# Syrian Refugee Crisis (aka: Muslim Exodus and Europe)



## Kirkhill

> Egyptian billionaire offers to buy an island off Italy or Greece to rehouse refugees
> If Greece or Italy sell him an island, Naguib Sawiris, the 10th richest man in Africa, says he will host the migrants and offer them jobs in the new country



Daily Telegraph 

Here I wrote about setting up safe havens, like Singapore, for the refugees.

Mr. Sawiris presents a reasonable, exploitable, course of action.  The islands of the Med, and in particular the Aegean, have been built, over the millenia, on exactly this type of population movement, and have given rise to some notable island cultures: Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Malta.... 

This is the type of activity that Canada could help the Europeans support and could be a gateway, a controlled gateway, to Canada and Europe - or it could become a destination in and of itself.


----------



## tomahawk6

Think of this as an invasion rather than immigration.Europe's economy is struggling and with no work,these people will be a burden on the social security structure.The US is struggling under the Mexican migration and our economy isnt much better.If we had full employment then I would welcome immigrants.I dont blame these people for leaving their own country knowing once I landed in Europe I could draw unemployment and receive medical treatment at no personal cost.


----------



## Remius

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Think of this as an invasion rather than immigration.Europe's economy is struggling and with no work,these people will be a burden on the social security structure.The US is struggling under the Mexican migration and our economy isnt much better.If we had full employment then I would welcome immigrants.I dont blame these people for leaving their own country knowing once I landed in Europe I could draw unemployment and receive medical treatment at no personal cost.



Rome fell in part because of these same issues...


----------



## Jed

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Daily Telegraph
> 
> Here I wrote about setting up safe havens, like Singapore, for the refugees.
> 
> Mr. Sawiris presents a reasonable, exploitable, course of action.  The islands of the Med, and in particular the Aegean, have been built, over the millenia, on exactly this type of population movement, and have given rise to some notable island cultures: Cyprus, Crete, Rhodes, Malta....
> 
> This is the type of activity that Canada could help the Europeans support and could be a gateway, a controlled gateway, to Canada and Europe - or it could become a destination in and of itself.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Think of this as an invasion rather than immigration.Europe's economy is struggling and with no work,these people will be a burden on the social security structure.The US is struggling under the Mexican migration and our economy isnt much better.If we had full employment then I would welcome immigrants.I dont blame these people for leaving their own country knowing once I landed in Europe I could draw unemployment and receive medical treatment at no personal cost.



This is not an invasion.  This is a migration.  The vast majority of the people have no evil intents on Europe, or anywhere else.  A large number are possibly even beyond rational thought.  They, like the Goths driven by the Huns into Rome's orbit, are being driven by ISIS and Assad (and Putin).


----------



## tomahawk6

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This is not an invasion.  This is a migration.  The vast majority of the people have no evil intents on Europe, or anywhere else.  A large number are possibly even beyond rational thought.  They, like the Goths driven by the Huns into Rome's orbit, are being driven by ISIS and Assad (and Putin).



How would Canada handle a migration of 15m Americans ?


----------



## dapaterson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How would Canada handle a migration of 15m Americans ?



Confuse them with ther excess of "U"s in our spelling, lure their 18 and 19 year olds with our lower drinking age, take them on snipe hunts, teach them about snow snakes, and steer them all to Winnipeg to convince them to turn around and go back.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This is not an invasion.  This is a migration.



When you are talking several million, they are both the same.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When you are talking several million, they are both the same.



I can't agree.

Invasions are repelled because of hostile INTENT.  The solution is to slaughter the bastards.

Migrations must be managed.  And there are opportunities for that.

And if it was 15 Mio Yanks - well we could probably accommodate that number of plains folks between the Rockies and Sudbury.  But 15 Mio Californians and New Yorkers -  we might have to assume hostile intent and act accordingly.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

When a society is being overwhelmed, it is an invasion.  That society is being changed.


----------



## tomahawk6

If you could actually control your borders to allow only legal immigrants,that would be super.What you have are migrants landing illegally and then as a fait accompli demanding residency and work.This is the problem we have with the Mexican migration.For me the worst if it is that people dont want to assimilate.If I were to move to France I would expect to learn French.Where do you draw the line without giving up your cultural identity ?


----------



## Remius

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When you are talking several million, they are both the same.



It might seem that way.  But mass migration (due to whatever) isn't the same as an invasion which is more deliberate and strategic in nature.


----------



## George Wallace

Crantor said:
			
		

> It might seem that way.  But mass migration (due to whatever) isn't the same as an invasion which is more deliberate and strategic in nature.



A mass migration is not likely affect change if there is uninhabited lands that they are migrating to.  When there is a movement of a large population that will effectively change an existing culture, then that is not a migration but an invasion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When you are talking several million, they are both the same.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> A mass migration is not likely affect change if there is uninhabited lands that they are migrating to.  When there is a movement of a large population that will effectively change an existing culture, then that is not a migration but an invasion.



So the mass migration of eastern rural families, during the Dirty Thirties, was an invasion of the American Southwest?


----------



## jollyjacktar

What about the Beatles??  A small population of 4 made a serious change in existing culture...


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What about the Beatles??  A small population of 4 made a serious change in existing culture...



Actually, along with the Rolling Stones and a few other bands, this was known as........................
.
.
.
.
.
.
The British Invasion.

 >


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> So the mass migration of eastern rural families, during the Dirty Thirties, was an invasion of the American Southwest?



Not a good example, unless you consider Americans moving within America anything else than migration.  They were not moving into Mexico and establishing themselves there, nor establishing themselves in Canada as Americans. 

The years prior to that, when the West saw the Native Americans/Aboriginal people who were overwhelmed by the influx of large numbers of 'Americans' and Immigrants would be an invasion.


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not a good example, unless you consider Americans moving within America anything else than migration.  They were not moving into Mexico and establishing themselves there, nor establishing themselves in Canada as Americans.
> 
> The years prior to that, when the West saw the Native Americans/Aboriginal people who were overwhelmed by the influx of large numbers of 'Americans' and Immigrants would be an invasion.



Especially when many of the self same, "new Americans" were gleefully eradicating the "old Americans".  If not an invasion, then at the very least a "hostile" takeover...


----------



## George Wallace

The British First Defence Force, known to produce controversial videos to defend their beliefs/claims have posted this one:

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/856909564454306/




(Looks like someone was drafting a Doomsday script for a film.)


----------



## Kirkhill

Good enuff T6 & George:

Migration = Invasion.

Let me know when you want to start machine gunning kids in the water......  >


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Good enuff T6 & George:
> 
> Migration = Invasion.
> 
> Let me know when you want to start machine gunning kids in the water......  >



This is an example of a group that has/shows no intention of assimilating or melding with Western culture, a Christian multi-faith culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8FwM79XwZw


----------



## Remius

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Good enuff T6 & George:
> 
> Migration = Invasion.
> 
> Let me know when you want to start machine gunning kids in the water......  >



So I guess we can say now that Germany was migrating to France and Poland in WW2?


