Erdogan says New Zealand attack shows growing hostility to Islam

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

This is incorrect.

While other countries see their presence, its rather simple to find sourced break down of presence in Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan where some of the Euro "on foot" refugees are coming from.

Looking into Iraq and mercenary state presence - there are similar numbers.

CZECH



DENMARK



HUNGARY



ITALY



LITHUANIA



NETHERLANDS



NORWAY



POLAND



PORTUGAL



ROMANIA



SWEDEN



SWITZERLAND



GERMANY

LOL 360 soldiers here .....145 soldiers there ......lol ASSUMING this is ALL current ....I actually covered this in an earlier post, this is basically a token presence so they can say they've fulfilled NATO agreements. The Scandinavian and Eastern European countries definitely have no interests in ME. Also, there are 44 Countries in Europe, this isn't most.

This is reaching ....BA

[Insight]

LOL 360 soldiers here .....145 soldiers there ......lol ASSUMING this is ALL current ....I actually covered this in an earlier post, this is basically a token presence so they can say they've fulfilled NATO agreements. The Scandinavian and Eastern European countries definitely have no interests in ME. Also, there are 44 Countries in Europe, this isn't most.

This is reaching ....BA

You call 20,000 to 30,000 non US NATO troops token? Those were the numbers at the peak of the war . Are you aware about how many refugees have resulted from this conflict aside from the deaths you know?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-da

Still the numbers are irrelevant.

Why are their troops, F16s jets, tanks there? Are Afghan troops present in Europe?

Is Europes military is free to roam around that region, conducting airstrikes and such as long as it is a "token presence." Most absurd implication.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

You call 20,000 to 30,000 non US NATO troops token? Those were the numbers at the peak of the war . Are you aware about how many refugees have resulted from this conflict aside from the deaths you know?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-da

Still the numbers are irrelevant.

Why are their troops, F16s jets, tanks there? Are Afghan troops present in Europe?

Is Europes military is free to roam around that region, conducting airstrikes and such as long as it is a "token presence." Most absurd implication.

The numbers are totally relevant, because with numbers comes infrastructure ....and attache's and ...large scale movement within a country.

20,000 NATO troops including Britain and France.....and maybe Germany ...again NOT Most of Europe...

[Insight]

The numbers are totally relevant, because with numbers comes infrastructure ....and attache's and ...large scale movement within a country.

20,000 NATO troops including Britain and France.....and maybe Germany ...again NOT Most of Europe...

Which European countries have over 20,000-30,000 troops present from any part of the non-Western world (Asia, ME, Africa, etc.)? I need your sources too!

Talk later

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Which European countries have over 20,000-30,000 troops present from any part of the non-Western world (Asia, ME, Africa, etc.)? I need your sources too!

Talk later

This is your claim not MINE! ...why would I have to show anything? Even your Lay-up by BA was almost irrelevant and didn't boost your position.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

LOL 360 soldiers here .....145 soldiers there ......lol ASSUMING this is ALL current ....I actually covered this in an earlier post, this is basically a token presence so they can say they've fulfilled NATO agreements. The Scandinavian and Eastern European countries definitely have no interests in ME. Also, there are 44 Countries in Europe, this isn't most.

This is reaching ....BA

Really? So if a Mexican soldier with a weapon crosses the southern border, or a Russian single jet enters air space it’s blase ? Nothing will happen ? No diplomatic row etc ? Is that your stance?

I would say milder “foreign presence” has sparked far more harsh responses from even the likes of the US as related to allies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/under-pressure-dubai-company-drops-port-deal.html

^ this famous example comes to mind where the mere presence of Arabs on the US ports for business alone but in an official capacity created population level “we are being invaded and our security compromised” angst.

To assume that even a single armed non embassy foreign soldier might not create some offense when History is replete with examples of wars and catastrophes being started by far less is a bit ahistorical.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is your claim not MINE! ...why would I have to show anything? Even your Lay-up by BA was almost irrelevant and didn't boost your position.

Hardly. Your argument rests on “soldier presence at low levels causes no back lash or is ipso facto unlikely to be viewed as foreign presence”. That’s a losing argument you should retract or give up on. Whether it’s muslims or Christians or nihilists in New Zealand encountering people that simply look different but “represent the other”- this isn’t a Muslim or a Christian thing - it’s a common human response.

