yes we do, however fighting for an enemy state is not treasonous persae, it's actually a separate crime under American law.
[–]GTFErinyes 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
we're not going to give our values up.
Newsflash, we already are.
Look at how many festivities were cancelled due to terrorist threats
Look at how freedom of speech regarding insulting Muslims (or even debating them) is now restricted
Look at how unwilling we are to take legal action for fears of discrimination. See: Cologne, and blaming the victims
That coddling IS killing Western values
[–]NoOneWhere 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
... Which university was that?
[–]Francejustkjfrost 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
But I would support extraditing them to the regimes against which they committed their crimes
Which, in iraq case, is just a nice way to let somebody else press the button and telling your own population you have nothing to do with their execution since you didn't pressed the trigger yourself you left it to the iraqi henchmen.
Really. So when the mafia boss order a hundred hits you think he's innocent then ?
I do not see that we have an obligation to protect their rights in these specific cases,
Careful, that's how it started in the USA with 09/11.
We are proposing putting people in jail for something they did abroad, but we already have laws in place for that, as we do for joining foreign fighting forces. But we do not apply them because we are refusing to treat Muslims as equals,
Well we SHOULD apply them. And including the part about not extrading people that will certainly be executed that you don't like about.
We should treat someone who fought in the Jihad exactly as we would someone who joined any other rebel group.
Lol, that's ridiculous. You have obviously no idea what you are talking about. You can't treat everyone who had a gun in their hands in their life like every members of the daesh mass rapists apocalyptic death cultists.
In short, I do not think that European nations have any obligation to stand up for the rights of people who reject those rights,
Well don't forgot to send us a postcard from your next holidays in guantanamo then i guess ?
I believe taking them in and even putting them in prison here will make us a base for terrorist activity worldwide. Our own soft policy would be directly responsible for terrorism, domestic and abroad.
Aka War on Terror 3.0. People like you never learn, do they ?
being soft on jihadi's sends the signal that we are weak
I'm sorry, being busy razing them to the ground in syria/iraq since 2 years isn't enough for you ? For fuck's sake.
I have even seen a professor at a university have a seminar about how Bataclan was our fault for being "racist" against Muslims!
Ah yes because one idiot made an idiot point we should all litterally start another war on terror ? What the fuck ?
These people also exist in an uncomfortable limbo between supporting terrorism and condemning it
"if you don't agree with me you are against us and litterally a terrorist from al quaeda !"
What the fuck man² ?
[–]synapticballz 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
How can you make sure the definition of "enemy" will not change in the near future?
Depending on the type of government, this could be extremely dangerous.
Also people who know they'll be put to death if they come back will just fight harder because there's no peaceful option anymore for them.
Means just more innocents killed
[–]imnamenderbratwurst 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
The question is: is it right to kill returning jihadis as a preventive measure because they might be dangerous? I would claim, that no, it isn't. Is it right to shoot an attacker to stop him from murdering someone? Yes, it is. Which is, incidentally, exactly the stance european law takes.
[–]BelgiumSerMtotor 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
What would you do of them? Put them in prison? They would radicalize people. Stripping them of their citizenship? They'd still be a danger abroad.
This situation has no precedent, it calls for unique measures. The fact is that those people are a danger at home and abroad, yet they cannot be put in regular prisons. It is obvious they either need to be executed or interned in special camps.
Any other solution puts someone at risk somewhere.
[–]Belgiumallwordsaremadeup 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Links to the "many people" saying this? I also think we shouldn't do things that insult others, even if we don't understand why they're insulting. I don't think it should be illegal but it should be seen as extremely rude, and not celebrated . Draw Mohammed day is like wipe shit on your face and dance in front of your mother day.. Also.. Shouldn't be illegal, but really fucking rude.. But I definitely don't think the cartoonists deserved it..
[–]GermanyRagoo_ 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
Just gotta kill them while they are still in the warzone ;)
[–]Irelandreddit_can_suck_my_ 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
Exactly. More armed presence in major cities maybe?
[–]FREEDOMProbeIke 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
Excuse me if as I'm an American so I'm not too well versed in European law, but is life imprisonment not an option, since there's no death penalty?
[–]FinlandManzhah 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
It is in some cases, but that costs money that no one has.
[–]Hamburgdjeee [score hidden]  (1 child)
It is in some cases, but that costs money that no one has.
In the US people on deathrow cost more than people who are in prison for life.
[–]FinlandManzhah [score hidden]  (0 children)
Yes, and if we would follow suite it would still cost money that no one has. Even if we started to summarily execute brown people in the streets as some in this thread have supposed, it would still take a massive legal rework of constitutions, criminal laws and European Unions laws as well as resigning from several UN agreements for all countries participating in this purge to make it legally possible, which too would cost us money no one has.
Or we could say fuck it and let anarchy reing.
[–]Francejustkjfrost 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Generally when you get life you get released after 20 years most of the time, unless we can prove exceptional crimes like if you were dumb enough to film yourself beheading people or if you were a serial rapist caught with proofs or you go the breivik psycho way.
[–]Francesneakystratus -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
I completely agree with you, but sadly it seems like Redditors really like genocide as long as it's directed toward groups they don't identify with. It's pretty shocking how ignorant and racist so many of the comments here are. I'm hoping it's just "those people" brigading a popular site like this, rather than lots of people really being like that :/
It's very worrying.
[–]pennylane8 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
Someone is taking Your freedom away and You can no longer feel safe in Your own home. I would not call wanting this to end ignorant or racist.
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[deleted]
    [–]johnmountain 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    But that's the 'Murrican way!
    [–]schroedingerstwat -2 points-1 points0 points  (12 children)
    You can't kill your way out of everything.
    false.
    Plus there's no death penalty in Europe.
    valid point.
    And reducing human life value to a bullet (re)set a very dangerous precedent
    huh? why? honestly, not all human lives are equally worthy and I think that is obvious to anyone who thinks about it reasonably for even a moment. if we consider Pope Francis and Jihadi John, can we really say that their lives are equally worthy? that the death of one would be just as much of a loss to humanity collectively as the death of the other? Obviously not.
    [–]Foobared 6 points7 points8 points  (10 children)
    if we consider Pope Francis and Jihadi John, can we really say that their lives are equally worthy?
    If you believe in just a tiny amount of what the former preaches and represent, you wouldn't even ask this question.
    In fact, it requires someone with a belief system that allows not only for human life to have a "worth", but also for said "worth" to be different, just to even contemplate such a question.
    A belief system closer to the one of Jihadi John that Pope Francis - or anyone with consideration for people, actually.
    [–]schroedingerstwat 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    you actually make a good point. I am not a Christian.
    It is worthwhile mentioning however that Francis and John Paul II seem to have been at odds with the Catholic church's historical position on humanity and the worth of life (I don't know enough about Ratzinger/Benedict to comment upon his own beliefs, but my understanding is that he was a bit more fire and brimstone than either his predecessor or his successor). it is only a relatively recent position for them to hold that capital punishment, for instance, was not justifiable. The Catholic Church of ages past had quite a lot in common with Jihadi John and his mentality. In any case, it is not inherently contradictory to be Christian and to hold that belief. The ultimate belief of Christianity is of course centered around the concept that humans are, fundamentally, morally flawed and require salvation.
    I note, by the way, that you conveniently omitted to answer the question.
    [–]Foobared 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    The original comparison was of two men's life "worth", not on the underlying intellectual movement. Being an atheist, I'd say that both represent and participate in an alienating system whose sole purpose was and still is mass control, and whose usefulness has disappeared once we've moved out of feodalism.
    I note, by the way, that you conveniently omitted to answer the question.
    Because it has no sense and is unworthy of a species that calls itself evolved. There's obviously the subsequent question of wether to sacrifice one life to save another, but we were speaking of capital punishment - and up to now, despite millenaries of practice, we have yet to have the definitive proof that killing a criminal has saved a life better than keeping said criminal behind closed doors.
    Independently of the moral aspect of the capital punishment, there's also the irrevocability of such a punishment, and a few innocents who spent most - but not all - of their life in prison are grateful that such an irrevocable extreme was not applied to their case.
    [–]schroedingerstwat 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Because it has no sense and is unworthy of a species that calls itself evolved.
    talk about hyperbole. we make the judgment call all the time that certain life is less worthy of protection than others. we do not have laws forbidding cruel and unusual punishment of aubergines, for instance, even though the aubergine is as much a living organism as is the human being. human societies make such judgments all the time and have done so since the dawn of civilization.
    i agree with you on the moral basis regarding capital punishment (although I must say that I am not against capital punishment on the moral basis that no-one should ever be killed, but rather that no government should be normally and generally vested with this power, especially given its proven incompetence in prosecuting such cases). we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the fact that all life is equally worthy and has equal value however.
    do you, for instance, support abortion?
    [–]Irelandreddit_can_suck_my_ -2 points-1 points0 points  (6 children)
    Okay... well, meanwhile, everyone else living in reality will fight your wars for you and fix this mess so you can continue looking down on them.
    [–]imnamenderbratwurst 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
    Violence by a state isn't all or nothing. A state always has to use the least amount of force possible to achieve a goal (in this case: protecting its people). Locking returning jihadis up is less force than killing them. Stopping them in an active war zone is a different matter.
    [–]Irelandreddit_can_suck_my_ 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    Locking returning jihadis up is less force than killing them.
    Yes, but does it work? Is it sustainable? Does it fix the problem? Anyway, the comment I replied to seems to think the lives of his loved ones are worth the same to him as that of a terrorist's apparently because of some weird pacifism ideology. I'm sorry, but it's just absurd.
    [–]imnamenderbratwurst 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    To the state they are and should be. To an individual person obviously not. If you have a problem with that, than your ideology is much closer to ISIS, than you might want to accept. There's no such thing as "they are worth less because they are them" in human rights. There's always the practicality of using force to fend of attacks (self defense or police/military forces). But this is never because "the attackers are worth less", but because "the attacked are worth the defense". That the defense might bring death to the attacker is something that is sometimes a necessity, but should never be the goal in and of itself just because you declare some people to have less value.
    [–]schroedingerstwat 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
    A state always has to use the least amount of force possible to achieve a goal
    according to what universal law?
    *my emphasis added
    [–]imnamenderbratwurst 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    To be honest I have an issue with the concept of that question. What good does it bring if anybody uses more force than strictly necessary to achieve a goal? Especially a state which shouldn't even have feelings like hatred and thirst for revenge (although I do accept, that the citizen of a state might do). How is there any argument to be made for using more force, than necessary?
    [–]schroedingerstwat 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I'm sure most states don't want to waste money or resources and so use the minimum force necessary to achieve a goal. what I took issue with was your normative statement, or declaration that states are obliged by some power to act in that way.
    [–]akeryw -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
    Kill or be killed. That's the first rule of war. Leave morals at home.
    [–]Francejustkjfrost 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Europe proper isn't at war. I'd like it to stay that way.
    [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen -1 points0 points1 point  (10 children)
    Plus there's no death penalty in Europe.
    Regretably, in this case.
    [–]imnamenderbratwurst 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
    No, fortunately. I consider this one of the core values of Europe.
    [–]seius 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
    Since when? the last European war we were hanging people left and right.
    [–]imnamenderbratwurst 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
    Since exactly that war. Well, in some instances since later. There's a reason why some stuff is no longer acceptable nowadays. The last war did play a big role in that.
    [–]seius -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
    That's not how the world works though, if you won't they will, this is how power struggles resolve themselves in nature, to the victor go the spoils.
    [–]imnamenderbratwurst 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Bullshit. "Power struggles" don't resolve themselves by hanging people left and right. I've not said that no force should be used where necessary to defend our values. But giving up those values to defend them sound very much like suicide because you're afraid of death.
    [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    I don't. I absolutely believe that the death penalty is fair in some cases.
    Edit: Spelling
    [–]Irelandmalicious_turtle 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
    US death row study: 4% of defendants sentenced to die are innocent
    Would you still support the death penalty if you or someone you know were wrongfully convicted?
    [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
    I wonder why you people keep referring to USA. You are aware we're in Europe, right?
    Our justice systems are completely different from the US.
    [–]Irelandmalicious_turtle 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    No innocent people are ever convicted in Europe?
    [–]Francejustkjfrost 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
    Regretably, in this case.
    Oh you would rather be in an occidental country with death penalty ? No issue, America's that way. You just need to show up a biometric passeport to pass the border, no need for a visa. Here's your plane ticket and 100$ for the road
    [–]youre_not_oppressed -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    You can't kill your way out of everything.