----------



## Acorn

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A mass migration is not likely affect change if there is uninhabited lands that they are migrating to.  When there is a movement of a large population that will effectively change an existing culture, then that is not a migration but an invasion.



Really George? A fraction of the refugees and IDPs from Iraq and Syria are getting into Europe, or even trying to. For some reason I can't access the UNHCR site for actual numbers, but it would not constitute a culture changing "invasion" unless the existing culture is extremely weak. While they are concentrated in some areas, overall Muslims of all ethnicities are less than 5% of the population of the EU. Projections show it at 10% by 2050. I don't think even Harper could get a Parliamentary majority with 10% support.


----------



## Tuan

The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees


----------



## George Wallace

Crantor said:
			
		

> So I guess we can say now that Germany was migrating to France and Poland in WW2?



I suppose when you look at the Alsace, Austria, parts of Czech Republic, and parts of Poland, you could have said that.   >


----------



## Kilo_302

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, Mulcair has made one decision easy for me.  Mulcair is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
> 
> His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia.  Sorry Thomas.  Wrong answer.
> 
> Will the Canadian public clue in?   Sadly, probably not.



Well that's up for debate. A military escalation would immediately increase the numbers of refugees. As evidenced by the recent Pentagon report (so far the CF has questioned its accuracy) that seems to confirm a CF-18 killed 27 civilians in Iraq, more bombing will in the short term make life harder for those in the war zone. This is not say life is peachy under ISIS. But if you're living in an ISIS controlled town and you're still alive, that will be harder to achieve under even a modest strategic air campaign (currently Canadians are only going after tactical targets from what I understand). Most commentators seem to agree as well that to really combat ISIS we need to go after infrastructure targets. This again would have the effect of increasing the flow of refugees. You might survive under a brutal theocratic cult (miserably of course), but NO ONE can survive if the water is shut off.

What I would like to see is an immediate emphasis on taking care of the displaced people. Plan for 10x the current number. Build more camps, build an international consensus. Encourage the refugees to leave in other words. Give them places to go. Once that safety net is in place, hit ISIS with everything. This plan has a lot of potential problems of course, and there are many variables. But this situation is such a SNAFU that ANY plan could make things worse than they are. We can't have it both ways here. We can't be bombing ISIS (indirectly helping Assad who is killing MORE people than ISIS, unless of course you listen to Putin who claims the opposite), and not have a plan for the refugees. Only a few years ago the same people who would attack Mulcair for not going after ISIS were saying the same thing about not going after Assad. Well, turns out large portions of ISIS are also FSA. Do we just bomb everyone then?


----------



## George Wallace

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well that's up for debate. A military escalation would immediately increase the numbers of refugees. .................................................. Most commentators seem to agree as well that to really combat ISIS we need to go after infrastructure targets. This again would have the effect of increasing the flow of refugees. Y



Yes it is up to debate.  If we let it fester, it will get worse.  

We have to have "REAL" statesmen with "BALLS" to come to terms with this problem.  We need leadership who will commit to an all out eradication of IS.  That will take ground troops of the numbers we have not seen since 1944.  That will take the couraged to send troops in and liberate the lands from which all these refugees have fled.   Unfortunately the WEST has grown soft.  They appease, rather than solve world problems.  They allow radicals to spread their philosophies, the ignorant to rebel enciting a hatred for the successes of nations and cultures that have prospered to fester.  Sorry.  Appeasement has failed so far.  Soft policies have failed.


----------



## Kilo_302

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes it is up to debate.  If we let it fester, it will get worse.
> 
> We have to have "REAL" statesmen with "BALLS" to come to terms with this problem.  We need leadership who will commit to an all out eradication of IS.  That will take ground troops of the numbers we have not seen since 1944.  That will take the couraged to send troops in and liberate the lands from which all these refugees have fled.   Unfortunately the WEST has grown soft.  They appease, rather than solve world problems.  They allow radicals to spread their philosophies, the ignorant to rebel enciting a hatred for the successes of nations and cultures that have prospered to fester.  Sorry.  Appeasement has failed so far.  Soft policies have failed.



I 100% agree that our politicians don't have the courage to do much here. None of the parties in Canada seem to have much of an idea. But, as far as solving world problems, we in the West have a lot to answer for in this current situation. So does Russia. This is realist policy biting us AND the Russians in the ass. None of the three major leaders in Canada will even try to address why the current situation in the Middle East is the way it is. That would involve analyzing ancient history, like the 90s and the 2000s. We can't have that, for reasons that we discussed in the media stuff above. This may be straying from the election topic, so I'll leave it that.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well that's up for debate. A military escalation would immediately increase the numbers of refugees. As evidenced by the recent Pentagon report (so far the CF has questioned its accuracy) that seems to confirm a CF-18 killed 27 civilians in Iraq, more bombing will in the short term make life harder for those in the war zone. This is not say life is peachy under ISIS. But if you're living in an ISIS controlled town and you're still alive, that will be harder to achieve under even a modest strategic air campaign (currently Canadians are only going after tactical targets from what I understand). Most commentators seem to agree as well that to really combat ISIS we need to go after infrastructure targets. This again would have the effect of increasing the flow of refugees. You might survive under a brutal theocratic cult (miserably of course), but NO ONE can survive if the water is shut off.
> 
> What I would like to see is an immediate emphasis on taking care of the displaced people. Plan for 10x the current number. Build more camps, build an international consensus. Encourage the refugees to leave in other words. Give them places to go. Once that safety net is in place, hit ISIS with everything. This plan has a lot of potential problems of course, and there are many variables. But this situation is such a SNAFU that ANY plan could make things worse than they are. We can't have it both ways here. We can't be bombing ISIS (indirectly helping Assad who is killing MORE people than ISIS, unless of course you listen to Putin who claims the opposite), and not have a plan for the refugees. Only a few years ago the same people who would attack Mulcair for not going after ISIS were saying the same thing about not going after Assad. Well, turns out large portions of ISIS are also FSA. Do we just bomb everyone then?



I can't agree with this. Troops on the ground would have provided stability. How would a refugee camp survive being overrun by ISIS? Especially without military support. Civilians killed? Tragic? Maybe, but an unfortunate cost of any conflict


----------



## Kirkhill

https://video-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xtf1/v/t42.1790-2/11155825_986552331379725_1273635984_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjMwMCwicmxhIjo1MTJ9&rl=300&vabr=130&oh=83e3918e707adf2bcf6fed9e8a0c950d&oe=55EA6764

This video needs to be seen.

This Shows You Why Boat Refugees Don't Fly!


----------



## Kilo_302

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I can't agree with this. Troops on the ground would have provided stability. How would a refugee camp survive being overrun by ISIS? Especially without military support. Civilians killed? Tragic? Maybe, but an unfortunate cost of any conflict



Troops would provide stability assuming the West can pony up around 300,000 of them. During the surge in Iraq, the US had slightly more than a third of that in Iraq and was somewhat successful. But they already "owned" it. We would have to retake large swathes of territory, including territory in Syria, and then stabilize those areas. And then you have the whole problem of an increased Western presence on the ground drawing more insurgents to the area. There's every reason to believe ISIS WANTS us to bomb them, it's a great recruiting tool. And again, an offensive like that would destroy the remaining infrastructure, drive people into the arms of ISIS, and kill the very people we're trying to protect at potentially a greater rate than ISIS would. Like I said, it's a lose-lose proposition. Iraq JUST happened, have we forgotten the lessons already?