Erdogan is a politician. On the one hand his critics demand he play by the rule of democracy but when he does the critics then pivot to inane issue like this because he simply outdoes the CHP by the rules of the game.

Additionally - the passages from the manifesto specifically target him and London mayor Sadiq Khan for harm and also makes note of a resurgent group called the new Templars that yearn for Russian orthodoxy to take back Istanbul by ethnic cleansing. While 50 years ago that would have been a pipe dream, the 1990s Bosnia/Hergezovinia example (and Russian backing for Serbs) shows this is not some trifling issue.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

LOL 360 soldiers here .....145 soldiers there ......lol ASSUMING this is ALL current ....I actually covered this in an earlier post, this is basically a token presence so they can say they've fulfilled NATO agreements. The Scandinavian and Eastern European countries definitely have no interests in ME. Also, there are 44 Countries in Europe, this isn't most.

This is reaching ....BA

For that matter how many British legions were in Ireland when we were growing up? Not a whole lot but even a small number triggered Sinn Fein and Irish Catholics into paroxysms of violence.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Really? So if a Mexican soldier with a weapon crosses the southern border, or a Russian single jet enters air space it’s blase ? Nothing will happen ? No diplomatic row etc ? Is that your stance?

I would say milder “foreign presence” has sparked far more harsh responses from even the likes of the US as related to allies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/politics/under-pressure-dubai-company-drops-port-deal.html

^ this famous example comes to mind where the mere presence of Arabs on the US ports for business alone but in an official capacity created population level “we are being invaded and our security compromised” angst.

To assume that even a single armed non embassy foreign soldier might not create some offense when History is replete with examples of wars and catastrophes being started by far less is a bit ahistorical.

Are you even talking about the base topic at this point?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Hardly. Your argument rests on “soldier presence at low levels causes no back lash or is ipso facto unlikely to be viewed as foreign presence”. That’s a losing argument you should retract or give up on. Whether it’s muslims or Christians or nihilists in New Zealand encountering people that simply look different but “represent the other”- this isn’t a Muslim or a Christian thing - it’s a common human response.

Erdogan is a politician. On the one hand his critics demand he play by the rule of democracy but when he does the critics then pivot to inane issue like this because he simply outdoes the CHP by the rules of the game.

Additionally - the passages from the manifesto specifically target him and London mayor Sadiq Khan for harm and also makes note of a resurgent group called the new Templars that yearn for Russian orthodoxy to take back Istanbul by ethnic cleansing. While 50 years ago that would have been a pipe dream, the 1990s Bosnia/Hergezovinia example (and Russian backing for Serbs) shows this is not some trifling issue.

You're totally bait and switching right now.

[Insight]

This is your claim not MINE! ...why would I have to show anything? Even your Lay-up by BA was almost irrelevant and didn't boost your position.

You state that Europes military presence in Afghanistan has been "token."

20,000-30,000 mostly European troops is "token" to you.

Should I just keep rehashing your circular points from now on since you seem to forget them?

[Insight]

Are you even talking about the base topic at this point?

Are you not talking about Europes "token" military presence in Afghanistan and the rest of the region?

You mentioned "token" right?

Im not going to play this time wasting with you. Get a life man!

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Are you not talking about Europes "token" military presence in Afghanistan and the rest of the region?

You mentioned "token" right?

Im not going to play this time wasting with you. Get a life man!

Yes but that was in the context of you getting triggered that people called out Erdogan's hypocrisy and using refugees as political pawns. Your response that a token military presence by a handful of NATO members states, that is largely reluctant, means Europe as a WHOLE is obligated to let refugees into Europe.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

You state that Europes military presence in Afghanistan has been "token."

20,000-30,000 mostly European troops is "token" to you.

Should I just keep rehashing your circular points from now on since you seem to forget them?

No I didn't say that ...re-read ...this time carefully and meticulously.

[Insight]

Yes but that was in the context of you getting triggered that people called out Erdogan's hypocrisy and using refugees as political pawns. Your response that a token military presence by NATO, which is largely reluctant, means they're obligated to let refugees into Europe.

Why do you believe NATO (US is also in NATO) European contributions are reluctant? Can you read their hearts? If not, provide all your sources showing Europeans were reluctant. Reluctant or not, it is irrelevant to me, but now you can provide your sources for your insight.

SS soldiers claimed they were just following orders when they gassed Jews. Do you believe them?

"Token" "reluctant"

Since when were you an Uncle Tom?