    Wrong.
    [–]United KingdomZephinism 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
    Rope is a better alternative as you can reuse it.
    [–]GermanyVERTIKAL19 3 points4 points5 points  (7 children)
    So btw why arent US deathrow inmates shot? Seems american to kill them by a gun
    [–]KennethKanniff 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    They are in Utah
    [–]United States of AmericaLampjaw 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    It's up to the individual state. Injection lets people watch them die which some find more vindictive than a simple shot to the head.
    [–]The NetherlandsReinierPersoon [score hidden]  (0 children)
    People can watch them get shot too. In the past people showed up to bloody executions and they still do in some places.
    [–][deleted]  (3 children)
    [removed]
      [–]I'm an EU citizen too!must_warn_others[M] 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
      Go back to talking about Magic the gathering
      This is not acceptable. Please strive to maintain standards of civility on /r/europe .
      [–][deleted]  (1 child)
      [removed]
        [–]Englandmanwithabadheart -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        Of course you have the American flag.
        [–]GermanySpaceHippoDE -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        The 'murican way of life death.
        [–]Romaniatrorollel 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
        Jailing them forever and tossing the key then forgetting about them carries the risk keeping them radicalized till they exit jail as in.
        Great. Let's not imprison thieves either because they might learn additional tricks in jail.
        [–]Francejustkjfrost -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
        Thieves don't try radicalizing other big time. I only suggest proper jail conditions, not setting them free. IE separate wing + proper rehabilitation program AFTER (or during, of course) the jail time. It's not a pass around jail, of course.
        [–]FinlandManzhah 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        Thieves don't try radicalizing other big time.
        One could point out that turning small time criminals into lifers is exactly what jails in western world do.
        [–]SerbiaHulgBears 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Keeping radicals together in specific areas of a prison wing is, well, not a very good idea.
        [–]FinlandManzhah 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        You have a foreign legion, conscript them to it.
        [–]Turkeyw4hammer 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
        Lol why? They're your citizens take them in and arrest them. Lock them for life and see if they actually want to come back knowing what's waiting back home.
        [–]Confoederationis HelveticaeLejeune_Dirichelet 164 points165 points166 points  (160 children)
        So we let violent, mentally unstable Europeans freely travel to war-zones to chop off some Syrian heads, and then refuse to take them back? I'm sure the locals appreciate having their towns overrun by English, French or Dutch-speaking foreigners and then have half the population massacred! That's some real responsible, fair attitude the author is advocating for!
        These individuals should get international arrest warrants in their names, repatriated to their home country and prosecuted for involvement in illegal organisations, war crimes, etc...
        It should be advertised loud and clear in all Muslim communities that if radicalised young Islamists go to Syria they cannot come back
        These kids leave with the intention of dying, and Mr. Philip Johnson has cleverly understood that their passport is their #1 priority. This man deserves a medal!
        [–]European UnionRc72 32 points33 points34 points  (1 child)
        These kids leave with the intention of dying, and Mr. Philip Johnson has cleverly understood that their passport is their #1 priority.
        A caricature in the French satirical weekly "Le Canard Enchaîné" quickly summarised this by showing two laughing jihadists, one saying to the other: "Be careful, Mouloud, if you blow yourself up, you'll lose French citizenship." and the other answering: "Well, I don't think that the 70 virgins are going to ask to see my papers."
        [–]Kerbaros [score hidden]  (0 children)
        i must find this caricature and post it on my office door to piss off my colleagues.
        [–]Romaniaceballos 10 points11 points12 points  (0 children)
        I'm sure they speak English, French and Dutch when they get there.
        [–]Nemesis6 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
        One thing I've noticed is the regressive intelligentsia's recycling of a point generally made in the debate on Islam in the west; that of not calling demonizing/calling them terrorists, and re-applying it to these returning jihadists. It's truly remarkable.
        [–]Czech Republicmikatom 15 points16 points17 points  (22 children)
        yes, it's sickening! Those retarded individuals travel for "violent adventure" abroad to massacre and rape local people and we are like "not our problem". It's a HUGE PROBLEM actually. They need to be treated as war criminals! and not like, a read the other day, some Belgian jihadist who run bakery after he returned from Syria. wtf
        [–]Romaniatrorollel 22 points23 points24 points  (1 child)
        From the article:
        Younès spent six weeks with an ISIS army faction in Aleppo. Upon his return, Belgian authorities arrested Younès . He was in pretrial detention for two months, after which a Belgian court handed him a three year suspended sentence, because it could not be proven he had committed any crimes during his stay in Syria.
        This is wrong. Merely joining ISIS should be enough to throw this guy in jail for the rest of his life. I don't care about his bakery.
        What Belgium is doing is equivalent to letting nazi war criminals live peacefully in South America. No wonder they are a cesspit of extremism.
        Younès claims he has renounced jihad but is convinced that “Islamic ideology and Islam will one day dominate the world.” He also says he has no regrets about his time in Syria.
        Wonderful.
        [–]watewate 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
        While I agree fully, this Younes is a special case, he's a loser who even was bullied by people in IS.
        Just to say he isn't really the average fighter. We have jailed islamists for way longer just for inciting hatred.
        [–]European Unionjtalin 3 points4 points5 points  (18 children)
        They need to be treated as war crime suspects, until their guilt has been established. Not that I think they should be running bakeries as if nothing had happened, but nobody is a criminal until a court establishes that to be the case.
        [–]TerryOller 11 points12 points13 points  (8 children)
        "However, Younès admits to having tortured people and still has an ISIS flag hanging over his bed."
        [–]MJGrey -7 points-6 points-5 points  (7 children)
        Its still a case of proving it. As despicable as i find this/him, when it comes to the legal arena, what matters is what you can prove, not what you know.
        [–]TerryOller 9 points10 points11 points  (6 children)
        ""However,Younes admits to having tortured peopleand still has an ISIS flag hanging over his bed."
        [–]MJGrey -5 points-4 points-3 points  (4 children)
        And i can admit i let the dogs out or that i stole a cookie when I was 7, doesn't make it true. A lot of people say all kinds of stupid shit.
        [–]The NetherlandsDeathleach 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
        If they didn't want to be prosecuted for torture, they shouldn't have admitted they tortured people. This guy went to Syria, joined ISIS, admits to torture and you say: "we don't know for sure!".
        [–]MJGrey -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
        I'm saying words are not enough to prosecute someone, you need physical evidence thats in line with actions performed by said individual. I'm pointing out how the legal system works not my own beliefs. If you want to prosecute him then do so for something you have actual evidence for or he'll be back in his bakery due to no tangible evidence. You'd probably be doing him a favor due to double jeopardy as well.
        [–]TerryOller 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
        I don't know how to respond to that. Bless your heart.
        [–]Romaniatrorollel 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
        They need to be treated as war crime suspects
        The guy admitted to having joined ISIS, he's more than just a suspect. Joining should be an extremely serious crime by itself.
        [–]Canadaexasperation 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        A confession is not a conviction.
        You might be surprised how often people confess to committing crimes they didn't actually commit.
        [–]avirbd 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
        Regardless if war crime or not, if you join an enemy army you at least loose your nationality. How can they return to Europe without proper papers?
        [–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
        Plenty of people are entering europe without proper papers these days.
        [–]avirbd 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        Right, what was I thinking. When you are used to traveling by airplane, you forget how "easy" it can be to sneak in by other means of transport.
        [–]The NetherlandsReinierPersoon [score hidden]  (0 children)
        Also, they cannot take away their nationality if it would make them stateless. But yeah, they could also just cross the border, in most places that's not really difficult.
        [–]FranceAptC34 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        At least in France, they can't loose their nationality in this kind of situation, I assume in other countries it is similar. By the way, it seems they can't prove he did anything, how can they realistically do anything with him?
        [–]avirbd 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        After doing some research it seems that you can only loose the French nationality if you have been naturalized. Not if you have been born with it.
        But this it not the case for all countries. Ex. You can loose your German nationality of you join an enemy army or combat force. I guess Isis clearly classifies as enemy army or enemy armed force. I gues it could be the same for some other EU countries.
        [–]The NetherlandsJasper1984 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        But then so should Kissinger, who recently attended a funeral in Germany with zero fear. (not sure if we should use the visit to the funeral, but probably, yes) When i think about things like this, i cannot help but think that these approaches are not tak
        [–]The NetherlandsNot-an-account 72 points73 points74 points  (115 children)
        Which is why we should intensify drone strikes. Every dead Jihadi is one that can't come back to haunt us. {bracing for downvotes}
        [–]GermanyTriggle07 107 points108 points109 points  (92 children)
        And every dead innocent will grow us more Jihadis.
        [–]GTFErinyes 23 points24 points25 points  (4 children)
        And every dead innocent will grow us more Jihadis.
        This keeps being said, but that's never been substantiated for those in the actual war zones. They're quite literally espousing Sun Tzu's Art of War by convincing their foes to not fight them with such arguments, and the West is eating it up. Look at what happened when ISIS didn't get dealt with early enough - they overran Western Iraq and stole hundreds of millions in gold as well as the armory in Mosul which gave them arms and equipment and the money to fund their armies. It also legitimized them as a force to followers worldwide and swelled their fighting ranks.
        It's actually been a bigger problem for Western grown jihadis who cite that reason - of course, if people have more sympathy for actual terrorists getting killed in the name of religious unity that they would seek to commit terrorism within the country they grew up in, then I don't have a lot of sympathy for them when they do go overseas and get killed either
        And on that note, the entire idea that bombing creates more jihadis has so many connotations of Western ideological superiority. Do you really think that people there are mindless and can't figure out whether their family members are truly innocent or not? Or that people can't figure out the nuances of such a war? They're not simpletons as people like to to paint them in broad strokes with
        Look at the fanaticism of Japan during WW2 - they practically pioneered modern suicide tactics with kamikaze planes, human land mines, suicide charges, and fighting men who refuse to surrender - some even until the 1970s. Bombing and defeating them hasn't made generations of Japanese resentful to the West - instead, they're one of the closest partners to the West today.
        And I'm sure people will downvote me for this, but this is such a strawman argument. The big issue is that those jihadists are already killing innocent civilians. You know who benefits most from not having airstrikes? The jihadists!
        They're the ones who want free reign to subjugate people and kill those that oppose them. The idea that people should sit back and do nothing is exactly how ISIS came to power. The West and the Iraqi military did nothing when ISIS attacked Mosul with a small force - by taking Mosul, they took Iraq's second largest bank (and millions in gold bullion and money), its second largest armory (and tons of weapons and ammo), and legitimize its claims to a caliphate which drew tens of thousands of fighters and other groups to pledge allegiance to ISIS.
        And worst of all, all the drone rhetoric in this thread isn't based in fact. It's a regurgitation of propaganda spread by militants and jihadists and yes, guilt-ridden Westerners, to get the West off their backs. Look at this source, which is frequently cited in drone threads:
        Note their methodology - they even include jihadist websites and primarily draw on local sources, which vary considerably since they even admit that their local sources don't explicitly state if someone is a militant or not, or even if they are truly a child, using terms such as 'family member' or 'my child'
        Even so, if you look at the numbers, here's the breakdown:
        • 421 drone strikes in Pakistan since June 2004 or 3.4 drone strikes per month
        • 107-127 drone strikes in Yemen since Nov 2002 or 0.75-.89 strikes per month
        • 15-19 drone strikes in Somalia since Jan 2007 or 0.16-0.20 drone strikes per month
        • 48 drone strikes in Afghanistan since Jan 2015 or 3.89 drone strikes per month
        The tally of data when broken down by those killed/hurt per strike, tells quite a bit:
        • In Pakistan, 5.88-9.47 killed per strike (1.0-2.3 civilians per strike, 0.41- 0.49 children per strike)
        • In Yemen, 3.87-6.78 killed per strike (0.51-0.94 civilians per strike, 0.06-0.07 children per strike)
        • In Somalia, 1.3-7.2 killed per strike (0-0.33 civilians per strike, 0 children per strike)
        • In Afghanistan, 8.75-12.9 killed per strike (0.29-0.88 civilians per strike, 0-0.38 children per strike)
        The ranges of people killed per strike seem to average/hover out around 6-7 per strike, which is consistent with the use of Hellfire missiles from drones (they're meant to be anti-tank weapons, not big explosions that level neighborhoods), and it really should put to rest the idea that drones are dropping bombs that can kill 100+ people at once.