Mods it might make sense to move the last couple posts to the Syria super thread.


----------



## Tuan

MCG said:
			
		

> Gents,
> We don't have to agree with each other, but let’s put the personal insults away.



Agreed! Lets not insult each other and focus on the immediate threat the world is facing.

'Just wait…' Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555434/Islamic-State-ISIS-Smuggler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees

I am not sure this article is just some sort of psy-ops or propaganda or reality but this has been the modus operandi of many terrorist organizations world wide. Wondering how the international community and NATO would respond to this.


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well, Mulcair has made one decision easy for me.  Mulcair is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
> 
> His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia.  Sorry Thomas.  Wrong answer.
> 
> Will the Canadian public clue in?   Sadly, probably not.


I honestly cannot think of one western intervention that has ended well. Afghanistan isn't fairing well.

Iraq has sectarian violence, a corrupt central goverment and a army that runs whenever ISIL shows up.

Libya is in a state of outright anarchy after the western bombing campaign,  and is now a base of these people smugglers sending death boats to Europe. 

Hard to see how any intervention in Syria would end well.

Now Iraq went head to head against Iran for 8 years of brutal trench warfare. They should be able to take on ISIL. 

Saudi Arabia has one of the strongest militaries in the middle east. So does Iran. Explain why the west needs to get involved? 

1. When we get involved, there are calls for jihad and people hate us.

2. When we leave right away we get things like Libya,  failed states 

3. When we stay, people kill us. Then we leave and we get Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Let the middle east figure this out. Let's help the people there but stay the heck out militarily.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Troops would provide stability assuming the West can pony up around 300,000 of them. During the surge in Iraq, the US had slightly more than a third of that in Iraq and was somewhat successful. But they already "owned" it. We would have to retake large swathes of territory, including territory in Syria, and then stabilize those areas. And then you have the whole problem of an increased Western presence on the ground drawing more insurgents to the area. There's every reason to believe ISIS WANTS us to bomb them, it's a great recruiting tool. And again, an offensive like that would destroy the remaining infrastructure, drive people into the arms of ISIS, and kill the very people we're trying to protect at potentially a greater rate than ISIS would. Like I said, it's a lose-lose proposition. Iraq JUST happened, have we forgotten the lessons already?
> 
> Mods it might make sense to move the last couple posts to the Syria super thread.



Who said you have to secure Iraq and/or Syria?

How about just securing  Latakia?  Put it under a UN mandate and secure it FROM Syria. What strength do you need then?   

And while I disagree with George on the Migration - Invasion debate, I have no trouble agreeing that the fight needs to be taken to Syria and to ISIL.

Srebrnica could have been a safe haven if the DutchBat had had useful Rules of Engagement.


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> I honestly cannot think of one western intervention that has ended well. ..............................yada yada yada



As I said earlier/previously; we don't have any "REAL" statesmen leading our Western nations.  We have become soft  and have been trying to fix world problems with band-aids and not major surgery like in 1944.  The problem in the Middle East, Africa and SW Asia has been festering for several decades.  All our band-aid solutions have failed.  Statements, such as Thomas Mulcair's non commitment of combat troops, and Justin Trudeau's "send them parkas" show that we are seriously lacking in real statesmen to bring us any resolution to the problem.  Let's be honest, the token forces that Stephen Harper sent, are not much better, but still a weak step towards a solution.


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I said earlier/previously; we don't have any "REAL" statesmen leading our Western nations.  We have become soft  and have been trying to fix world problems with band-aids and not major surgery like in 1944.  The problem in the Middle East, Africa and SW Asia has been festering for several decades.  All our band-aid solutions have failed.  Statements, such as Thomas Mulcair's non commitment of combat troops, and Justin Trudeau's "send them parkas" show that we are seriously lacking in real statesmen to bring us any resolution to the problem.  Let's be honest, the token forces that Stephen Harper sent, are not much better, but still a weak step towards a solution.


I still fail to see why we need to get involved. Let the middle east sort itself out.

Also, I'm scared when in your world George Bush is a real statesman.


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> I still fail to see why we need to get involved. Let the middle east sort itself out.
> 
> Also, I'm scared when in your world George Bush is a real statesman.



???

Why we shouldn't have some interest in what happens in the Middle East?  Is that like the "Budget will sort itself out" type of thinking?

Who said anything about George Bush?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I 100% agree that our politicians don't have the courage to do much here. None of the parties in Canada seem to have much of an idea. But, as far as solving world problems, we in the West have a lot to answer for in this current situation. So does Russia. This is realist policy biting us AND the Russians in the ***. None of the three major leaders in Canada will even try to address why the current situation in the Middle East is the way it is. That would involve analyzing ancient history, like the 90s and the 2000s. We can't have that, for reasons that we discussed in the media stuff above. This may be straying from the election topic, so I'll leave it that.



The 90's and 2000's??? Try going back a hundred, thousand, years to start getting to the base of the problems. The US invasion of Iraq certainly didn't help anything, but I suspect that the conflict we're seeing would have erupted at some point because clearly the sunni/shia dynamic wasn't sustainable in the long wrong (going back to the days of muhammed). At the peace of sevres in 1919 Ottoman diplomats warned the french and british that dividing the middle east between them would come to bite them in a hundred years, so clearly the underlying problems were apparent back then.

I dont agree with Mulclair or Trudeau that Canada needs to step in and help out thousands of refugees unless we are in fact willing to allow them to become citizens. If we are going to bring in thousands of people they are going to be here for a long while... it appears the middle east is heading into their own 30 years war, complete with isolated bands, non-professional militaries, and ideological backdrop. 

I also dont particularly agree that us dropping the odd bomb on a bridge is going to have any long term effect on the region. ISIS grew out of Sunni anger at growing Shia and other tribes power. If we bomb ISIS out of existence then what? Do we think that ISIS going away is going to solve the underlying tribal and religious hatred? I suspect all we would see is the next ISIS. If we put troops on the ground with significant ROE we (and we would need to work WITH Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, etc) could possible stabilize the region enough to allow for real talks and long term if we are prepared to stay for 10-30 years and invest billions into the region.

So- I agree with both points in that canada can't, or unless we're going to offer these people citizenship, shouldn't take in massive numbers of refugees. I also dont believe a military mission without troops and extensive political will/financial backing has zero chance of success (and the odds of us having financial and political will to stay is almost zero). So what are we to do? Abandon the mid east to its destiny or put ourselves out to assist thousands of refugees with little to no knowledge of their intent, backgrounds, or will to return? That's the billion dollar question.


