UK net migration hits record high

[carlzeiss]

Yesterday you posted about the situation with the refugees that had traveled to Poland from Syria, how they were not happy with their accommodation, the money received even though it was the same as a working Polish family etc. If the same feelings are felt in the countries that they finally end up in then it could cause trouble, especially in the countries that are accepting large numbers.

Conflicting messages from this Syrian " refugee " about life in Sweden .

[yt]jAJcy5k4rb4[/YT]

 

[glasfryn]

Yep. I stated that terrorists could be among those traveling, a few comments after seemed to disagree.

and this is why I agree with what Cameron is saying(unusually) taking them from the camps close to the borders of the country they are fleeing from and those countries taking in those who are at their borders although very humanitarian might well be storing up trouble unless they start processing them fast

 

[symyjym]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ident-assad-in-syrian-civil-war-10488165.html



The Russian President Vladimir Putin has given his biggest admission yet on the extent of Moscow's involvement in the Syrian civil war – saying "serious" training and equipment are being provided to the Syrian army by Russia.

He also did not rule out the possibility of direct military involvement in the region, instead calling rumours of Russian troops on the ground "premature".

The rumours have been fanned by videos released by Syrian state television appearing to show troops shouting in Russian and a Russian armoured vehicle.

Putin's support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is also well-known. The Russian premier has used his UN veto to block action against the regime, despite it being accused of using chemical weapons on civilians by Syrian doctors and investigated by international organisations.

Assad's regime has also killed more civilians than its terrorist opponents Isis in a civil war which has seen 250,000 people die, reported the Daily Telegraph.

As such, much of the international community aside from Russia has said that Assad has no place in Syria's future.

Yet Putin has positioned himself as a fighter "against terrorism", having supplied arms to the Syrian regime for some time but now claiming this is to combat dangerous opponents to it.

"[...] We are already giving Syria quite serious help with equipment and training soldiers, with our weapons," the state-owned RIA Novosti news agency quoted Mr Putin as saying at an economic forum in Vladivostok.

"We really want to create some kind of an international coalition to fight terrorism and extremism.

"To this end, we hold consultations with our American partners - I have personally spoken on the issue with US President Obama," the news agency reported him as saying.

As recently as May this year, however, President Obama said at the Camp David summit that if evidence of chemical weapons use such as chlorine was confirmed by the US, Russia would be under pressure.

The Guardian reported Mr Obama as saying the US would then "reach out to patrons of Assad like Russia to put a stop to it."

The possibility of Russian military involvement is being downplayed by Moscow, however. An Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, said Russia could be about to deploy "thousands" of troops to Syria to set up an airbase to launch air attacks against Isis, according to the Daily Telegraph.

But Russian analysts said the Yedioth report was inaccurate, saying Moscow did not want to repeat the US' mistakes in Iraq and was currently busy dealing with Ukraine.

I know bad things happen in war but Assad wasn't the aggressor in this and he did not start it. The rebels and ISIS set up in populated areas to launch attacks and they are the areas the Syrian army are targeting.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people and children were killed in Iraq in the Bush Blair war, but all those were acceptable because it was termed as “collateral damage”. Tens of thousands of Palestinians are killed in Israel, but again the term that they use is “collateral damage”.

Look at Yemen with Saudi bombing the ar5e out of it and killing innocent civilians, and again “collateral damage” would again be the mitigating term used. It is also important to know that Saudi have been using banned US cluster bombs. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/cluster-bombs-yemen-saudi-united-states

Islamic State (Isis), Syrian government forces, both sides in the conflict in eastern Ukraine and Saudi jets attacking targets in Yemen have all used cluster bombs and rockets banned by international treaty.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/banned-cluster-bombs-syria-ukraine-yemen-sudan-libya

U.S. Used Cluster Munitions Used In Iraq https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/04/01/us-using-cluster-munitions-iraq

It really depends on which narrative we choose to listen to, but he is more justified in his actions to defend himself and his Alawite people than Bush and Blair ever were in their act of aggression and invasion on Iraq carried out in our name. I have to reiterate that Assad stated early on in his Presidency that democracy was "a tool to a better life," though he added that democracy couldn't be rushed in Syria.

It’s easy to forget all the human rights abuses, torture and killings in Iraqi jails and Guantanamo, not forgetting in the US where police are shooting black people left right and centre.

All the propaganda has to do is keep on saying Evil and Assad in the same sentence to get public support, but instead of shoving this mantra down our throats they need to take a long hard look at themselves first.