        The fluctuation in data between Pakistan's civilian death rate and those in Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is unlikely to be due to drone operator error (the odds that operators in one country are a magnitude worse than other countries is unlikely, given uniformity in training and procedures) and must be looked at other factors, from Pakistan's demographic makeup/population density all the way to the possibility that due to the use of self-reported data, there is a lot more to gain from Pakistani militants (who have higher access to media than Somalia or Afghanistan) to claim higher civilian death tolls. In fact, this examination of the sources used goes into the ethical and methodological issues that many of these examinations of drone sources.
        Of particular note is that the reliance on local sources to discern between "drone strikes" and airstrikes is impossible. The Pakistani Air Force has officially launched TEN TIMES as many airstrikes with F-16s in North Waziristan than 'reported drone strikes' and has dropped over 10,000 bombs there alone. Compare that to the grand total of 421 drone strikes in Pakistan in the past 11 years. The idea that a local source can discern between a drone strike and an F-16 airstrike is why it is imperative to examine these data points being thrown around on the Internet and not become a victim of propaganda.
        What's ultimately wrong here is how many people quickly eat up unsubstantiated sources and data on drones, conflate that with the war on ISIS, then use it to justify no action which is precisely what the jihadists want to get free reign to execute civilians en masse, far more than any errant air strikes have caused, and to establish their caliphate.
        [–]cyril1991 -4 points-3 points-2 points  (3 children)
        We bomb them for their own good obviously. The founding members of ISIS were released from US jails. Anyway, do you think people don't resent Americans for drone strikes going wrong? Oh, I am sure they meant well, they killed my family but it is all a mistake, jolly good, carry on?
        People witnessing drone strikes won't become terrorists. They will live in terror at night when hearing drones flying overhead. They might maybe feel some sympathy for the terrorists, and help them in small ways, while mistrusting the US. Just don't believe that frightened people will make rational choices and try to be understanding.
        The truth is that the CIA killed lots of terrorists leaders but also wasted lots of 200000$ bombs on very small gang leaders that did not matter a lot and never were a direct threat to the West. It however did fail to contain Isis, predict the Arab Spring or the recent Taliban attacks.
        Also, Japan was treated on an equal footing after WWII, during a period of renewed prosperity. The core idea of drone strikes is that you can nuke a goat fucker 11000km away with the press of a button - there is no possible comparison. The carrot and stick technique only works if there is a carrot.
        [–]GTFErinyes 10 points11 points12 points  (1 child)
        People witnessing drone strikes won't become terrorists. They will live in terror at night when hearing drones flying overhead. They might maybe feel some sympathy for the terrorists, and help them in small ways, while mistrusting the US. Just don't believe that frightened people will make rational choices and try to be understanding.
        Your post would make more sense if you didn't base your argument on the bogeyman of drones that gets propagated on the Internet by anti-Western activists and the jihadists themselves, which further reinforces my point that you are the ones they are appealing their emotional argument to.
        Those jihadists are already killing innocent civilians. You know who benefits most from not having airstrikes? THE JIHADISTS! They're the ones who want free reign to subjugate people and kill those that oppose them. The idea that people should sit back and do nothing is exactly how ISIS came to big power.
        Yes, the American invasion helped create the power vacuum - but they were a small group with limited power. The West and the Iraqi military did nothing when ISIS attacked Mosul with a small force - by taking Mosul, they took Iraq's second largest bank (and millions in gold bullion and money), its second largest armory (and tons of weapons and ammo), and legitimize its claims to a caliphate which drew tens of thousands of fighters and other groups to pledge allegiance to ISIS.
        And worst of all, your drone rhetoric isn't based in fact. It's a regurgitation of propaganda spread by militants and jihadists to get the West off their backs. Look at this source, which is frequently cited:
        Note their methodology - they even include jihadist websites and primarily draw on local sources, which vary considerably since they even admit that their local sources don't explicitly state if someone is a militant or not, or even if they are truly a child, using terms such as 'family member' or 'my child'
        Even so, if you look at the numbers, here's the breakdown:
        • 421 drone strikes in Pakistan since June 2004 or 3.4 drone strikes per month
        • 107-127 drone strikes in Yemen since Nov 2002 or 0.75-.89 strikes per month
        • 15-19 drone strikes in Somalia since Jan 2007 or 0.16-0.20 drone strikes per month
        • 48 drone strikes in Afghanistan since Jan 2015 or 3.89 drone strikes per month
        The tally of data when broken down by those killed/hurt per strike, tells quite a bit:
        • In Pakistan, 5.88-9.47 killed per strike (1.0-2.3 civilians per strike, 0.41- 0.49 children per strike)
        • In Yemen, 3.87-6.78 killed per strike (0.51-0.94 civilians per strike, 0.06-0.07 children per strike)
        • In Somalia, 1.3-7.2 killed per strike (0-0.33 civilians per strike, 0 children per strike)
        • In Afghanistan, 8.75-12.9 killed per strike (0.29-0.88 civilians per strike, 0-0.38 children per strike)
        The ranges of people killed per strike seem to average/hover out around 6-7 per strike, which is consistent with the use of Hellfire missiles from drones (they're meant to be anti-tank weapons, not big explosions that level neighborhoods), and it really should put to rest the idea that drones are dropping bombs that can kill 100+ people at once.
        The fluctuation in data between Pakistan's civilian death rate and those in Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is unlikely to be due to drone operator error (the odds that operators in one country are a magnitude worse than other countries is unlikely, given uniformity in training and procedures) and must be looked at other factors, from Pakistan's demographic makeup/population density all the way to the possibility that due to the use of self-reported data, there is a lot more to gain from Pakistani militants (who have higher access to media than Somalia or Afghanistan) to claim higher civilian death tolls. In fact, this examination of the sources used goes into the ethical and methodological issues that many of these examinations of drone sources
        I'm serious, read that one closely: the use of self-reported data by locals who don't know the difference between drone strikes and airstrikes is particularly of importance. Look at the fact that the Pakistan Air Force has launched over TEN TIMES more F-16 airstrikes in the same area the drone strikes are occuring - do you really think someone knows what a drone strike is vs. an F-16 airstrike? (And your point about hearing drones flying at night is BS. You can't hear them fly at the altitudes they fly at).
        They don't, but somehow it's all drones and Western authors have now come up with the story about how people are afraid of drones. But hey, it helps the insurgents in the area who publicize it to get sympathy and to get the guilt-ridden Western citizens to back off from opposing them.
        What's ultimately wrong here is how many people quickly eat up unsubstantiated sources and data on drones, conflate that with the war on ISIS, then use it to justify no action which is precisely what the jihadists want to get free reign to execute civilians en masse, far more than any errant air strikes have caused, and to establish their caliphate.
        [–]United States of AmericaLauxman [score hidden]  (0 children)
        As if statistics will sway the narrative against drones.
        [–]United States of Americaizuerial 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        The difference is the concept of how frightened there are.
        The reason Japan stopped their radical ideology is both due to the fact that they were rebuilt after the war, and also because they were bombed continuously for months, killing hundreds of thousands indiscriminately, in terrible manners I might add. This was then highlighted with the dropping of two weapons that wiped cities out, and after the surrender was occupied by a military force that continues to this day.
        I am not advocating this strategy by the way, it is likely too high of price and immoral. You are right that a little bit of fear creates more problems, but fear that comes from the concept of knowing that everyone around you in your land is dying from things that are dropped from the sky and you can't strike back, and that those things don't care if you are a civilian, soldier, or anything else, they are just there to kill you is different. That type of fear you lose hope, and the only way to win a war against an ideology like radical Islam, or Bushido, or Nazism, is to kill the hope that those ideologies bring, at least as far as we know.
        [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen 11 points12 points13 points  (4 children)
        It might sound really bad. But i prefer us killing them than them killing us. If you have a alternative that actually solves the problem, then i am willing to listen.
        [–]Francesneakystratus -4 points-3 points-2 points  (3 children)
        You're going to kill innocent people. Which is already happening, in scores. How people can possibly support the slaughter of innocents is beyond me. Do you really not care just because they happen to be brown?
        And every time that happens, it confirms every radical's belief in what they do. It increases fear in innocent people's minds, which leaves them more open to being radicalised. It creates more and more and more radicalised people, and greater threat. Which will lead to even more drone strikes and even more dead innocent people. Yup, great solution.
        We're treating innocent lives lost in drone strikes as being less worthy. We are giving the jihadists ammo. Nothing about this is right.
        [–]GTFErinyes 6 points7 points8 points  (1 child)
        You're going to kill innocent people. Which is already happening, in scores. How people can possibly support the slaughter of innocents is beyond me. Do you really not care just because they happen to be brown?
        I'm sure people will downvote me for this, but this is such a strawman argument. Nobody is slaughtering innocents on purpose. Well, someone is - it's the group the West is trying to fight.
        Also, you can completely care about civilians but also understand that civilians unfortunately get caught up in war.
        The West spends billions of dollars on training and getting the best precision weapons possible. But until the day a magic bullet is invented, the best the West can do when action is taken is to mitigate those killed that are innocent.
        That doesn't mean the West doesn't care - in fact, it cares quite a lot when it is arguably easier to just wipe everyone out and solve the problem in a single blow.
        And every time that happens, it confirms every radical's belief in what they do. It increases fear in innocent people's minds, which leaves them more open to being radicalised. It creates more and more and more radicalised people, and greater threat. Which will lead to even more drone strikes and even more dead innocent people. Yup, great solution.
        We're treating innocent lives lost in drone strikes as being less worthy. We are giving the jihadists ammo. Nothing about this is right.
        This is such an apologist attitude.
        Those jihadists are already killing innocent civilians. You know who benefits most from not having airstrikes? THE JIHADISTS!
        They're the ones who want free reign to subjugate people and kill those that oppose them. The idea that people should sit back and do nothing is exactly how ISIS came to power.
        The West and the Iraqi military did nothing when ISIS attacked Mosul with a small force - by taking Mosul, they took Iraq's second largest bank (and millions in gold bullion and money), its second largest armory (and tons of weapons and ammo), and legitimize its claims to a caliphate which drew tens of thousands of fighters and other groups to pledge allegiance to ISIS.
        And worst of all, your drone rhetoric isn't based in fact. It's a regurgitation of propaganda spread by militants and jihadists to get the West off their backs. Look at this source, which is frequently cited:
        Note their methodology - they even include jihadist websites and primarily draw on local sources, which vary considerably since they even admit that their local sources don't explicitly state if someone is a militant or not, or even if they are truly a child, using terms such as 'family member' or 'my child'
        Even so, if you look at the numbers, here's the breakdown:
        • 421 drone strikes in Pakistan since June 2004 or 3.4 drone strikes per month
        • 107-127 drone strikes in Yemen since Nov 2002 or 0.75-.89 strikes per month
        • 15-19 drone strikes in Somalia since Jan 2007 or 0.16-0.20 drone strikes per month
        • 48 drone strikes in Afghanistan since Jan 2015 or 3.89 drone strikes per month
        The tally of data when broken down by those killed/hurt per strike, tells quite a bit:
        • In Pakistan, 5.88-9.47 killed per strike (1.0-2.3 civilians per strike, 0.41- 0.49 children per strike)
        • In Yemen, 3.87-6.78 killed per strike (0.51-0.94 civilians per strike, 0.06-0.07 children per strike)
        • In Somalia, 1.3-7.2 killed per strike (0-0.33 civilians per strike, 0 children per strike)
        • In Afghanistan, 8.75-12.9 killed per strike (0.29-0.88 civilians per strike, 0-0.38 children per strike)
        The ranges of people killed per strike seem to average/hover out around 6-7 per strike, which is consistent with the use of Hellfire missiles from drones (they're meant to be anti-tank weapons, not big explosions that level neighborhoods), and it really should put to rest the idea that drones are dropping bombs that can kill 100+ people at once.
        The fluctuation in data between Pakistan's civilian death rate and those in Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is unlikely to be due to drone operator error (the odds that operators in one country are a magnitude worse than other countries is unlikely, given uniformity in training and procedures) and must be looked at other factors, from Pakistan's demographic makeup/population density all the way to the possibility that due to the use of self-reported data, there is a lot more to gain from Pakistani militants (who have higher access to media than Somalia or Afghanistan) to claim higher civilian death tolls. In fact, this examination of the sources used goes into the ethical and methodological issues that many of these examinations of drone sources
        What's ultimately wrong here is how many people quickly eat up unsubstantiated sources and data on drones, conflate that with the war on ISIS, then use it to justify no action which is precisely what the jihadists want to get free reign to execute civilians en masse, far more than any errant air strikes have caused, and to establish their caliphate.