----------



## Kilo_302

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The 90's and 2000's??? Try going back a hundred, thousand, years to start getting to the base of the problems. The US invasion of Iraq certainly didn't help anything, but I suspect that the conflict we're seeing would have erupted at some point because clearly the sunni/shia dynamic wasn't sustainable in the long wrong (going back to the days of muhammed). At the peace of sevres in 1919 Ottoman diplomats warned the french and british that dividing the middle east between them would come to bite them in a hundred years, so clearly the underlying problems were apparent back then.
> 
> I dont agree with Mulclair or Trudeau that Canada needs to step in and help out thousands of refugees unless we are in fact willing to allow them to become citizens. If we are going to bring in thousands of people they are going to be here for a long while... it appears the middle east is heading into their own 30 years war, complete with isolated bands, non-professional militaries, and ideological backdrop.
> 
> I also dont particularly agree that us dropping the odd bomb on a bridge is going to have any long term effect on the region. ISIS grew out of Sunni anger at growing Shia and other tribes power. If we bomb ISIS out of existence then what? Do we think that ISIS going away is going to solve the underlying tribal and religious hatred? I suspect all we would see is the next ISIS. If we put troops on the ground with significant ROE we (and we would need to work WITH Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, etc) could possible stabilize the region enough to allow for real talks and long term if we are prepared to stay for 10-30 years and invest billions into the region.
> 
> So- I agree with both points in that canada can't, or unless we're going to offer these people citizenship, shouldn't take in massive numbers of refugees. I also dont believe a military mission without troops and extensive political will/financial backing has zero chance of success (and the odds of us having financial and political will to stay is almost zero). So what are we to do? Abandon the mid east to its destiny or put ourselves out to assist thousands of refugees with little to no knowledge of their intent, backgrounds, or will to return? That's the billion dollar question.



I was being facetious about the dates, of course the history goes back a long ways, but the immediate situation is a result of more recent policy decisions (the invasion of Iraq etc).

It's definitely a mess. There are many billion dollar questions. For example, any plan would require the US and given the political situation there an inclusive approach that involves Iran is a non-starter. I really think there are no good options here.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The US was so hot and horny to invade Afghanistan and Iraq,  why are they sitting on their hands with Isis? 

NATO needs to stand up some kind of force and exterminate those scumbags.


----------



## Kirkhill

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The US was so hot and horny to invade Afghanistan and Iraq,  why are they sitting on their hands with Isis?



Different Commander-in-Chief?










Democracy in action.


----------



## Marchog

> This is not an invasion.  This is a migration.


An invasion is not a whole lot more than a migration that the, er, _migrate-ees_ don't like. 



> Invasions are repelled because of hostile INTENT.


I disagree.

Invasions are repelled because of defensive intent on the part of the invaded.


----------



## Good2Golf

Tuan said:
			
		

> ...Wondering how the international community and NATO would respond to this.



By actively engaging the source of terrorism...not waiting until it comes to its shores.


----------



## observor 69

Saving Syria’s ocean of little Alan Kurdis: Analysis 
Beyond the refugee crisis, a no-fly zone now may be best the best hope of protecting children

By: Mitch Potter Foreign Affairs Writer,  Published on Fri Sep 04 2015 


Beyond the refugee crisis, a no-fly zone now may be the best hope of protecting children.

Somewhere beyond the reach of your conscience, thousands of tiny Syrian boys and girls every bit as innocent as Alan Kurdi are never coming to Canada, no matter who wins the election.

They won’t come to Canada because you can’t be a refugee until you leave. And these children haven’t managed to do that — they’re still part of the millions of civilians trapped within the bloody centrifuge that is Syria. For those younger than 5, war is all they’ve ever known.

They won’t come to Canada, ever. Because like Alan, they will die. And the overwhelming evidence suggests it will be the indiscriminate weapons of Syrian President Bashar Assad — including illegal barrel bombs dropped on residential areas by regime helicopters — that kill them.

More at:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/09/04/saving-syrias-ocean-of-little-alan-kurdis-analysis.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, and sorry, but I'm going to repeat what I have said recently.

First:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Refugees are, by definition, people who are:
> 
> 1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; _*and*_
> 
> 2. Want, and fully intend to return to their homes as soon as the danger is removed.
> 
> People who are fleeing their homes, for whatever reason, and who want to settle somewhere new are migrants, not refugees.
> 
> It is _wrong_ to settle refugees in far off, foreign lands, where they have little ability or, often, inclination to adapt. Refugees should be:
> 
> First: _*Made safe*_ ~ provided with shelter, food, medical care, schools and security, as close to their homes as is practical. This will put a HUGE strain on a few countries which are unfortunate enough to border conflict zones.
> 
> Second: Able to see the international community deal with the threats/dangers which have made them into refugees. This is the real nature of R2P: the civilized, able, mature countries must ACT to change governments which abuse their
> own people: invade; overthrow the cruel, repressive, unrepresentative government; hang the leaders and their henchmen (and women); and, _*briefly*_, support new, better leaders.
> 
> Third: Assisted in returning to their homes.
> 
> Bringing e.g. Syrian refugees to Canada or Denmark or Germany is unproductive, possibly even counter-productive. Some people in refugee camps will decide that home is no longer attractive; they will want to change their own status from refugee to migrant. Those who want to immigrate to Australia or Britain or Canada should fill out the forms just like all other potential immigrants and hope that they have the "points" they need, based on skill and knowledge and so on.



And, Second:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't want to sound cruel, but I do need to restate my views on refugees vs immigrants and the better way forward:
> 
> In short, as much as this picture pains me, personally, too ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and as much as I am glad that the government wants to "do something," _I am afraid_ that we, Canada, under pressure from our friends and neighbours and the media, will do the wrong thing, rather than taking
> a leadership role in helping the Arabs to find a solution to Syria, military, _I guess_,* and helping some Arabs, especially Jordan to better manage the Syrian refugees.
> 
> ____
> * The US led West can, with minimal effort, invade Syria, topple and hang Assad, deal a series of smashing military blows to IS** and then leave, and leave the Arabs to clean up the mess. There will be all manner of "do gooders" (from the political left, centre and right) screaming _"You broke it, you fix it!"_ but the correct answer tol that is silence, during the rapid withdrawal and nearly total from the region. There is nothing that we, the West, can do to "fix" the Middle East; only the people there, Arabs, Persians and Israelis, can do that, and they may have to have another generation (or two) of war ~ small or large wars, doesn't matter ~ to manage the "fix," whatever it is. What we, the US led West, can do is to _simplify_ the problem:
> 
> 
> _Simplifying a problem_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This way    or     that way_




Europe (and Canada and Australia and New Zealand, and Japan, India, Singapore and, yes, China, too) need to join together, under US leadership ~ suspect though that may be on many issues ~ to try to _simplify_ the situation in the Middle East, with the _strategic_ aim of making it easier for the Middle Easterners, themselves, the Arabs, Iranians and Israelis, especially, to settle the issues for themselves in their own ways.