If you think that had Assad fled Syria on the orders of the West, that there would be no war there, that wouldn't be the truth. The best thing the West could have done was back the controlled democratic reforms and transition Assad wanted on a realistic time scale. Instead we promoted the idea for rebel groups to topple him forgetting that these groups are fighting against themselves, ISIS and the Syrian army.

 

[Hastings gull]

Reported on Friday in the Berliner Morgenpost, the second most popular paper in the capital that 2 security staff at a refugee camp were beaten up by Syrians who told the guards that they were "members of ISIS and the guards were going to die"
http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/art...-in-Aufnahmestelle-mit-Sicherheitsleuten.html

Saw interviews last night on german TV of people expressing doubts, for the first time, GC in Gdansk has admitted to being shocked, and now this, as well as the controversy surrounding the German school with its advice to all girls not to offend the nearby immigrants with "provocative" clothing. Isolated incidents admittedly, and hopefully will continue to be so, but the problems with integrating large numbers in a very short timescale are starting to emerge.

 

[Hampster Gull]

impressive to see the Uk has contributed c£1,000million in funds to support refugees in camps on Syrian borders.

The commitment to take a further 5,000 refugees direct form the Syrian conflict zone is also i think the right approach (albeit too low a number). We should not be encouraging people to take the really dangerous route to Europe. Well resourced and properly run camps near the homelands of those effected, where incumbents can make proper applications for asylum feels right. Some of those in the camps will get safe movement to a welcoming country.

The 5,000 for me should be multipled by a factor of 10 so i think we have much to do to contribute properly and morally.

That said we should do that on sensible terms, the ones above and i think the one the government are following. If Some EU countries want to encourge mass migration direct to their doorstep and then allocate, fine, that is for them to deal with. We should not feel under moral obligation to copy that approach. It is dangerous for those who make the journey, encourged by what they see but putting themselves and rheir families in great danger. The EU is great at trying to impose treaties on those who sign up, as our recent financial contributions have shown, but they cannot force those who disagree and havent signed up.

We can and should do more, but on our terms

 

[sydney]

I merely stated the catalyst for the beginning of the uprising. It has now escalated due to the western world's reluctance to get involved, the complete antipathy of the gulf states and the involvement of radicalised nut jobs.

we are in total agreement there mate , my cynicism towards politicians has grown to bursting point , another beheading video put out by isis today ...12 pilots / officers murdered in cold blood left with heads on their chests.....god knows what the political scum are up to whilst large portions of the population are distracted by this truly abhorrent , disgusting behaviour.

 

[symyjym]

As many on here will know I am left-leaning and I'm tolerant of immigration and do believe we should do we all we can for these migrants, within the boundaries of common sense and practicality.

However I am deeply concerned that ISIS sympathisers, or even ISIS members themselves, will seize this opportunity to infiltrate European borders.

What screening procedures are in place? How easy would it be for militia to deceive? It just takes one Jihadist nutter to kill scores of people, it is a genuine concern for me that amongst the hundreds of thousands of desperate, innocent migrants there will be baddies who are coming solely to destroy and terrorise.

I'd like to say the likes of Merkel knows what she's doing - but I can see this becoming a severe problem further down the line for Europe.

Even if it was only 1% of ISIS members or sympathisers mingling with the refugees that would equate to 8,000, which is quite a large fighting force.

 

[La` Cucaracha¤]

Germany today.

I call this white genocide.


[yt]PnE3cFEehxg[/yt]

 

[BigGully]

impressive to see the Uk has contributed c£1,000million in funds to support refugees in camps on Syrian borders.

The commitment to take a further 5,000 refugees direct form the Syrian conflict zone is also i think the right approach (albeit too low a number). We should not be encouraging people to take the really dangerous route to Europe. Well resourced and properly run camps near the homelands of those effected, where incumbents can make proper applications for asylum feels right. Some of those in the camps will get safe movement to a welcoming country.

The 5,000 for me should be multipled by a factor of 10 so i think we have much to do to contribute properly and morally.

That said we should do that on sensible terms, the ones above and i think the one the government are following. If Some EU countries want to encourge mass migration direct to their doorstep and then allocate, fine, that is for them to deal with. We should not feel under moral obligation to copy that approach. It is dangerous for those who make the journey, encourged by what they see but putting themselves and rheir families in great danger. The EU is great at trying to impose treaties on those who sign up, as our recent financial contributions have shown, but they cannot force those who disagree and havent signed up.

We can and should do more, but on our terms

The tone of your post seems reasonable, but can I ask you how you came to your conclusion on the numbers we should accept, at what point did your logic conclude a number 50 000 as reasonable.

Assuming you have factored in security, sustainability and instability to our own communities and services how did a number of 50 000 unknown Syrian refugees become your humanitarian threshold.