        [–]L3tum -3 points-2 points-1 points  (0 children)
        There's a documentation about a drone striker(if that's the word for people controlling the drone strikes? maybe pilot...) who killed a lot of innocents because "information" has shown that they may be jihadists.
        Now,I don't have a link,and it's not in English anyways, but what I want to say is that you shouldn't just take something for given, as you said that innocents are going to die in wars. Furthermore,we might not know everything that is happening there and just pressing a button instead of looking your enemy in the eye is a lot easier, and that's the main point of a lot of people against drones, and drone strikes. Especially since its way harder to really difference innocent and fighter,and to make sure that no innocent people are going to run into the strike.
        I'll get downvoted for this anyways, I got downvoted in this sub when I said that you shouldn't say "all Muslims", but do whatever floats your boat.
        [–]SuomiTommiH -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
        We are giving the jihadists ammo.
        And who are we? Maybe you guys should start doing it old school way. Send ground troops to massacre ISIS :)
        [–]GLORIOUS ALBIONGibeMoneiPl0x 23 points24 points25 points  (49 children)
        So what do you propose we do, let these Jihadis kill more innocent Syrians/Iraqis? I'd rather see 10 Jihadis and 1 innocent person killed than see those same 10 Jihadis kill 100 innocent people, and I'm sure most Syrians and Iraqis would agree, and wouldn't join Daesh because of these strikes.
        [–]Indiaperseus0807 25 points26 points27 points  (37 children)
        The problem is that it gives future generations an extremely easy justification to become Jihadis. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
        [–]LtBurtReynolds 28 points29 points30 points  (8 children)
        How many family members did the 9/11 hijackers lose to violence? None. How about those who attacked France? None.
        Seems like most terrorists come from well educated backgrounds and are primarily motivated by ideology, not revenge.
        [–]AndyAwesome -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
        They killed one of Bin Ladens wifes tho..
        [–]Indiaperseus0807 -4 points-3 points-2 points  (6 children)
        That makes no sense, you don't need to lose a direct family member to feel sympathy for whoever you perceive as your "own people". Even having someone you know from your neighbourhood die can be enough to set you off if you're an inherent dickwad.
        [–]LtBurtReynolds 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
        That makes no sense, you don't need to lose a direct family member to feel sympathy for whoever you perceive as your "own people".
        So by your logic killing actual terrorists is wrong because they consider them "their people."
        Even having someone you know from your neighbourhood die can be enough to set you off if you're an inherent dickwad.
        Exactly, so this whole idea about how action "creates terrorists" is nonsense and history shows there is no truth behind it.
        [–]Indiaperseus0807 -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
        This isn't my logic, I'm not a terrorist. My point is when a drone strike kills somebody's grandmother or something, you bet your ass people are going to use that to drum up hatred in the future.
        [–]LtBurtReynolds 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
        My point is when a drone strike kills somebody's grandmother or something, you bet your ass people are going to use that to drum up hatred in the future
        Can you cite one example? Where are all the terrorists from the wars in the past? Why weren't there Vietnamese people flying planes into buildings and shooting up Paris? Which family member of Bin Laden was killed by the west?
        Considering the Jihadis kill and target far more innocents than drones do, what happens then? Do they join the GOP and take up golf?
        Why do you dismiss the stated objectives of these groups? They're not revenge groups, they're an army with an ideological goal.
        [–]GTFErinyes [score hidden]  (1 child)
        That makes no sense, you don't need to lose a direct family member to feel sympathy for whoever you perceive as your "own people"
        I'm sorry but if someone feels enough sympathy to join a terrorist group and perpetrate human rights violations because they feel an actual terrorist is part of their "own people" - then that's just proof that much of this is rooted in religious ideology/identity, and not revenge
        Even having someone you know from your neighbourhood die can be enough to set you off if you're an inherent dickwad.
        So he's already an inherent dickwad - the entire idea that he needs action on his family to justify him doing something is ridiculous. He's already justifying his action with whatever appeals to him
        [–]Indiaperseus0807 [score hidden]  (0 children)
        We're talking about innocent people dying as collateral damage in drone strikes, not terrorists.
        [–]United Kingdommongo_lloyd 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        Fire bombings and two nuclear bombings killed thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fanatic Japanese imperialists. How many exist now?
        [–]TerryOller 8 points9 points10 points  (20 children)
        I don't think I beileve that. As soon as foreign armies left Iraq, that's when ISIS grew, not when the west was doing its most bombing.
        [–]United KingdomSirCarlo 24 points25 points26 points  (18 children)
        ISIS grew because of the power vacuum but it would be extremely extremely naive to think that western involvement in bombing and drone strikes does not drive recruitment of people whose innocent family members are killed as collateral.
        [–]TerryOller 12 points13 points14 points  (13 children)
        I think you are just buying into some very smart terrorist propaganda. They've managed to convince the west not to fight them, because fighting them "only makes them stronger". It's Sun Tsu level shit. Yet when the west stopped fighting them, they started conquering territory and became a functioning country. Bombing the nazis didn't create more nazis, and bombing ISIS only creates more ISIS if you don't bomb them enough.
        [–]LtBurtReynolds 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
        No one but self-loathing naive children and the far left buy into that horseshit.
        [–]GTFErinyes 3 points4 points5 points  (10 children)
        I think people forget too the war in the Pacific in WW2. The Japanese were arguably even more fanatical than many of ISIS - kamikaze attacks, suicide bayonet charges, human land mines, and even Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender until the 1970s
        Bombing and defeating them didn't create generations of Japanese that hate American and the West either
        [–]ItalyLogitech0 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
        America nuked them and solved the problem...
        [–]yurpsaati 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
        You can defeat state actors with weapons, you can't defeat an idea with them.
        [–]European FederalistxNicolex 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        Bombing and defeating them didn't create generations of Japanese that hate American and the West either
        The way the post-war Japanese reconstruction worked and post-war Iraq were vastly differently. The US completely ignored every successful reconstruction effort in the past 100 years, that was their first and biggest mistake.
        [–]Germanynot_a_pet_rock 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
        It was even created within an American detention centre - Camp Bucca.
        [–]GTFErinyes 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
        It was even created within an American detention centre - Camp Bucca.
        The roots of ISIS stretch long before the American invasion
        And on that note, since we're worried about the radicalization of people within prisons even by congregating them together, bringing them back to prisons in Europe doesn't sound so great either
        [–]Felixader 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        To bad that THOSE roots came to be directly with and by US american involvement. However you look at this at many points in history where things in the middle east changed to the worse a western power stands somewhere close to the events directing shit for it's interests.
        [–]Normandyredpossum 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        Something else that drives recruitment is isis literally recruiting children into caliph-cadetstm. They need to be denied land.
        [–]Indiaperseus0807 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        Of course - a power vacuum provides ripe enough conditions for someone to grow to fill the void. There needs to be somebody to blame for their shitty situation, and the only active players in recent memory have been the west. It's easy for people to stir up anger and negativity.
        [–]Croatianeohellpoet 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        Not really. See, right now they're riding a wave of success. Thanks to the media pandering to easily scared idiots, there's an impression that they actually have a chance of victory so people go and fight.
        In reality, every time they try to do anything remotely proactive, they get stomped in to the ground. Further more, the refusal to send ground troops means that there are no foreign soldiers to focus your hate on. What does it mean to be a Jihadi? You shout at the sky hoping to hurt the feeling of the death robot flying above?
        People dislike feeling impotent rage. They want to hurt someone. With ISIS, this hate was focused on the people around them. Since they couldn't hurt their proclaimed enemies, they hurt the weak.
        However, the weak are a dying breed. In a few years time, ISIS is going to realize that they can be the targets of suicide bombers and terror attacks just like anyone else. The great irony is that the longer something like ISIS is around the more disillusioned people will get. No one wants to be on the losing side. No one is going to join the organization that failed to create a caliphate after trying for a decade.
        [–]GLORIOUS ALBIONGibeMoneiPl0x 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
        I understand the problem with that, but wouldn't they have that excuse if we didn't intervene? By that I mean that one group of muslims that was persecuted by Daesh could blame the West for not intervening, I don't know if you see what I'm getting at, but the gist of it is that it's pretty easy to come up with a justification to become a terrorist, be it Muslim, Christian, Jewish etc., hence why we have to take action to protect people who haven't been radicalized yet.
        [–]Indiaperseus0807 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
        I think it's easier to get upset at an action rather than at a lack of action. I see what you're getting at, and I do think terrorism would exist even without Western intervention, but I think that without, there at least exists a potential medium-term solution, whereas intervention is an indefinite chain of spawn/respawn.
        [–]SwedenPhhhhuh 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        I think you nailed it.
        [–]FranglaisSulphur32 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        This is definitely true, but its also quite easy for Daesh to recruit if they control large amounts of the population. At some point they have to be defeated militarily - they won't just go away.
        [–]Normandyredpossum 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        That will happen anyway. Sectarian splits within islam will cause that organically.
        [–]Ireland (in Canada)SergeantAlPowell -2 points-1 points0 points  (9 children)
        I'd rather see 10 Jihadis and 1 innocent person killed than see those same 10 Jihadis kill 100 innocent people
        Unfortunately the real world numbers are more like 1 Jihadi and 9 innocent other people killed by drones.
        [–]Dan4t 4 points5 points6 points  (7 children)
        That report doesn't say that. It says "only 35 were the intended targets." That doesn't mean the other people that were hit were innocent. They could have been other terrorists that simply weren't targets.
        [–]Ireland (in Canada)SergeantAlPowell 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
        They could have been other terrorists that simply weren't targets.
        I shouldn't have said innocent people. Other people would have been a more accurate term. Maybe they were terrorist, maybe they were friends and family.
        The assumption can't be that anyone standing near a target is also a terrorist, but even if the argument was made that they were, there is no certainty that even a simple majority of people killed by drones are terrorists.
        [–]LtBurtReynolds 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        Maybe they should leave their friends and family out of the war zone.
        [–]Every anarchist is a baffled dictatorSirN4n0 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
        And the assumption can't be that anyone standing near a target is not also a terrorist.
        [–]Ireland (in Canada)SergeantAlPowell 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
        And the assumption can't be that anyone standing near a target is not also a terrorist.
        That's why I said
        I shouldn't have said innocent people. Other people would have been a more accurate term.
        [–]Every anarchist is a baffled dictatorSirN4n0 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        Yeah, which makes your whole example kind of invalid.
        [–]GLORIOUS ALBIONGibeMoneiPl0x 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
        The only issue I have with this article is that it mostly talks about Al-Qaeda, who would hide far more than Daesh, since the latter is a lot more like a conventional army, hence easier to target without killing civilians, but I'm not a military expert so I may be wrong.
        [–]SuomiTommiH 5 points6 points7 points  (16 children)
        Any proof on this? People in Middle East know that hanging with terrorists isn't a good idea :)
        [–]Ukrainian/Russian/Swiss who lived in USshevagleb -1 points0 points1 point  (13 children)
        The rise of ISIS in the wake of the evisceration of Qaeda isn't proof enough? You have a bigger badder more unpredictable monster right now that 15 years ago before this whole thing started.
        Also drone strikes kill a lot of cilivians and children - for reference you can also check out "Kunduz" the MSF hospital the Americans bombed late last year. If you think relatives and kids being massacred in drone strikes isn't motivation for retaliation you're delusional. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/10/05/monthly-drone-report-total-drone-strikes-under-obama-in-pakistan-somalia-and-yemen-now-491-after-september-attacks/
        [–]GTFErinyes 6 points7 points8 points  (8 children)
        The rise of ISIS in the wake of the evisceration of Qaeda isn't proof enough? You have a bigger badder more unpredictable monster right now that 15 years ago before this whole thing started.
        And the lack of action is what led ISIS to grow in the first place. Have people already forgotten? ISIS came to the forefront of the news when it suddenly seized Mosul and the second largest bank in Iraq (and hundreds of million in gold and other assets) as well as the second largest armory in Iraq. In addition, it gave a level of prestige and power to ISIS that helped swell its ranks by drawing followers worldwide. A caliphate, as ISIS claims it to be, requires physical territory to be held - and this surely legitimized its claim that it was a state.