I advocate military action. Swift, vioent, decisive military action to:

     1. Overthrow Assad and his _Ba'ath_ Party cohorts and then leave it up to the Syrians to form a government that suits them ... I know, that means letting the civil wars (there will be more than one, _I suspect_) rage on for a while;
         and, then

     2. Turn towards IS** and defeat it. This defeat must be brutal, bloody, complete and exemplary. It must leave _fear_ in the hearts and minds of Arabs and Iranians (and North Africans and West Asians, too); and then

     3. Go home, get out of the region, almost completely (leaving substantial air and naval/amphibious forces in the region or very nearby ~ maybe stay in Bahrain, and base (more) forces in Cyprus and Djibouti, too), and leave
          the locals to work out, over a long, long time, maybe generations, their own _modus vivendi_.

We, the US led West cannot "fix" the Middle East. That region, other than Israel, is highly unlikely to embrace anything like the modern, sophisticated, _liberal_ democracy we understand in my lifetime or in that of my children and (as yet unborn) grandchildren. They may need generations to bicker and fight ~ all out wars ~ before they decide, in their own ways, what works. We may not like what emerges, neither may the Chinese. I have no idea what a _Middle East peace_ might look like, and nor, _I believe_, do any of Barak Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Kings Abdullah of Jordan or Salman of Saudi Arabia, or Ayatollah Khomeini. But, after there has been enough killing and talking, and fighting and talking, and bombing and talking, and talking and talking, someone, a bunch of Arabs and Iranians and Israelis, will figure out what makes an acceptable peace. What we, the US led West, can do is _simplify_ the problem by taking a couple of the "pieces" (pieces that are problems for us and the Middle East) off the "board."


----------



## Kirkhill

ER.

I agree we cannot FIX the Middle East.  But too many folks are using that as cover for:

A - turning a blind eye and 
B - not ACTING.

I don't accuse you of either of those.

I agree with you on your course of action.

We can FIX parts of the Middle East.  And maybe, over time, that is enough.


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, I'm going to go father.

We, the great big, global, well intentioned but shambling, stumbling, two and half billion "we" that lives, however unsteadily, above the poverty line also cannot do much to provide _immediate help_ for the other four and half billion, especially not for the hundreds of thousands who, daily, are fleeing war and famine and terror and oppression. We can feel bad ... and I do. But that, feeling bad, is about the extent of it.

This: 

       
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



       _A dead child in Gaza (21st century)_

Is no worse than this:

                               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                               _Children in Auschwitz (20th century)_

It has always been thus:

                                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                    _Dutch executions of Anabaptists (Mennonites) in the 16th century_

And Muslims are no better, nor worse, than Christians and Buddhists and Hindus and so on ...

What we can, and should do is to provide some, temporary safety and security (Maslow's Hierarchy, the bottom two levels: life, however miserable, and an opportunity, however small, to go on living). What we can and should do is to change _some_* of the situations that caused _some_* people to become refugees in the first place.

That's about the extent of the possibilities, no matter what politicians and journalists and the rest of the chattering classes say.

_____
* We, the slice of the 2½ billion people who might, reasonably, be expected to do something cannot do everything for everyone all the time. And, sometimes, it may not be in _our_ best interests to do anything.  :dunno:


----------



## Kirkhill

ER - We are in, what some describe as, violent agreement.

Of course we can't fix it all.  Or maybe even a large part.  

But that doesn't and can't prevent us trying to do something.

1545 Merindol
1562 Vassy
1572 St Bartholomew
1625 and Muslims taking slaves from the River Dart and Catholics slaughtering Protestants in La Rochelle
The Huguenots
The Palatines
The Jews

In 1917 the Armenians were ignored (for, perhaps, obvious reasons).

Sometimes we have stirred our stumps and tackled causes head on.  In none of those cases was it likely that the solution would be general or long lasting.  But, sometimes somethings are changed everywhere for a short time and sometimes somethings are changed somewhere forever.  Thus 1545 is not like 2015.

No we shouldn't take on the world.  But maybe we can save a town.


----------



## larry Strong

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Refugees are, by definition, people who are:
> 
> 1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; _*and*_
> 
> 2. Want, and fully intend to return to their homes as soon as the danger is removed.



Hello ERC.

I was wondering where the 2nd part comes in on the definition of a refuge....I seem unable to find that part.

I do realize it is one of the 3 legs of the UNHCR mandate.....



> The agency is mandated to lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. It strives to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another State, with "the option to return home voluntarily", integrate locally or to resettle in a third country.





Cheers
Larry


----------



## George Wallace

Not to sound racist, but if we are going to start taking in large numbers of refugees, should we be selecting all the non-Muslims first?  It will be very easy for the Muslims among the migrants to return to Syria, Iraq, etc. once the IS problem is ended; but still a problem for non-Muslims who would still face persecution from some of the Muslim sects.  Bringing in Muslims ahead of non-Muslims would only perpetuate the hardships and discrimination that the non-Muslims are facing in their desperation to flee IS.  

We may also have to get tough with Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria to create the Kurdish homeland.  

A very complex problem, and no single easy solution.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Hello ERC.
> 
> I was wondering where the 2nd part comes in on the definition of a refuge....I seem unable to find that part.
> 
> I do realize it is one of the 3 legs of the UNHCR mandate.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry




You're quite right, Larry, I should not have said "by definition," because that's not what any legal definition says.

But a refugee, by the strict definition, who does not want to return home becomes a migrant, doesn't (s)he?


----------



## a_majoor

I see a hardening of attitudes in Europe, and it won't be long before we see violent attacks on refugee/migrant columns and camps by the locals to drive them away. With nations like Hungary mobilizing the military to close the borders, I can also see gunfire being used to _keep_ the borders closed as well.

Nativist political parties and movements have sprung up all across Europe because of what is _already_ seen as uncontrolled immigration leading to unassimilated populations lodged in the hearts of the nations. These unassimilated populations are blamed for taking jobs, demanding and receiving vast sums of welfare (for which the natives pay) and are regarded as criminal elements (rightly or wrongly), so supercharging this by letting hundreds of thousands more come in isn't going to go well with the local population, regardless of what Brussels decides.

While we indulge in semantics about migration vs invasion, the Europeans clearly see this as an invasion, and are taking steps from the bottom up to deal with it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Janet Daley - Daily Telegraph



> Without borders in Europe, there is no hope of ending this migrant crisis
> 
> The principle of free movement cannot withstand this influx of refugees and the criminal efforts of people traffickers
> 
> The lesson of the past week is that a picture of a dead child can move a continent and overturn the stance of a government – but only, it seems, if that picture suits the politics of influential voices in the public dialogue. For some reason, the appalling photographs of the bodies of children who had been deliberately gassed by the Assad regime, laid out on a concrete floor in Syria two years ago, were not sufficiently moving to compel the world to take action. Are dead children only a moral outrage when they are on the beaches of Europe? Or is it just easier to use the image of that single drowned child to support the notion of Western guilt, whereas an indictment of Assad and the intervention that would logically follow from it would have invited all the recrimination which self-loathing Western opinion delights in?...



Link to full article

This is what Janet is talking about:

2015






 And the whole world weeps

2013














And if that isn`t enough there are lots more here

How long before it is time  to focus on the things that really matter again.






