How Widespread is this Point of View?

[Fragbait]

Hail Occhi,

Considering your first question:

Let's assume your numbers are pretty close to the mark. How is welcoming the immigrants essential to establishing peace in the Middle East in the long term. By taking population pressure of the Mid East? By changing cultural norms through mixing?

[See, I'm using the stylish quotation fields to increase readability]

I don't know if they are close or not, it's just my personal political feeling. If we assume them, the situation at hand presents itself as such:
More than a half of the populace of the EU welcomes immigration and / or integration of new members into the EU (as long as they fit certain criterias), and my attempt at explaining it would be that folks have understood the need to get closer to what was once the 'foreign' middle east. The middle east's weight is increasing, and cultural as well as religious (which influence each other) conflicts have been the outcome. Much of the hate in the world comes from envy, and I'm sure there's a lot of 'why do they have it so good in those western capitalistic pagan countries, while we are starving or at least live under less than average conditions?'-thinking in some of the islamic states. Me and others think that an approach to the problem may be to get these (lands) to disintegrate this envy, abolish their prejudices and come closer to us both in a cultural and economic way. It may be naive, but isn't integrating more and more nations in a common unity, slowly dismantling borders and antipathies and ending up in a huge world-wide conglomeration of friendly states that still have their identities a tempting and delicious vision? Yes I know this sounds a whole lot like the murmurous 'World Peace' that those beauty queens stutter forth when asked about their wish had they one free. but on the other hand - who would have guessed that a thing like the EU was possible back in the days when Napoleon and the 2 times the Krauts tried to rule this continent alone?

A third of the European populace is sceptic and resents the integration of Turkey as such, whether they fulfill the hurdles or not. How and why? Part of it is based on straight, simple xenophobia. Many of the folks that resent Turkey also resented the eastern enlargement of the EU, and still are heavily biased vs. some of the eastern states. Heck - they would be biased vs. the western states, too, but then again - there quickly comes the atlantic ocean and rest for their minds at last. Another part of it is based on the latest half decade and the terror that was spilled out of its Pandora's box. Many fail to see why these people would conduct such assaults, and unseeingly blame the Islam and it's promise to let each martyr ascend directly to paradise compared with the believe that the Islam (maybe with the 'people of the book' - namely Judaism and Christianity) is the only real religion, and that they believe to have the holy mission to spread it (I'm getting vague here - don't know in how far that holds true) for all the pain and anguish that has been caused these days, which surely doesn't help the integration cause. And then there's the fact that Turkey still doesn't admit the Armenian Genocide, which additionally fuels the fire of mistrust.


Concerning your other assertions:

Practical legitimacy arises when a government is recognized by other governments

You mean like, let's say a new state declares itself - take the kurds - and 60% of the governments of the UN accept it and 40% don't? Unfortunately, that'll never happen, because that would possibly create a field of tension inside of the UN. In most cases, if there are different p.o.v. concerning this new state, usually 2-3 strong states stand for the one p.o.v. and 1-2 strong states for the other. The rest of states will then decide which states are better to have as allies, and jump on their bandwagon. Heck, some smaller states even joined the extra-UN 'coalition of the willing', in spite of not having a single soldier or tank in excess to help with! If this is the reality (and I'm sadly beginning to realize it is) then that's indeed nothing other than the (oligarchic) reign of strong economic states, further fueling the fire that is envy. Sad.

Was it not recognized?

I fear, my friend, the right question is 'why was it recognized?'. And I'm telling you the answer from my p.o.v.: Because it was the best for all economic super-powers. It was tolerated as the 'lesser' evil considering the hunger for oil that these states had (and have), and considering the menacing islamic revolution that had just took place in Iran on the one side, and the menace of communism on the other.

Were you alive in the 60's and 70's? It was an organization well used politically

No, I was not. But yet the next sentence makes clear what I mean: 'used politically'. Do you see were we're heading at? Let's leave it at that: the UN is not neutral. It has an opinion of its own, which is majorly influenced by the (economically and politically) strongest nations being members.

Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to increasing its political power in Lebanon and opposing Israel and the Middle East peace negotiations. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran

I will be eager to change my opinion, and maybe today they are a terrorist organization, but back in 1979/1980, they represented the army of the head of state of Iran, the army of Iran, took orders from Khomeini and carried them out, and were not comparable to the 'army' of the puppet-government, mostly officers and foot men who just changed sides after it was clear who would 'win' the revolution.

If you can't understand what an extranational organization is

Yes, I do understand what an extranational organization is. But... what is your point exactly? To Me, the main criteria (since jahcs quoted it from wiki) is the fact that terrorists try to get public attention, while secret services usually don't. They may do similar things, and of course these are equally immoral, but they are (quite, yet not in character and structure) different. I can grasp that better now.

What's your point?[...]What about it? What does that have to do with the price of bread in Bangkok

Maybe I did not make myself clear. I'll try that now. When the U.S. do such things as actively supporting rebellions and assassins all over the world, they do nothing else than states like Afghanistan did - fuel illegal networks of fanatics (partly), but surely not of future leaders. You wouldn't want a man to lead a country that killed 200 people in the past, because you'd suspect him to be violent and crazy. As long as the U.S. (and not only the U.S.) actively but secretly support nationalistic yet capitalistic groups against what you call 'legit' governments, as long as there is so much intriguing with weapons and cash etc. these cabalist states will be no better than the states that they populistically like to call 'axis of evil'. [You recognize by now how disturbed I am by that phrase]

The international community is NOT, nor has it ever been, united in its treatment of terrorists and terrorism. There is still considerable disagreement on how to deal with it

I fully agree with you. And I'm guessing it can take long times to make terms on this subject. I'm pleased by this discussion by now, yet I fear my assertions have been a bit lengthy - forgive me for that. I hope I answered many of your (implicite) questions sufficiently.


Greetings, Fragbait