        There's a lot of politics involved in why or why not military action wasn't used to stop them earlier, but it cant' be debated that had ISIS been defeated early instead of left to foster, it wouldn't be anywhere close to its power today.
        Also drone strikes kill a lot of cilivians and children - for reference you can also check out "Kunduz" the MSF hospital the Americans bombed late last year. If you think relatives and kids being massacred in drone strikes isn't motivation for retaliation you're delusional. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/10/05/monthly-drone-report-total-drone-strikes-under-obama-in-pakistan-somalia-and-yemen-now-491-after-september-attacks/
        Proof that the Kunduz MSF hospital bombed by the Americans has created more terrorists?
        In fact, most of the outrage around the MSF bombing was from Western citizens, and not the locals (the Afghans didn't care, and some even say they wanted it called in to fight the Taliban). Hell, look at how little reaction the world cared when THREE MSF hospitals were bombed by Russia and Syria in the past few months.
        Are you seriously using that journalist 'watchdog' groups numbers without researching it more?
        Be careful at the numbers they espouse. Look at this AMA posted on reddit by its journalists and how they were eviscerated for their shoddy numbers and reporting:
        Also, a closer look at their methodology and numbers will reveal that they are basing their civilians killed by using local sources, even jihadi websites. And since many don't refer to them as civilians, but as "family members" and so on, there is a wide range of numbers being presented based on arguably questionably sourced data.
        EVEN SO, if you look at the numbers, here's what I examined a couple months earlier:
        • 421 drone strikes in Pakistan since June 2004 or 3.4 drone strikes per month
        • 107-127 drone strikes in Yemen since Nov 2002 or 0.75-.89 strikes per month
        • 15-19 drone strikes in Somalia since Jan 2007 or 0.16-0.20 drone strikes per month
        • 48 drone strikes in Afghanistan since Jan 2015 or 3.89 drone strikes per month
        Interestingly enough, the tally of data when broken down by those killed/hurt per strike, tells quite a bit:
        • In Pakistan, 5.88-9.47 killed per strike (1.0-2.3 civilians per strike, 0.41- 0.49 children per strike)
        • In Yemen, 3.87-6.78 killed per strike (0.51-0.94 civilians per strike, 0.06-0.07 children per strike)
        • In Somalia, 1.3-7.2 killed per strike (0-0.33 civilians per strike, 0 children per strike)
        • In Afghanistan, 8.75-12.9 killed per strike (0.29-0.88 civilians per strike, 0-0.38 children per strike)
        The ranges of people killed per strike seem to average/hover out around 6-7 per strike, which is consistent with the use of Hellfire missiles from drones (they're meant to be anti-tank weapons, not big explosions that level neighborhoods), and it really should put to rest the idea that drones are dropping bombs that can kill 100+ people at once.
        The fluctuation in data between Pakistan's civilian death rate and those in Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan is unlikely to be due to drone operator error (the odds that operators in one country are a magnitude worse than other countries is unlikely, given uniformity in training and procedures) and must be looked at other factors, from Pakistan's demographic makeup/population density all the way to the possibility that due to the use of self-reported data, there is a lot more to gain from Pakistani militants (who have higher access to media than Somalia or Afghanistan) to claim higher civilian death tolls
        So again, the claims that these drone strikes disproportionally kill civilians or the wrong people is absolutely FALSE
        [–]SuomiTommiH 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
        Bravo! This is how you teach those liberal cheeseaters(u/shevagleb)
        [–]FranglaisSulphur32 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
        Reaper is capable of dropping Paveway bombs with a much larger payload than Hellfire missiles. Guided obviously
        [–]cockmongler -2 points-1 points0 points  (5 children)
        You really need to go take a long hard look at yourself if you're happy with a child killed every 2-3 drone strike when hundreds are being launched.
        [–]GTFErinyes 2 points3 points4 points  (4 children)
        You really need to go take a long hard look at yourself if you're happy with a child killed every 2-3 drone strike when hundreds are being launched.
        You obviously haven't read or don't understand what was written:
        • The data presenting a child killed every 2-3 drone strikes is self-reported and only Pakistan reports such a high rate.
        • Hundreds have been launched in total - but that is since 2002.
        • The methodology uses drone strikes as reported by locals. What is ignored is that air strikes actually occur a magnitude more frequently, particularly in Pakistan, where over 5000 F-16 airstrikes launched by the Pakistani government have occurred in North Waziristan alone. See the problem with self-reported data in point one.
        I don't take pleasure in seeing a child killed by drone strikes.
        However, it is clear that you need to take a long hard look at yourself and your lack of understanding how statistics and data works, and your blind obedience to propaganda that makes yourself feel good when it's built on falsehoods designed to help actual jihadists gain ground and kill those same innocents
        [–]cockmongler -2 points-1 points0 points  (3 children)
        If we don't kill these children, they'll die!
        [–]GTFErinyes 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
        If we don't kill these children, they'll die!
        Good to know you're just trolling. I was afraid you didn't actually understand how facts and logic work over emotions and feels
        [–]GermanyDocTomoe 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
        You have a bigger badder more unpredictable monster right now that 15 years ago before this whole thing started.
        And that is why you do not do "surgical strikes" but carpet bombing. Somehow, Germany did not develop an even worse variant of the NSDAP after being defeated, even though we would have had more than enough reason to hate the Allies for killing our family members.
        [–]SuomiTommiH 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
        I don't have anything in my hands and neither does most of Europe. Go to /r/news if you want to debate American foreign policy.
        [–]yurpsaati 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
        Most of europe is in NATO.
        [–]SuomiTommiH -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
        Switzerland isn't. Also what does that has to do with anything?
        [–]Ireland (in Canada)SergeantAlPowell -2 points-1 points0 points  (1 child)
        Any proof on this?
        Look at any guerilla campaign.
        The killing of civilians by the dominant power drives support towards the insurgent group
        [–]SuomiTommiH 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
        I guess. It sounds logical but I would like to see some studies.
        [–][deleted]  (6 children)
        [removed]
          [–]Broker-Dealer 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          ....Yet the peaceful people were irrelevant.
          I thought the same way until I heard this lady speak. The innocent people did not matter when the >Insert organization here< came to power, all that mattered was that the threat needed to be quelled.
          By allowing those who run from the Jihadis, you are also allowing those who may eventually turn to fight them, away. Most countries and societies turn for the better after civil war and conflict against those in power. It takes generations to cause this shift and by aiding in removing their population who desire this change the most is... well, I predict that it will delay this change.
          [–]Normandyredpossum 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Innocents die in war, it's awful, it doesn't mean there aren't times when you have to make the call to do something awful to save more lives in the short and long term.
          [–]Dan4t 6 points7 points8 points  (3 children)
          Oh give me a break, innocent casualties are a vastly smaller number than the terrorists we hit. It's clearly a net gain.
          [–]Englanddamir33 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          Source?
          [–]XkF21WNJ 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          Gain of what?
          [–]avirbd 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          Depends on how many terrorists on average one innocent causality spawns.
          [–]Doomsday11 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          thats not how it works.
          [–]LtBurtReynolds 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Is there any proof to back this up?
          Considering the Jihadis kill and target far more innocents than drones do, what happens then? Do they join the GOP?
          Where are all the Vietnamese suicide bombers attacking Americans? Or Korean? I imagine there would be a shitload of Japanese terrorists created after WWII, where did they go?
          [–]Confoederationis HelveticaeLejeune_Dirichelet 7 points8 points9 points  (9 children)
          Well that's up to the Dutch to decide, but drone strikes are basically extra-judicial executions. Giving states the right to routinely assassinate their own citizens abroad sounds like a questionable precedent to set, especially for a state that follows the rule of law
          [–]SuomiTommiH 12 points13 points14 points  (7 children)
          They are killing enemy combatants which isn't questionable at all.
          [–]Ukrainian/Russian/Swiss who lived in USshevagleb 6 points7 points8 points  (6 children)
          How do you define enemy combatant in the global war on terror? There is no clear enemy - and you can't kill an idea - so who is an enemy combatant? The guy chopping off heads on youtube - sure - that's clear cut - but what about kids in Wahhabi training camps and schools? What about radical preachers? What about protesters burning embassies? What about people who have come into contact with known terrorists? The CIA kill list gets exponentially longer every year, so maybe the drone strike approach doesn't work as a standalone solution...
          [–]SuomiTommiH 4 points5 points6 points  (5 children)
          People taking part in ISIS operations I would say. Most of your questions are kinda childliss I think, no one joins ISIS accidentally.
          How come do you worry about this btw? Didn't your country close it's borders already? And I'm sure it didn't conduct any drone strikes(do you even have them?).
          My main point was that it doesn't matter what citizenship some terrorist has, he/she is an enemy combatant by the law and there's no legal restrictions in killing them. Of course you and me don't have to worry about this :)
          [–]Ukrainian/Russian/Swiss who lived in USshevagleb 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
          Most of your questions are kinda childliss I think
          I think you mean childish?
          How come do you worry about this btw? And I'm sure it didn't conduct any drone strikes(do you even have them?).
          How come you worry about it? Finland isn't part of NATO nor has it actively participated in any military operations against ISIS.
          I'm not worried, I'm discussing the effectiveness of drone strikes, which I don't feel are particularly effective hence the comment and article.
          My main point was that it doesn't matter what citizenship some terrorist has, he/she is an enemy combatant by the law
          By what law? How do you define terrorist? That is the whole point of my answer. If you're taking out OBL or the leadership of ISIS that's one thing, but the numbers tell a different story, one where drone strikes are being used based on algorithms of clusters of people doing "suspicious activity" in Pakistani and Yemeni tribal areas. This leads to heavy civilian casualties which in turn leads to the rise of groups like ISIS. It's a vicious circle and no amount of firepower will stop it. You can't kill an idea If you want to fight terror you need to fight it with education and improved democracy in the countries where it originates. Firepower alone doesn't solve anything, it's a temporary fix to a long term problem, otherwise America and her allies would have already won the War on Terror given their gigantic defense budget and powerful military.
          Of course you and me don't have to worry about this :)
          Why not? Countries shouldn't be held accountable for the lives they take in the names of the protection of their citizens and allies?
          [–]SuomiTommiH -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          I think you mean childish?
          yep
          How come you worry about it? Finland isn't part of NATO nor has it actively participated in any military operations against ISIS.
          I don't worry about this. Actually Finland has participated.
          I'm not worried, I'm discussing the effectiveness of drone strikes, which I don't feel are particularly effective hence the comment and article.
          Well they are efficient way for Americans to kill terrorists. Sounds good to me. Also it's nothing Switzerland or Finland can do about.
          By what law? How do you define terrorist? That is the whole point of my answer. If you're taking out OBL or the leadership of ISIS that's one thing, but the numbers tell a different story, one where drone strikes are being used based on algorithms of clusters of people doing "suspicious activity" in Pakistani and Yemeni tribal areas. This leads to heavy civilian casualties which in turn leads to the rise of groups like ISIS. It's a vicious circle and no amount of firepower will stop it. You can't kill an idea If you want to fight terror you need to fight it with education and improved democracy in the countries where it originates. Firepower alone doesn't solve anything, it's a temporary fix to a long term problem, otherwise America and her allies would have already won the War on Terror given their gigantic defense budget and powerful military.
          I don't know about Swiss law, maybe ask a local lawyer? Normally coducting treasonous acts against a country is enough. It would be impossible for me to translate Finnish law for you, but basically terrorist is someone who commits acts of terrorism against a country or organization. Their goals are political. Well I don't know how Americans and Pakistanis choose their targets, so can't comment on that. You can easily kill an idea as ISIS isn't religion or something. We already see their ranks getting smaller as people flee out of disappointment or fear. All of these recent terrorists were LEGAL IMMIGRANTS/ALIENS to these countries. So closing borders for refugees would actually help :)
          Why not? Countries shouldn't be held accountable for the lives they take in the names of the protection of their citizens and allies?
          But our countries are so small that no one cares.
          [–]OftenStupid -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
          This answers nothing. You're imagining a scenario where a group of lone jihadis are merrily shooting innocents from afar and a drone strike kills them, instead of the reality which is that those people eat, sleep, and communicate with and around innocent people that will be caught in the conflagration.
          See how the US drone strikes in Pakistan are working out.