For those that wish to pursue the migration / invasion issue try this article



> Migrants' great escape to the 'other' Europe reveals stark divide
> 
> Scenes of joy among migrants crossing from Hungary to Austria indicative of wide policy differences that have emerged as Europe struggles with its biggest migration in 70 years
> 
> It was a far cry from what they had left behind – after a week stranded in squalid limbo outside Budapest’s main railway station thousands of refugees crossed from Hungary into Austria on Saturday and received something they had been missing: a warm welcome....
> 
> ....That confusion was building again on Saturday night as more Syrian and Afghan migrants came to Keleti station hoping that more buses might take them to Austria, only for a Hungarian government spokesman to rule out any further transports.
> 
> And so it was by lunchtime that another 600 migrants set off on foot towards the M1 to Vienna, unsure if they would picked up by buses like those had been on Friday – and if not, then why not.
> 
> “Why are there are no buses?” asked Wasim Al Jubail, a 29 year old Syrian who left a holding camp for Keleti square after hearing of Saturday night’s crossings into Austria. “We are very confused,” he said, “We do not understand.”
> 
> He is not alone.


----------



## George Wallace

An example:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This is chiefly about guilty consciences and winning elections.  Most of the people who beak off about R2P have no intention whatsoever of following through.



Most people who beak off about R2P have no idea whatsoever as to what it entails or the fortune in treasury and soldier's blood it would cost.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>I assume you are not rationalizing inaction.

No.  I object to politicizing tragedy (including beyond elections).  I suppose it's a fine line, but easy to draw: criticize/exhort the government, but not by party or personal name.  Each government has to pick a few causes - which this one has done - and stand by them to effect.  When challenged (eg. "why are we not involved in <sh!thole>?"), rigorously avoid defensive counter-accusations and explain: we want to do a few things effectively, rather than be everywhere to no effect; those who wish to be involved in "<sh!thole>" should work together among themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is the problem for Syrian refugees:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, looks at the Gulf State/Saudi response to the Syrian refugee situation (including a reference to the cartoon, above):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/gulf-monarchies-bristle-at-criticism-over-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis/article26239615/


> Gulf monarchies bristle at criticism over response to Syrian refugee crisis
> 
> BEN HUBBARD
> BEIRUT — The New York Times News Service
> 
> Published Sunday, Sep. 06, 2015
> 
> The Arab kingdoms and sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf have some of the world’s highest per capita incomes. Their leaders speak passionately about the plight of Syrians, and their state-funded news media cover the Syrian civil war without cease.
> 
> Yet as millions of Syrian refugees languish elsewhere in the Middle East and many have risked their lives to reach Europe or died along the way, Gulf nations have agreed to resettle a number of refugees that many find surprisingly low.
> 
> As the migration crisis overwhelms Europe and after the well-publicized drowning of a Syrian toddler crystallized Syrian desperation, humanitarian organizations are increasingly accusing the Arab world’s richest nations of not doing enough to help out.
> 
> Accenting that criticism are the deep but shadowy roles countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia have played in bankrolling the war in Syria through their support to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> And Gulf citizens – with or without their governments’ knowledge – have funded the rise of Syria’s jihadists, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> “Burden sharing has no meaning in the Gulf, and the Saudi, Emirati and Qatari approach has been to sign a check and let everyone else deal with it,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Human Rights Watch for its Middle East and North Africa division. “Now everyone else is saying, ‘That’s not fair.’”
> 
> There are, in fact, hundreds of thousands of Syrians in the Gulf, where vast oil wealth and relatively small citizen populations have made the countries prime destinations for workers from poorer Arab countries and elsewhere. While many expatriates are professionals who have built lucrative careers there, most are low-paid laborers who give up their rights to get jobs and can be deported with little notice.
> 
> This group now includes many Syrians who have fled the war, although they get none of the protections or financial support that come with legal refugee or asylum status, nor a path to future citizenship – benefits Gulf countries do not grant.
> 
> Gulf officials and commentators reject the criticism, however, saying that their countries have generously funded humanitarian aid and that giving Syrians the ability to work is better than leaving them with nothing to do in economically struggling countries and squalid refugee camps.
> 
> “If it wasn’t for the Gulf states, you would expect these millions to be in a much more tragic state than they are,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political science professor in the United Arab Emirates, which he said has taken in more than 160,000 Syrians in the last three years. “This finger-pointing at the Gulf that they are not doing anything, it is just not true.”
> 
> Others bristle at criticism from the United States and the West, whom they accuse of letting the conflict fester for more than four years while Assad’s forces deployed chemical weapons and bombed civilian areas, causing so many people to flee.
> 
> “Why is it that there are just questions about the position of the Gulf, but not about who is behind the crisis, who created the crisis?” asked Khalid al-Dakhil, a political science professor at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
> 
> He agreed that the Gulf could do more, but directed the blame toward Iran and Russia, which have heavily backed Assad and his military while also refusing to resettle Syrian refugees.
> 
> Fueling much of the criticism is the tremendous wealth in the Gulf, a region filled with sprawling malls, gleaming skyscrapers and wide boulevards clogged with SUVs. That opulence is clearly lacking in Syria’s neighbors, where most of the conflict’s more than 4 million refugees are.
> 
> Jordan, for example, has an annual per capita income of $11,000 and has received 630,000 refugees. Lebanon is richer, but has more than 1.2 million Syrians, making them about one-quarter of the population.
> 
> Turkey has the most, about 2 million, with a per capita income of $20,000.
> 
> Those average incomes are a fraction of the figures for Qatar, $143,000, Kuwait, $71,000, or Saudi Arabia, $52,000, according to the International Monetary Fund.
> 
> Gulf countries have funded humanitarian aid. Saudi Arabia has donated $18.4-million to the United Nations Syria response fund so far this year, while Kuwait has given more than $304-million, making it the world’s third-largest donor. The United States has given the most, $1.1-billion, and has agreed to resettle about 1,500 Syrians.
> 
> Many Syrians, too, have criticized the Gulf for trumpeting its outrage while doing little that would compromise its high standard of living.
> 
> “We know that the Gulf could take in Syrian refugees, but they have never responded,” said Omar Hariri, a Syrian who had recently fled Turkey on an inflatable raft with his wife and 2-year-old daughter.
> 
> Speaking by phone from Athens, he said he saw hope in Europe, not in the Gulf.
> 
> “They have helped the rebels, not the refugees,” Hariri said.
> 
> This week, Kuwaiti commentator Fahad Alshelaimi said in a TV interview that his country was too expensive for refugees, but appropriate for laborers.
> 
> “You can’t welcome people from another environment and another place who have psychological or nervous system problems or trauma and enter them into societies,” he said.
> 
> Cartoonists have lampooned such ideas. One drew a man in traditional Gulf dress behind a door surrounded by barbed wire and pointing a refugee to another door bearing the flag of the European Union.
> 
> “Open the door to them now!” the man yells.
> 
> Another cartoon shows a Gulf sheikh shaking his finger at a boat full of refugees while flashing a thumbs-up to a rebel fighter in a burning Syria.
> 
> One Syrian took aim at Gulf leaders. “We are hosting Syrian refugees, but only if they have Kuwaiti citizenship,” the emir of Kuwait says in one cartoon. In another, the president of the United Arab Emirates says his country has received “many wealthy refugees” in Dubai.
> 
> Many in the Gulf have turned their ire to the United States and its Western allies, blaming them for not intervening forcefully against Assad in a way they believe could have ended the conflict and stopped the refugee flow.
> 
> This week, Nasser al-Khalifa, a former Qatari diplomat, lashed out on Twitter, accusing Western officials of shedding “crocodile tears” over the plight of Syrians.
> 
> He said unnamed “other countries” had wanted to give antiaircraft weapons to the rebels to defend against air attacks on civilian areas, but had been blocked.
> 
> He also accused the Obama administration of not forcefully intervening in Syria out of fear that it would ruin the rapprochement with Iran. “Now European and American officials facing their shortsighted policies must welcome more Syrian refugees,” Khalifa wrote.
> 
> Michael Stephens, the head of the Royal United Services Institute in Qatar, said the decision by the United States not to directly intervene against Assad had left many in the Gulf unsure of how to respond.
> 
> “The Gulf Arabs are used to a paradigm in which the West is continuously stepping in to solve the problem, and this time it hasn’t,” Stephens said. “This has left many people looking at the shattered vase on the floor and pointing fingers.”




