Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "euronews" channel.

  1. 2
  2. Completely false @grahamellis6029  Military strategy is not undertaken by politicians. Military strategy is undertaken by the military officers. The only role politicians play is in whether the military is deployed or not, and even then when we're talking about a NATO response the politicians aren't involved in that either it's automatic when one member state is attacked. I'm not sure what you imagine happened in Afghanistan, but the reality in no way demonstrates your claims. What happened in Afghanistan was multimodal. Afghanistan was (technically still is) in civil war over control of the country. You have professional soldiers who hadn't been paid in 3 months being expected to put their lives on the line. Soldiers recruited from the enemy who in reality acted as moles to help capture cities. Rampant government corruption and wildfire rumours the president fled with the national treasury. NATO held Afghanistan together for 20 years. This post withdrawal outcome was inevitable regardless of when the withdrawal occurred. Indeed that's the entire point. It was a revenge war with no real goal and no possibility of genuinely improving domestic standard of life post exit. Despite that NATO members were forced to participate automatically in response to the 11 September attacks because of the North Atlantic Treaty which NATO is formed to administer and respond to. Service personnel from NATO member states fought and died in Afghanistan over 20 years so that yankville could feel avenged. That's sparked discussion through NATO members, not just Europe as to whether continuing to participate in NATO is worthwhile. That's what this video is about, the EU member states debating whether they could form their own defence league without yankville, such that Europe would only respond militarily to events Europe cares about. And Europe could set the terms of their own withdrawal when the time came, instead of having it dictated by yankville as is currently the case under NATO.
    2
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7.  @azimny97  False. The UDHR and convention on refugees hold now such limitations. No one seeking asylum is "barging in" they are seeking asylum. Not all countries are signatories to the UDHR &/or convention on refugees. There are no limitations under international law on how many countries you may transit before you find one you feel safe in. The safety requirement is subjective, it isn't where you or I think an asylum seeker might be safe, it's where they individually feel safe. The EU as a bloc have an internal law that pretends all EU member states are the same with the same rights and values as each other, so states that inside the EU asylum will count as from the country the asylum seeker first entered the EU from. This is done mostly to protect inner countries like Germany, France and Belgium from having to process many, if any, asylum applications. However once an asylum claim has been granted and they become refugees they are allowed to move freely throughout the EU and live in any EU member state. EU law inside of the bloc is separate to international law, and works because the EU is a bloc with common laws. These international laws have been around since 1947. That means unless you're 76 or older, they have been in existence your entire life. They have certainly been in existence for the entire lives of essentially everyone in politics today. So rallying again asylum laws is frankly, idiotic. Germany should process and deal with all the Syrian asylum seekers, because Germany invited them to the EU.
    1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. @Dogelore Fundamentalist Sharia did not apply during the last 20 years. Parts of Sharia applied but most of it was excluded. Remember that the Islamic Emirate was in control before the ISAF invasion, and they have ceased control by force again upon the ISAF withdraw. One can not accurately describe a paramilitary cult who have ceased control a government. Governments are legitimate entities who have the authority to govern. A paramilitary religious cult who took a country by force are not legitimate. Before their control it was Russian supported governance. During the ISAF supported governance men and women mixed in society freely. Women had rights, they could move around on their own, they could work in any profession, they attended mixed gender schools, they were an integral part of the democratic government holding positions as ministers, aides and advisors. Music was allowed. Public laughing was allowed. Dancing outside of ritual was allowed. Attire was not controlled by law. There weren't morality police trying to flog you on the street if they didn't like something you wore or did. Poetry that wasn't scripture was allowed. There was a heavy influence of human rights and western idles. There was a free press. None of those things are allowed under Sharia law, and none of them have been allowed since the Taliban ceased control. The ISAF supported government wasn't perfect, they suffered a lack of real experience and corruption. But it was a start, experience, anti-corruption mechanisms and good governance take time for a society to build. Time spans best measured in generations. You have to be running a democratic society to build them though. The economy of Afghanistan was building, it was becoming vibrant. It wasn't self sustaining yet but it held all the signs that it was on track to become self sustaining. Afghanistan had all the right signals to tell us it was finally becoming a free society. If the Taliban want the aid money flowing to Afghanistan again they must remove Sharia law, give people back their rights and reinstate democracy. It's very simple and that's what this meeting is about
    1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1