          [–]SuomiTommiH 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          No I'm not imagining that. Collaretal damage is a fact of life. So my advice for anyone living in these terrorist harboring countries is to avoid hanging with ISIS guys.
          [–]Croatianeohellpoet -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          I do love it when high minded rhetoric is used to justify doing something monumentally dumb.
          Someday it would be nice to figure out just how many people had to die in the name of "the rule of law" or "honor", "King and country" There's a Roman maxim: "Dura lex, sed lex" which means "The law is cruel, but it's still the law" It was invoked to justify killing 200 slaves after their master was murdered through no fault of theirs. The law insisted all slaves of a master murdered in his home must be put to death. The people of Rome were not happy since they saw this as an injustice, but thankfully, the rule of law was preserved and 200 innocent people were killed. Yay for the rule of law.
          If you decide that that doesn't count since it was a dumb law, not being able to kill people actively trying to kill you, also a dumb law.
          [–]My_God_is_Coffee 5 points6 points7 points  (9 children)
          Well it could be a problem in the terms of Laws. Even this people, who are dangerous fanatic nutjobs (and the world would be a better place without them), are citizen and therefore have human rights. If we are actively try to kill them with drones in a non-combat situation.. well the state would actively assassinate citizen which it declares as a threat. You can't abandon your citizenship its your universal right. This has nothing to do with sympathy for the murder scum but I would find it horrifying if the state could legally assassinate citizens which it declared as threats. It depends if the target is in combat and resists but I see a drone strike as a assassination most of the time.
          [–]Finlandtahvero 8 points9 points10 points  (1 child)
          Treason?
          Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]."
          Isn't ISIS doing exactly this?
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          That is a bit of a problem as long as nobody recognizes ISIS as an actual state with an actual government. And nobody wants to do that. I wouldn't have a problem prosecuting people for membership in a terrorist organization, so that "treason"-trick isn't exactly needed.
          [–]MontenegroVujkePG 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          If it's a war zone, and people identified as armed enemy combatants - no one gives a shit what passport do they have.
          In what world do you think you can combat ISIS an the likes, inside a warzone, by being pedantic about their citizenship and rights?
          [–]Madstoni 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
          There is more to being human than just looking like one. If you act like a monster, you should be treated accordingly.
          [–]My_God_is_Coffee 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
          nope that isn't how it works if you don't want to live in the stone age with mob justice.
          You can act like a total asshole and jerk. If someone would punch you for a cruel insult (and everyone would say that this was morality right), you can sue him because he harmed your rights. Dehumanizing the enemy is common practice. The death of Innocent Civilians is just "Collateral Damage"
          I don't say that we have to save them and should never use drones but I don't agree with such a simple statement "They are no longer humans so lets just kill them." Human rights have to be absolute for everyone, even people who act like monsters. If you make exceptions they are worth nothing anymore.
          [–]Madstoni 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          I did not say kill them. There are other ways to protect everyone from them but not many. I simply do not believe that these "people" can be integrated in our society ever again. That leaves us with precious little options.
          [–]thepeaglehasglanded -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          It's a slippery slope etc, for sure... But with extreme Islam I think exceptions can be made because there's no reasoning with them. Nothing is there to be negotiated. You either convert to Islam, pay a tax and be subordinated or get executed.
          All bets are off IMO.
          [–]UK living in DECaffeinatedT 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          why? The way to get downvotes is say "not all refugees are terrorists" not the "super controversial" idea of killing terrorists. Quit with the victimhood.
          [–]Normandyredpossum 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          Prisons are MASSIVE hives of radicalisation. let them stay in syria or we're only going to have the same problem worse 10 years later.
          [–]Hazzman 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          Yes! I remember when the UK and everyone was celebrating and encouraging young muslims to go to Syria to fight! Then they turned around and told them they can't come back.
          [–]Confoederationis HelveticaeLejeune_Dirichelet 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          It's nobody but the UK's responsibility if they let their own dangerous fanatics out in the wild
          [–]SuomiTommiH 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
          It's mostly non-Europeans who go there. At least from Finland.
          [–]Germanyjourno127 3 points4 points5 points  (4 children)
          For France, it's their citizens. Same for Belgium.
          [–]SuomiTommiH 3 points4 points5 points  (2 children)
          But weren't they like 1st generation French?
          [–]Germanyjourno127 -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
          I don't know what generation, but France has more lenient rules about citizenship
          [–]SuomiTommiH 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          For colonials at least.
          [–]trumpdogeofvenice 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Living in North Dakota doesn't make you a Native American.
          [–]Born in Lithuania,loves England moreBritishPretender 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          yh but yurop stronk u cunt
          [–]PolandRedrumovy 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          They aren't europeans if they fight for ISIS obviously. They are muslims living in Europe.
          [–]Confoederationis HelveticaeLejeune_Dirichelet 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          They're european as long as their home country recognises them as such. You can't simply cancel your citizenship by saying you don't want it anymore; that's why the US can get away with imposing ridiculously high fines on Americans who want to revoke theirs
          [–]SpeedflyChris 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          So we let violent, mentally unstable Europeans freely travel to war-zones to chop off some Syrian heads
          How would you suggest stopping them? Even stopping all flights to Turkey wouldn't work, and it's not like our security services even with all the fun toys they have are capable of identifying every one.
          These individuals should get international arrest warrants in their names, repatriated to their home country and prosecuted for involvement in illegal organisations, war crimes, etc...
          Using what evidence? The fact that they were out of the country for a few months? How do you distinguish between a Jihadist and someone staying with family in Turkey?
          I happen to think that the answer to this is more airstrikes on ISIS positions & oil infrastructure, plus more rigorous border security throughout the EU.
          [–]Norwaylikferd 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I couldn't put it better myself. These are in many cases 2. generation, some times even 3rd generation immigrants. Born and raised in Europe. Going to European schools,
          It's not Syria that caused these people to become fanacics. That's their European home country's fault.
          It's their fault for having hopelessly naive politics regarding foreign (read: Saudi) funding of radical mosques.
          It's their fault for completely turning a blind eye to extremist muslim leaders and their influence, often even inviting them to speech at schools and conventions.
          It's their faulty for taking in more immigrants than the country can integrate, leading to high unemployment and ghettos.
          It's their fault for having a political climate where criticism against Islam is seen as equal to racism.
          Europe have complained for decades about groups of radicals from middle eastern countries doing terrorism attacks around the world.
          Now there are thousands of Europeans doing terrorism in the middle east. And the first thing we do is take no responsibility what so ever.
          [–]Romaniatrorollel 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          It should be advertised loud and clear in all Muslim communities that if radicalised young Islamists go to Syria they cannot come back. It is hard to understand the arguments against banishing these people.
          They shouldn't be just banished, that puts the rest of the world at risk. People known to have joined ISIS should be actively hunted and prosecuted.
          France is debating whether to strip citizenship. That is complete idiocy because it doesn't deal with the threat at all.
          [–]SpainYaLoDeciaMiAbuela -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          so we let violent, mentally unstable Europeans
          First they are not European and second they are not "mentally unstable", it's perfectly logical what they are doing if those believes.
          [–]GiveMeKarmaAndSTFU 71 points72 points73 points  (7 children)
          Europe must get together and close its borders to all returning jihadis
          FTFY
          Of course, we can't open our borders to terrorists, but we can't open our borders to millions of peaceful, low-skilled men, women and children either, lest our welfare systems collapse. Even the most refugees-friendly countries like Sweden are already struggling with the avalanche of (economic) migrants. A few more months' worth of refugees would be disastrous.
          [–]Yerpbutthenigotbetter 14 points15 points16 points  (5 children)
          So long as borders are not meaningfully guarded, they'll keep on coming. These paths have been traveled by millions, so people know it's accessible.
          The EU's thinking is always about increasing surveillance at a specific point, as if they're a fucking town council directing the local police.
          I think the main reason for this small-mindedness is a good awareness of the cost of an effective border force for the entire EU border.
          [–]GiveMeKarmaAndSTFU 23 points24 points25 points  (4 children)
          The Greek/Italian/Spanish borders have never been so well guarded. Problem is, up to now illegal immigration was, well, illegal, and those people were arrested and sent home. Now, thanks to Mutti Merkel, illegal immigration is not only not illegal, but actually encouraged and rewarded with free houses, food and whatnot.
          No wonder they keep on coming...
          [–]Yerpbutthenigotbetter 4 points5 points6 points  (2 children)
          If undocumented migrants can pass those borders, they might be "guarded" in the sense that there are people there who have this "guarding" as their duty, but it looks like a freely passable border to me.
          A properly guarded border should only be passable to people with a valid visa, or a proven nationality which does not require one.
          [–]GiveMeKarmaAndSTFU 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
          And you know what happened when the Spanish government tried to make the border safer? Political parties, NGOs and a large part of the media called it fascist, nazi, oppressive... Not to mention the shitstorm after an officer shot his firearm into the air..
          Up to now the Southern countries had to deal with a few thousands immigrants per year. If now we have to deal with several thousands per day, it's not because of the poorly guarded borders (which stay the same), but because some Northern countries made it very clear that anyone going there illegally would be given asylum, regardless of their nationality.
          [–]Yerpbutthenigotbetter 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Not every border is guarded that heavily, though. Far, far from it.
          And you're completely right that it's called nazi genocide to defend borders. Just look at the shit Hungary got for taking action.
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
          Now, thanks to Mutti Merkel, illegal immigration is not only not illegal, but actually encouraged and rewarded with free houses, food and whatnot.
          Where do you actually come up with this shit? I have to see the refugee being provided with a free house. They get accommodation to a certain level (mostly in larger compounds, sometimes they are distributed and housed basically like somebody in the welfare system) and get a basic level of wellfare as long as their legal status is being assessed. If they are granted asylum they basically have the same rights as a citizen regarding the wellfare system (and the same obligations in terms of finding work). If they asylum is refused they are requested to leave (and sometimes deported, although we could enforce that quite a bit quicker). There is no "come here and stay" policy, no matter how hard you want to believe in that. The only thing, that "Mutti Merkel", as you like to call her, did was stopping the enforcement of the Dublin Treaty for Syrians coming to Germany in order to keep Greece and (to some extend) Italy from collapsing under the weight. If this internal help to another EU country is a problem, well then I'm out of ideas as to what the EU actually should be.
          [–]Justanick112 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Maybe that's the point?
          [–]expatato 22 points23 points24 points  (23 children)
          I'd rather we have them and keep them imprisoned (if we have lawful reason to) or watched than free to insight violence abroad.
          [–]BelgiumRed_Dog1880 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          The problem is that it has been proven time and time again that they radicalise fellow Muslims in prison. So when they get out eventually they may start their shit in Europe.
          Nope, I'm all for making your bed. If you want to fuck off to ISIL or wherever you want to go then that's fine, but stick to it and don't come crawling back a few months later.
          [–]Trolleditor 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
          Yea the problem is what do you keep them imprisoned for? "I was just visiting relatives".
          At least our retard government in finland is so busy "helping them so they wont want to commit murders here"
          [–]Canadaexasperation 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Of course the alternative of stripping citizenship or passports doesn't work if we don't have enough evidence for conviction either.
          Unless people are proposing to strip people of their passports based on allegation or suspicion alone?
          [–]Hamburgdjeee [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Yea the problem is what do you keep them imprisoned for? "I was just visiting relatives".
          If you cant prove guilt you cant exile them either.
          [–]Kingdom of the Netherlands and 27 sovereign dependenciesIJzerenHertog 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          It would be easier to track them, and take particular care to bomb them while they're still in Syria/Iraq.
          Matter solved.
          [–]NoOneWhere -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
          Let's loan the Tsar Bomba designs from Russia...
          [–]CroatiaBallander 0 points1 point2 points  (16 children)
          The key point is if we have lawful reasons to. I'm not an aficionado of all the legal systems throughout Europe, but I'm pretty sure you can't imprison them for going to participate in jihad. There should be some solid proof of their wrong-doing, and you probably won't get that in the mess that Middle East is now. Even if it was illegal to jihad in Syria and co., how would you know? Unless there is footage, for all you know they may have just went on vacation.
          [–]AdrianWerner 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Of course you can. Being part of criminal organization is a crime on it's own. You don't need to commit actual crimes while inside it. Membership is a crime on it's own.
          [–]IDOPLAYCHESS 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          I'm pretty sure you can't imprison them for going to participate in jihad.