There are, _I believe_, some legitimate criticism to be levelled at the US led West for being, suddenly, _inactive_ after decades (going all the way back to the Roosevelt administration) of being _involved_ in the Middle East. But, equally, the Saudis and the Gulf kingdoms could and should do more, much more for their kith and kin.


----------



## tomahawk6

How about we defeat the jihadists thereby eliminating the need for refugees ?


----------



## McG

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about we defeat the jihadists thereby eliminating the need for refugees ?


If it were just that easy, why did it take a dozen years for Canada to get out of Afghanistan?


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> If it were just that easy, why did it take a dozen years for Canada to get out of Afghanistan?



Perhaps because we, and everybody else, were fixated on getting out of Afghanistan?

Is NATO out of Germany?  Is the US out of Japan? Korea?

Is Britain out of Gibraltar? The Falklands?


----------



## Kilo_302

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How would Canada handle a migration of 15m Americans ?



I would rephrase this as " How WILL Canada handle a migration of 15m Americans." The refugees from Latin America (which will increase drastically as the effects of climate change are increasingly felt)  will continue to push north, and much of the US is vulnerable to the effects of climate change as well. Canada is ideally positioned to weather the storm and unless we're willing to pony up our water (among other things) at incredibly cheap rates it'll either mass migration or actual military action. If that sounds crazy, remember that until World War 2, both of our nations had contingency plans for war. You get someone like Trump in office in a time of resource scarcity and Canada is finished.


----------



## George Wallace

WOW!....That was quite some leap you just made there.  The "Global Warming" card and predicting mass exodus NORTHWARD.


----------



## PuckChaser

That, and he seems to think Donald Trump would declare war on Canada.


----------



## a_majoor

Peter Hitchens sums up the attitude of many Europeans on why "enough is enough" and why they should NOT take refugees. The veil of silence that PC attitudes has drawn across many contentious issues is being ripped away by reality, and I'm sure we will be hearing a lot mor of this argument before long, even in Canada:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3223828/PETER-HITCHENS-won-t-save-refugees-destroying-country.html



> *PETER HITCHENS: We won't save refugees by destroying our own country*
> By PETER HITCHENS FOR THE MAIL ON SUNDAY
> PUBLISHED: 23:50 GMT, 5 September 2015 | UPDATED: 01:37 GMT, 6 September 2015
> 
> Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.
> 
> It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
> 
> Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.
> 
> If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.
> 
> As William Blake rightly said: ‘He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.’
> 
> Britain is a desirable place to live mainly because it is an island, which most people can’t get to. Most of the really successful civilisations survived because they were protected from invasion by mountains, sea, deserts or a combination of these things. Ask the Russians or the Poles what it’s like to live without the shield of the sea. There is no positive word for ‘safety’ in Russian. Their word for security is ‘bezopasnost’ – ‘without danger’.
> 
> Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom. I have visited nearly 60 countries and lived in the USSR, Russia and the USA, and I have never experienced anything as good as what we have. Only in the Anglosphere countries – the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – is there anything comparable. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.
> 
> Our advantages depend very much on our shared past, our inherited traditions, habits and memories. Newcomers can learn them, but only if they come in small enough numbers. Mass immigration means we adapt to them, when they should be adapting to us.
> 
> So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as civilisation and generosity, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?
> 
> Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period. Above, well-wishers greet migrants off a train in Frankfurt
> 
> Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period. Above, well-wishers greet migrants off a train in Frankfurt
> 
> Having seen more than my share of real corpses, and watched children starving to death in a Somali famine, I am not unmoved by pictures of a dead child on a Turkish beach. But I am not going to pretend to be more upset than anyone else. Nor am I going to suddenly stop thinking, as so many people in the media and politics appear to have done.
> 
> The child is not dead because advanced countries have immigration laws. The child is dead because criminal traffickers cynically risked the lives of their victims in pursuit of money.
> 
> I’ll go further. The use of words such as ‘desperate’ is quite wrong in this case. The child’s family were safe in Turkey. Turkey (for all its many faults) is a member of Nato, officially classified as free and democratic. Many British people actually pay good money to go on holiday to the very beach where the child’s body was washed up.
> 
> It may not be ideal, but the definition of a refugee is that he is fleeing from danger, not fleeing towards a higher standard of living.
> 
> Goodness knows I have done what I could on this page to oppose the stupid interventions by this country in Iraq, Libya and Syria, which have turned so many innocent people into refugees or corpses.
> 
> But I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.
> 
> You really think these crowds of tough young men chanting ‘Germany!’ in the heart of Budapest are ‘asylum-seekers’ or ‘refugees’?
> Refugees don’t confront the police of the countries in which they seek sanctuary. They don’t chant orchestrated slogans or lie across the train tracks.
> 
> And why, by the way, do they use the English name for Germany when they chant? In Arabic and Turkish, that country is called ‘Almanya’, in Kurdish something similar. The Germans themselves call it ‘Deutschland’. In Hungarian, it’s ‘Nemetorszag’.
> 
> Did someone hope that British and American TV would be there? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: spontaneous demonstrations take a lot of organising.
> 
> Refugees don’t demand or choose their refuge. They ask and they hope. When we become refugees one day (as we may well do), we will discover this.
> 
> As to what those angry, confident and forceful young men actually are, I’ll leave you to work it out, as I am too afraid of the Thought Police to use what I think is the correct word.
> 
> But it is interesting that this week sees the publication in English of a rather dangerous book, which came out in France just before the Charlie Hebdo murders.
> 
> Submission, by Michel Houellebecq, prophesies a Muslim-dominated government in France about seven years from now, ushered into power by the French Tory and Labour parties.
> 
> What they want, says one of the cleverer characters in the book, ‘is for France to disappear – to be integrated into a European federation’. This means they’d much rather do a deal with a Muslim party than with the National Front, France’s Ukip equivalent.
> If any of this sounds familiar to you, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s amazing how likely and simple the author makes this Islamic revolution sound.
> 
> Can we stop this transformation of all we have and are? I doubt it. To do so would involve the grim-faced determination of Australia, making it plain in every way that our doors are open only to limited numbers of people, chosen by us, enduring the righteous scorn of the supposedly enlightened.
> 
> As we lack the survival instinct and the determination necessary, and as so many of our most influential people are set on committing a sentimental national suicide, I suspect we won’t.
> 
> To those who condemn reasonable calls for national self-defence as bigotry, hatred and intolerance (which they are not), I make only this request: just don’t pretend you’re doing a good and generous thing, when you’re really cowardly and weak.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3223828/PETER-HITCHENS-won-t-save-refugees-destroying-country.html#ixzz3l0MIKJty
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## tomahawk6