 

[symyjym]

George Osborne has said that House of Commons vote against the proposals for air strikes on ISIS in Syria two years ago was one of the worst decisions ever made. Which is a close admittance to understanding the battle that Assad has been forced to fight.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Even if it was only 1% of ISIS members or sympathisers mingling with the refugees that would equate to 8,000, which is quite a large fighting force.

Estimates vary wildly as to how many IS fighters there are in Syria and Iraq (US says 31,500, Russia says 70,000, Reuters reported 40,000 fighters and 60,000 supporters but I do not know where they got those figures from and the Kurds say 200,000!) but I doubt very much that they could afford to lose 8000 fighters.

 

[BigGully]

Estimates vary wildly as to how many IS fighters there are in Syria and Iraq (US says 31,500, Russia says 70,000, Reuters reported 40,000 fighters and 60,000 supporters but I do not know where they got those figures from and the Kurds say 200,000!) but I doubt very much that they could afford to lose 8000 fighters.

Invasion by stealth .............

 

[sir albion]

Give it a few years and the Germans will be moaning about them

 

[Hampster Gull]

The tone of your post seems reasonable, but can I ask you how you came to your conclusion on the numbers we should accept, at what point did your logic conclude a number 50 000 as reasonable.

Assuming you have factored in security, sustainability and instability to our own communities and services how did a number of 50 000 unknown Syrian refugees become your humanitarian threshold.

I said in my post we should process the properly, via camps in the impacted areas, which means that they are not as unknown as you state.

The 50k? The UK took 70k Jews prior to WW2, 20k Hungarian refugees following the 1956 uprising, 25k Asian Ugandans, 19k Vietnamese, 24k Kosovan refugees.

But I was making a directional point.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Give it a few years and the Germans will be moaning about them

Are we moaning about the Jews, Hungarians, Asians, Vietnamese?

 

[Soulman]

Estimates vary wildly as to how many IS fighters there are in Syria and Iraq (US says 31,500, Russia says 70,000, Reuters reported 40,000 fighters and 60,000 supporters but I do not know where they got those figures from and the Kurds say 200,000!) but I doubt very much that they could afford to lose 8000 fighters.

How about sympathisers then, like the murderer who killed Lee Rigby, he was not an ISIS fighter.........you only need a percentage of sympathisers among the thousands of refugees, and they then mount up.

 

[Soulman]

Are we moaning about the Jews, Hungarians, Asians, Vietnamese?

Of course not, nor the other races that have come here. Do these you mention in this country blow up trains and buses, want their own laws, disrespect our home coming troops, have incessant marches, have radical speeches, grooming gangs etc etc. I suppose i should point out it is only a small minority, but i don't see even a small minority in the peaceful ones you mentioned.

 

[KZNSeagull]

How about sympathisers then, like the murderer who killed Lee Rigby, he was not an ISIS fighter.........you only need a percentage of sympathisers among the thousands of refugees, and they then mount up.

I have no idea how you would go about making the distinction - the murderer of Lee Rigby became an ISIS fighter when he committed that atrocity. But even if you take the figure of 100,000 split between 40,000 fighters and 60,000 supporters, which I now understand came from "Jihadi ideologues", 8000 is still a lot to lose.

 

[BigGully]

Not sure you read my post that well. I said we should process the properly, which means that they are not as unknown as you state.

The 50k? The UK took 70k Jews prior to WW2, 20k Hungarian refugees following the 1956 uprising, 25k Asian Ugandans, 19k Vietnamese, 24k Kosovan refugees.

But I was making a directional point...

How do you process accurately displaced people where you have absolutely no way of knowing whether the information offered is correct.

It seems likely to me that if you have paid considerable sums for passage you would then be well briefed how to give your own story that would favour a successful outcome if applying for asylum, I know I would.

If you just grab a number from previous historic refugee intakes it would then not factor in all the very immediate concerns regarding security, sustainability and instability, as well as total population numbers.

You are just saying that we must admit 50 000 per wave of refugee's because we did sometime in the past.

 

[symyjym]

Estimates vary wildly as to how many IS fighters there are in Syria and Iraq (US says 31,500, Russia says 70,000, Reuters reported 40,000 fighters and 60,000 supporters but I do not know where they got those figures from and the Kurds say 200,000!) but I doubt very much that they could afford to lose 8000 fighters.

They can easily sacrifice 8,000 combatants because they would do more damage on our doorstep than what they could do out there. It only takes one person to take out hundreds of innocent people in a public area. I couldn’t imagine this not being their ultimate ambition.

This could prove to be their D-Day landing even if just 1% of refugees are ISIS.