          A lot of countries consider fighting for a foreign force treason.
          [–]PolandStudentOfMrKleks 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Or just penalize it without treason classification.
          [–]FranceLow_discrepancy 1 point2 points3 points  (10 children)
          but I'm pretty sure you can't imprison them for going to participate in jihad.
          so murder becomes legal because jihad?
          [–]CroatiaBallander 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
          Of course not. But can you be sure that the one who went to jihad murdered someone? What I'm saying is you can't simply imprison people for going to jihad, nor you can 100% sure who went to Middle East because of jihad. As is now, you'll have jihadists returning.
          [–]Bosnia and HerzegovinaStwic 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
          If I talk all the time how I hate you and how I want to kill you, and then one day I get a gun and right as I was about to go to your house, the cops pull me over for speeding, they see that I am armed and on my way to your home. Now, should I be jailed for the intent of murder or should I just get a ticket for speeding?
          [–]expatato 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I think that comes under 'Probable Cause'.
          Although I just realised I know all my policing terminology from American cop movies/tv shows...
          [–]CroatiaBallander 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I'm pretty sure jihadists aren't armed when returning to their countries (UK, France, etc.). Nor are all vocal about going to jihad.
          [–]Omnislip 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          You've described a bunch of crimes there: abusive behaviour, illegal possession of a firearm, and intention to commit murder. These are crimes, and we have courts that exist to prove them.
          Just because someone has been in the Middle East it should not affect how they are treated in court (though it may well be evidence in such cases.)
          [–]schroedingerstwat 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          What I'm saying is you can't simply imprison people for going to jihad, nor you can 100% sure who went to Middle East because of jihad.
          why not? why not designate isis a terrorist organization and then prohibit membership of terrorist organizations. simple.
          [–]TerryOller 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Waging war against your home country is unacceptable, I don't think you should be making excuses for them.
          [–]FranceLow_discrepancy -1 points0 points1 point  (1 child)
          nor you can 100% sure who went to Middle East because of jihad. As is now, you'll have jihadists returning
          what do you mean you can't know where someone is? What are our intelligence services doing but trying to determine who's there and who isn't.
          Just like with the nazis, you can send them to trial after things calm down.
          [–]CroatiaBallander 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          I'm of the opinion that someone can always slip by, but here's hoping I'm wrong.
          [–]Slovakiamithik 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          So forbid the participation in the foreign army? Jihadis are basically paid soldiers.
          [–]United Kingdomwill_holmes 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Make it a crime to go to Syria without a government permit.
          [–]Spainsrpulga 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          You CAN imprison them for participating in the jihad. in Spain it's called something like unlawful acts of war, and was applied for instance on volunteers that went to fight with Russian militia against Ukraine. Now, of course you would need proof, but I have the feeling many of them are happy to share incriminating evidence online...
          [–]United KingdomHeknarf 25 points26 points27 points  (43 children)
          What? Why?
          Take them in, arrest them, try them and imprison them. Then they can't do any more harm to anyone.
          [–]SuomiTommiH 70 points71 points72 points  (24 children)
          Yea 7 years of European prison will teach them!
          [–]Ukrainian/Russian/Swiss who lived in USshevagleb 20 points21 points22 points  (12 children)
          If you start letting govts make exceptions to the laws you voted for bc of "terrorism" you can end up granting them draconian powers that they then won't necessarily relinquish
          See : USA
          [–]SuomiTommiH 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
          What are you talking about? Of course we can make joining terrorist organization illegal. Germans do it with nazis and many countries do it with organized crime.
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 4 points5 points6 points  (3 children)
          Who said differently? Treating terrorism according to the law is exactly what people mean by "try them and imprison them". Shooting people because of "reasons" is not.
          [–]SuomiTommiH -2 points-1 points0 points  (2 children)
          There's nothing illegal in killing active terrorists.
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          The keyword being "active" in the sense of "in the act of carrying out a terrorist attack". Killing a terrorist while you have it under your control (e.g. in a prison) is not legal in Europe.
          [–]SuomiTommiH [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Not in prison but let's say you travel to Syria to join isis :)
          [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen -2 points-1 points0 points  (6 children)
          See : USA
          Europe isn't the US. Our leaders won't turn into mini dictators and throw all us poor people in camps forever.
          [–]GermanySpaceHippoDE 7 points8 points9 points  (1 child)
          Very optimistic.
          [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Yes, regarding my leaders here in Denmark, i absolutely trust them. Some of them are dumb, but i don't doubt that they want the best for the Danish people. I do not fear the government. I trust them and am completely safe with giving them the temporary power to bar jihadis from coming back to Denmark.
          [–]IrelandFernicia 7 points8 points9 points  (2 children)
          Ah yes. As history teaches us: the past couldn't possibly repeat itself.
          /s
          [–]Denmark EU-ScepticFuppen 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          Never happened in Denmark unless you count royalty 400 years ago.
          [–]Virtuallyalive 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          And Fascism had never happened in Germany. Just saying.
          [–]Ukrainian/Russian/Swiss who lived in USshevagleb 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          They don't have to be mini dictators to infringe on our civil liberties.
          [–]schroedingerstwat 6 points7 points8 points  (10 children)
          *6 months
          [–]Keppana 1 point2 points3 points  (9 children)
          0 months. Video evidence could be tampered and confessions are not reliable.
          [–]BelgiumUtegenthal 2 points3 points4 points  (8 children)
          and don't forget a stay in prison would breach their human rights ;)
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 1 point2 points3 points  (7 children)
          That is a very strange world you live in...
          [–]BelgiumUtegenthal 0 points1 point2 points  (6 children)
          no, just Belgium
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 1 point2 points3 points  (5 children)
          Care to elaborate? Belgium doesn't incarcerate people because it would violate their human rights? What?
          [–]BelgiumUtegenthal -1 points0 points1 point  (4 children)
          We have too many people in prison (http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.1841294), so we decided to spare them jail (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/belgium-is-abolishing-all-prison-sentences-under-one-year-long-10123288.html) because of the overcrowding (http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/current_situation_of_prison_overcrowding_paper.pdf) that breaches their human rights. Actually, the ECtHR also sentenced Belgium for sending a terrorist to the US for being judged (http://www.xpats.com/belgium-owes-terrorist-nizar-trabelsi-eu90000-court-rules). Apparently, that was also violating his human rights.
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
          From what I take from the articles they spare them jail because of crappy infrastructure and not some kind of human rights issues. To that I'd say: get your act together, build a bunch of prisons and there you go. I can see that the tax payers could be pissed to spend so much money on incarcerating people, but seeing that you're in the middle range of inmates per capita I'd say that somebody didn't really do his job.
          As for the ECHR sentence: what on earth did your government expect? There's an ongoing legal dispute over whether someone can be handed over to the Americans according to the European Human Convention on Human right, the very law this court is supposed to hold up and your government goes and tells them "Fuck you, we already did it!" It shouldn't come as any kind of surprise that this doesn't go down well.
          Apart from that the ECHR did NOT rule to release that guy. It did just say that your government infringed on his human rights by handing them over to the US where his punishment may not be in line with the ECHR.
          [–]Éiregamberro 26 points27 points28 points  (14 children)
          A lot of these jihadis use their time in prison to radicalise others.
          [–]United KingdomHeknarf 4 points5 points6 points  (12 children)
          I'm sure we can create prisons/programs to stop this. For example, only give them access to members of staff to talk to. Not other prisoners.
          [–]MontenegroVujkePG 19 points20 points21 points  (9 children)
          Europe is too much of a pussy for that. Only Yankees have ADX Florence, Guantanamo and similar places that will break any jihadi...
          [–]FlandersGerrit8500 18 points19 points20 points  (8 children)
          Except that sheer incompetence has landed a lot of innocents in jail and their retarded torturing methods didn't help much. They should have stuck to what the CIA has learned from Hanns Scharff. Instead they let some deranged would be psychiatrists have a go and it did a lot of damage.
          I don't mind harsh prisons but it needs lawful oversight and accountability.
          [–]schroedingerstwat 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          well, ADX Florence isn't included in that. but you're right about gitmo. regardless of its utility, its a national disgrace. but the attitude that created it was summed up by dick cheney some months back when he said he didn't care if innocents were swept up so long as they got some terrorists. stupid idea. but euro prisons are demonstrably too soft-handed, especially in UK etc.
          [–]FlandersGerrit8500 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Problems with how prisons work vary across the EU I think, but one thing all of them, including the US, have in common is the utter lack of a comprehensive strategy, one that is not too blinded by emotional sensibilities or strange interests.
          Like, I think it's extremely important to stratify prisoners and find a way to assess probability of rehabilitation. Treating prisoners as equal as possible is a bad strategy. It shows in how jihadist have recruited in prisons, how petty criminals become hardened ones once they get out and how sometimes certain crimes are best not punished by a prison sentence.
          [–]MontenegroVujkePG -1 points0 points1 point  (5 children)
          Non the less, even if you lock up only the hardened terrorists, harsh treatment that they get over the pond is not available in Europe, thus the deterrent is lost, and they have a chance to recruit within the prison system, and continue jihad once they go out...
          I personally like ADX Florence treatment for terrorists. Lock them up in a small cell 23h a day, and just forget about them. Why is it important to even try to rehabilitate someone who killed (or tried to kill) a number of innocent civilians?
          [–]FlandersGerrit8500 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
          I agree with that actually, even if it would kinda mean spitting on human rights.
          But don't think this will actual be a deterrence though. These people living in Europe, they only geographically live here. They watched al jazeera all day where they see nothing but how ME people (that look like them, talk like them and worship like them) get slaughtered, lose their homes or get humiliated. Particularly the Palistinians in Israel. And Al Jazeera probably subtly or unsubtly places as much blame as possible on 'us', the 'white faced kaffirs'. This compounded by the fact that they've never really been accepted or assimilated here furthers enstrangement.
          The step to watching more radical shit on the internet doesn't seem that big then if you ask me.
          I'm actually very pessimistic about it as I see no actual resolution or way back for these people in our societies: they will always blame us. Arab people have this collective feeling of humiliation: intellectuals and media won't shut up about Sykes and Picot and other past misdeeds by 'us'. It's come to a point that next up the weather is going to be all our fault too.
          Do I agree with them? fuck no, and though I acknowledge and respect parts of ME and islamic culture, I feel that none of them have ever had any respect or acknowledgement for ours. To them we're all nothing but culture-less kaffirs that happen to had bigger guns and stubbornly refused to convert. And anyone who doesn't agree is a traitor, be it in extreme regard or the passive-aggressive indirect one (the way the west does casual racism)
          [–]MontenegroVujkePG 1 point2 points3 points  (3 children)
          I agree with your analysis in principle, except for
          But don't think this will actual be a deterrence though.
          Terrorists and cartel leaders from Colombia and Mexico are terrified of US extradition, for a good reason. No parole means no parole over there, and being thrown in their supermax for life is a fate worse than death...
          Do you think that this scum has similar sentiment "oh, no, we're going to an European prison"? I don't think so...
          [–]FlandersGerrit8500 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
          Yeah but there's a difference between drug dealers and extremists. And much of it lies within the state of mind.
          Drug dealers see themselves as clandestine entrepreneurs, so they'll always try to make a risk/reward analysis.
          Extremists are all about dumb passion and pent up frustration and 'justice'. They see themselves as soldiers in a war. There's far less risk/reward analysis with many of them (but not all)
          [–]MontenegroVujkePG 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          Of course, terrorists are much less of a rational players than cartel leaders.
          However, you can read the stories of terrorists incarcerated in ADX Florence - being locked there is a "clean version of hell". Those stories get out, and will account for some deterrence.
          The other point is isolation. Terrorism is a cancer, an preventing the spread should be of highest priority.
          Stammheim II is needed in Europe. Also, I hear that La Sante is not exactly a hotel.
          [–]Elukka 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          So you would keep thousands of them (assuming you can catch all of the thousands of western jihadis out there) in something approaching solitary confinement or protective custody? That's very expensive, they will still get out within 2-10 years and solitary confinement is a very harsh punishment. We usually don't use it for normal prisoners because of how damaging it is psychologically.
          These people need to be kept out of Europe or imprisoned for life. Since we can't really imprison them for life without extraordinary evidence and cost, it's much easier in effect exiling them. It might not be legally possible with those who were born citizens but the rest can be stripped of residence permits and second citizenships and thrown out.
          [–]United KingdomHeknarf 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          These people need to be kept out of europe or imprisoned for life.
          Do they? Why? There's tons of stories of people turning their backs on radical Islam. Properly done, deradicalization shouldn't be too hard. Not when you can control every aspect of these peoples lives for a few years.
          [–]Croatianeohellpoet 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Because shooting missiles at them is illegal in Europe.
          [–]United States of Americaqrhoo [score hidden]  (0 children)
          you're not very smart if you truly believe this
          [–]middleeastnewsman[S] -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
          Best Answer I read. I seek the news from Middle East. What does it mean when They are not from Middle East and Then Europe don't go to want them!!!! It is like a baby whom his parents don't want him. I think with a universal cooperation We should solve it.
          [–]AngleseyLloydDrake1996 15 points16 points17 points  (28 children)
          We could lose the 'returning Jihadis' from the end of that sentence.
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 0 points1 point2 points  (21 children)
          Ah, so you don't like having any kind of functioning economy and the freedom to travel the world?
          [–]AngleseyLloydDrake1996 8 points9 points10 points  (15 children)
          I'll take a loss of wealth over a loss of culture, identity and future, besides Europeans are probably competent enough to run their nations without help from millions of undereducated migrants.
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 -5 points-4 points-3 points  (14 children)
          Your "proposal" would destroy Europe's culture, identity and future far, far worse than any migrants. And we ware competent enough to run our nations and deal with migrants as well, as we have done constantly throughout the centuries.
          [–]Germanyjourno127 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          How have we dealt with immigrants, by creating ghettos? Give me a break
          [–]PolandZhai 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          If by "dealing with migrants" you mean a) invite too many the migrants like complete idiots b) force other nations with blackmail to take some migrants in. Then yes, germany is doing swell job at that.
          [–]AngleseyLloydDrake1996 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
          Don't worry guys, we've taken in literally millions of Muslims in the past!
          What are they putting in the water in Germany? You've taken refugees for sure, but never has Germany seen this many people from outside of Europe.
          You're in for a wild ride now, I doubt it will end anywhere good.
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (0 children)
          You consider Turkey part of Europe then?
          [–]drbaconboy -1 points0 points1 point  (6 children)
          How could not letting insane islamists in destroy your culture?
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 -1 points0 points1 point  (5 children)
          Work on your reading comprehension. The statement I replied to was "We could lose the 'returning Jihadis' from the end of that sentence.", which means "Europe must get together and close its borders to all".
          [–]Irelandreddit_can_suck_my_ 5 points6 points7 points  (1 child)
          How does Europe closing its borders to those from outside of Europe, damage Europe's culture and future?
          [–]drbaconboy [score hidden]  (0 children)
          Thank you for putting that into better words than I could.
          [–]SuomiTommiH 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
          So you can't have functioning economy without jihadists? Strange people you Germans.
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 5 points6 points7 points  (3 children)
          Please read the comment I replied to and think about what it is actually saying.
          [–]Seb2242 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
          You can travel the world without migrating en masse and expecting the government to fund you.
          [–]SuomiTommiH -6 points-5 points-4 points  (1 child)
          And what would that be?
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
          Literally: "Europe must get together and close its borders to all"
          [–]beckybeckerson 5 points6 points7 points  (0 children)
          After a thousand muslim men attacked a lot of women at Cologne train station its obvious that returning jihadists are just the tip of the problem
          [–]IcelandIplaymeinreallife 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          There's no way to reliably filter them out and trying will be hugely expensive and a huge burden on all the innocent people who aren't jihadis.
          [–]European UnionShrimp123456 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Genuine question for everyone - what about the ones who go as kids? Should they receive the same lifetime punishments suggested here? I mean we don't put kids in gaol for life, and a lot if the recruitment geared towards teenagers is playing on teenage angst issues which people grow out of? Not saying it should be free from consequence, but holding kids to adult standards seems a but off to me
          [–]bonjouratous 4 points5 points6 points  (8 children)
          As if. Here is an article in French about a jihadi (convert from belgium) who went to Syria and returned to Europe. He has opened a bakery, says he has given up violent jihad, but doesn't condemn terrorist attacks and claims that one day Islam will dominate the world.
          But frankly speaking, what can we do? We aren't barbarians, we can't just put him in jail for being a deluded moron (there is also no proof of terrorist activity when he was in Syria). And we can't send it back there (why would Syrian people have to put up with our crazies?).
          This poisonous extremism has really put us in a difficult situation and it is testing and hurting our free societies.
          [–]Francer0naa 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
          Are you fucking kidding me? The guy is not a jihadi anymore but is an Salafi Islamist, great!
          For analogy: "Oh this guy is not a member of the Gestapo anymore, he truly regrets it. He is only member of the Nazi Party. So tolerant!"
          [–]bonjouratous 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
          I have no sympathy for him but what do you propose we do? There is no proof of terrorist activity in Syria, we cannot put people in jail for being having disgusting opinions. As long as he is not calling for violence he is safe. Of course I'd rather he wasn't allowed to be here but this is not realistic, we aren't a totalitarian state.
          [–]Francer0naa 0 points1 point2 points  (2 children)
          If he is a binational, take his citizenship away - and I say that as a binational myself. What kind of examples are we setting? Someone goes to Syria, commit atrocities and then is allowed to come back here and have almost no issues. Do you realize what message it sends to other people in his community?
          [–]bonjouratous 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
          Ok, I don't mind that but where is his second nationality from (I couldn't find it)? If he is from Syria, the European convention of human rights will prevent us from deporting him to Syria because he'd risk torture or unfair treatment. I think I didn't express myself correctly, I have no sympathy for him, I am not defending him, I am just wondering what could be done realistically with people like him. We can't just invent punishments, if they don't follow our laws they aren't possible.
          [–]GVerhofstadt 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          He's a Flemish fool. No dual nationality. He was probably bullied by isis because he wasn't a "real" jihadi in their eyes.
          [–]FranceRoyalK2015 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
          A bullet solves many problems, if they want to come back you kill them. Problem solved.
          [–]Money_on_the_table 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          We must try and stop these people being radicalised and going to Syria/Iraq in the first place.
          But any returning should not be allowed to walk our streets freely.
          [–]PolandZhai 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Jail in isolation for life as a treason against humanity. They want to behave like animals, then they should be confined away from civilization. These are Europeans going to other countries to mess their shit up. We owe to these nations to punish those people as much as possible and show, that we won't be tolerating this behavior.
          [–]United KingdomMiskiMoon 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
          I'd rather take them and jail them so they can't wander off anywhere else.
          [–]Elukka 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
          Thousand or tens of thousands of them? Indefinitely? The numbers would just keep going up.
          [–]imnamenderbratwurst 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
          How many Europeans do you think actually fight in Syria. I'd go along with somewhere in the low thousands, but tens of thousands? Seriously?
          [–]vasileios13 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          If you put them in jail they'll radicalize more prisoners (very typical) and after their sentence they'll be free to continue their jihad.
          [–]I'm sorry, you have to go homenice_guy_bot_ 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          Serious question: how do we know all the 'Jihadis' that go to Syria are fighting for ISIS and aren't fighting for groups anti-ISIS groups like Hezbollah or as volunteers alongside Assad's troops?
          [–]IrelandBingBongToast 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Maybe uncle sam can lend us a few cells in Guatanmo bay for these.
          [–]Icelandc4ligul4 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Make a deal with the Russians to prosecute ISIS fighters there. Send them all to prison in Siberia.
          [–]AlMagreira 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          EU Directive 2004/38 already allows restricting entry to EU citizens for public security/policy reasons. That's not to mention the fact that the Directive is just bringing together prior existing rules. Title's pretty stupid.
          [–]GermanyArvendilin 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          I disaggree, we should accept them coming here and then put them into jail for a long long time, just closing the border would mean dumping that problem on some nation that probably already has a lot of problems on its own...
          [–]PXIII 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          We have to do something. Millions of men try to get into the EU, because the aid system of western europe is better than a refugee camp in Turkey. We have to keep them on the other side of the Bosporus.
          [–]INGERLANDZaltPS2 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          When domestic radicals are eventually arrested for X, Y or Z we should rehabilitate them rather then putting them in prisons also, otherwise you just create more radicals thats is if there crimes are not serious that is.
          [–]United KingdomCasualview 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Can you give an example of how this rehabilitation works?
          [–]evoXviper 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Now i understand why Trumps has any fans to begin with
          [–]United States of AmericaOfcJamesLahey [score hidden]  (0 children)
          You haven't done this already?!
          [–]SlovakiaNikopol_SK -2 points-1 points0 points  (3 children)
          Maybe UK newspapers should focus how come that UK si currently largest supplier of ISIS terrorist after arab countries? No, that is not an issue? Not even the fact that UK currently host less syrian refugees than number of britons it exported to Syria and Iraq to ISIS ranks? Who killed probably thousands?
          Or maybe torrygraph should shut the fuck up for the moment with their better-than-thou attitude? Still nothing? Alright then.
          [–]United KingdomHeknarf 6 points7 points8 points  (2 children)
          Maybe UK newspapers should focus how come that UK si currently largest supplier of ISIS terrorist after arab countries?
          Not true. It's Belgium. Also pretty sure that France is above us too.
          [–]Germanybrazzy42 -7 points-6 points-5 points  (5 children)
          This is the most short-sighted and idiotic thing I've read all day.
          [–]United Kingdomcluelessperson 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
          "We need to do [stupidly broad, indiscriminate, non-evidence-based policy]" is just right-wing masturbation.
          [–]European UnionSavageCore -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
          Well it is the Telegraph after all!
          [–]Limburgsilverionmox -2 points-1 points0 points  (12 children)
          Well, no. There are those who have learnt that extremism ain't a picknick and come back, disillusioned. It's of the utmost importance that those people come back to dispel the myths of heroism that have been created around going to fight in foreign countries.
          [–]Indiaperseus0807 2 points3 points4 points  (3 children)
          Some of them, yes. The government ought to vet them thoroughly and use them, people like Maajid Nawaz are quite valuable.
          Not all are useful, and not all are very disillusioned. Imprisonment is best for them.
          [–]Sloveniaxaerc 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Even if they are now disillusioned, people who have committed crimes should still be punished.
          people like Maajid Nawaz
          He wasn't a jihadi, though, and didn't kill anyone as far as I know.
          [–]Limburgsilverionmox 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
          Sure, they'll have to be on trial anyway, there's no way around that. The ones that have learned their lesson will get out soon enough.
          [–]Indiaperseus0807 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          Yeah, definitely.
          [–]Francer0naa 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
          They come back, give up Djihad but hold on their retarded and extreme belief about women, gays and society. Islamism is extremism already.
          [–]Romaniatrorollel 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
          There are those who have learnt that extremism ain't a picknick and come back, disillusioned. It's of the utmost importance that those people come back to dispel the myths of heroism that have been created around going to fight in foreign countries.
          Let them do so from prison.
          [–]Empire of PolandSithrak 1 point2 points3 points  (4 children)
          Prison isn't good at reintegrating people or rekindling their love to their adopted homeland.
          [–]Romaniatrorollel -1 points0 points1 point  (3 children)
          Then we shouldn't imprison anyone ever?
          The primary purpose of the justice system should to ensure that laws are respected and people are safe. Stuff like "reintegrating people" is secondary and in some cases it's impossible. So it's perfectly fine to keep them in jail or even bring back the death penalty.
          [–]Empire of PolandSithrak 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
          Stuff like "reintegrating people" is secondary
          It is absolutely primary. Unless you just kill people for being brown and coming from Syria, they will go out of jail at some point. If all you do is punish them, you will just breed more terrorists. A reintegration efforts needs to be taken, or we will just make the problem worse.
          [–]Empire of PolandSithrak 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
          Exactly. Just hounding them will catch some while pushing others to more violence. They should be treated on case-by-case basis, with some being jailed if there is proof of their crimes, others being reintegrated and yet others used as a spokesmen against their former ideology.
          [–]Polish, working in France, sensitive paladin of boredomProblemY -8 points-7 points-6 points  (0 children)
          I would rather Europe get together and make a common tax system finally to go with common currency, but I guess every "uniting" thing is good today...
          Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
          REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
          π Rendered by PID 10160 on app-48 at 2016-01-06 05:24:41.588188+00:00 running 5272159 country code: DE.
          Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
          0%
          10%
          20%
          30%
          40%
          50%
          60%
          70%
          80%
          90%
          100%