I saw a video yesterday where police tried to give bottled water to refugees.Since the boxes had red crosses on them,they refused the water !!


----------



## George Wallace

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I saw a video yesterday where police tried to give bottled water to refugees.Since the boxes had red crosses on them,they refused the water !!



This video:
https://www.facebook.com/WeThePeopleHaveHadEnough/videos/311224489001777/

and this one:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/05/watch-footage-emerges-of-refugees-abusing-police-throwing-food-and-water-away-onto-train-tracks/

(YouTube seems to be removing this video of the Water Incident)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9tTOkAgEAI


----------



## tomahawk6

I liked this Peter Hitchens article from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3223828/PETER-HITCHENS-won-t-save-refugees-destroying-country.html

Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.

It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.


----------



## Quirky

George Wallace said:
			
		

> (YouTube seems to be removing this video of the Water Incident)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9tTOkAgEAI



These are perfectly good able young men who left their country, like cowards, to hide in Europe while the international community has to fight and in some cases die for THEIR country. Why do all these middle-aged men have iphones, designer clothing, and expensive shoes and haircuts? If they're so poor, tired, and hungry, why are they complaining, destroying, and rioting over being housed in refugee centres and hotels? They aren't refugees, they are invaders, they refuse to fight for their country and run from responsibility. Fuck them.


----------



## CougarKing

Many of the migrants who survived the boat trip across the Mediterranean Sea are crossing through Greece and other Balkan countries to first-world EU countries such as Germany and the UK. 

Many of these refugees are actually from war-torn countries like Syria, Iraq and Libya. But ironically the rich Gulf Muslim states like the Saudis and Qataris aren't willing to take in refugees themselves.

BBC



> *Migrant crisis: Why the Gulf states are not letting Syrians in*
> By Michael Stephens
> Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), Doha
> 5 hours ago
> 
> Images of Syrian refugees stuck at borders and at train stations, not to mention the harrowing picture of three-year-old Alan Kurdi lying dead on a Turkish beach, has spurred on an outcry for more to be done to help those fleeing the war.
> Particular anger has focused on the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE), who have kept their doors to refugees firmly shut.
> Amid the criticism, it is important to remember that the Gulf states have not stood by and done nothing for Syria's refugees.
> They have, and the generosity of individuals has at times been quite remarkable.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## ModlrMike

Some of the sentiment expressed online:


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is a lot of commentary floating about in the media suggesting that this (Syrian) refugee crisis, or the next one or the one after that, can "destroy Europe," or, at least, shred the fabric of what Europe _thinks_ it wants to be like: tolerant, open, generous and free of the petty, nastier aspects of _nationalism_. But waves of immigration, since around 1950, have challenged Europe's beliefs in and about itself ~ and America's and Australia's and Canada's, too. The nasty aspects of _nationalism_ (and racism) are on the rise in Britain, France, Italy, Central Europe and in Scandinavia and, yes, in Canada, too. Some immigrants, not the majority, not even, _I suspect_, a large minority, but some, are unwilling or find it very, very difficult to shed the trappings of their "old country" cultures and "fit in" to the social construct that many (most?) Europeans believe (only _hope_?) they have made for themselves. Many Europeans (and Americans and Canadians, and, and, and ...) are _ready_ for the siren song of the extremists from both ends of the spectrum: the _"Europe for the Europeans!"_ (racist/nationalists) faction, and the _"Your Standards Don't Apply to Me, Because My God Says Something Different"_ gang, too. Faux _liberal_ values that excuse or insist that we _tolerate_ behaviours that plainly unacceptable in the mainstream of society are part of the problem.

_I don't know what the solution is_, but, _in my opinion_, it includes being tolerant of the beliefs and customs of others that _*do not offend our societal norms*_. It, the solution, includes celebrating _secularism_ in all _official_ aspects of our society ~ there is room for religion in religious schools, for example, but not in the public schools. Head scarves (_hijabs_), even _niqabs_ and _burkas_, are fine, but the _niqab_ and _burka_ may not be allowed when testifying in court or swearing an oath. Genital mutilation is never "fine," it's a crime (sexual assault or assault with the intent to inflict bodily harm, _I guess_ ~ I'm not a lawyer) that must be punished under the Criminal Code. Parading up and down the streets demanding that everyone convert to Islam or else is fine, too - doing something, anything, to enforce that is not acceptable ~ nor is it acceptable to try to convert Buddhists to Christianity.

Tolerance is elastic, but not infinitely so.


----------



## YZT580

nationalism and racism are not synonyms.  I am a proud Canadian and yes I am a WASP as well.  Having said that, I work with, share a beer with, laugh and cry with dozens of folks who are not white, speak English with most peculiar accents, go to different places of worship etc.  The one thing we all have in common is statement one: we are all proud Canadians and came here to achieve a better standard of living and because of the values that our society offers.  These are values that are being destroyed from within by people who are willing to change them so as not to insult a minority who don't wish to be Canadians.  Instead they want to be hyphenated Canadians and that doesn't work.  I am going to be very intolerant.  There is no room in any country for compromise if that country wishes to remain a unified entity.  We can be and should be acceptant, we should be loving and generous and we should reach our hands out to any who want to come here and become what we are.  Canadians.  Our freedoms are ours precisely because of our religious background, for example.  With the exception of a few Greek states 2000 years ago, democracy has is a construct of the predominately white, western Christian world.  Even though most land masses are in possession of an equal amount of natural resources it was the white, western Christian world that achieved prosperity for most of its citizens and made it possible for all the malcontents to eat and sleep in relative comfort (our poverty level would make many of my acquaintances in Kenya green with envy) while still complaining bitterly about their misfortune in life.  All without the risk of getting shot, whipped, or sprayed with water cannon.  

By all means possible we should be trying to provide a safe haven for those unfortunates who are caught up in Assad's war.  We should also be trying to stamp out ISIS and that means all out war, boots on the ground and convoys down the highway of heroes.  I don't believe our nations are willing to pay that price.  There may be many who are willing in theory but their involvement would only go as far as paying someone else to go and then reacting in fury when the CBC shows the result of a single stray shell.  In both Iraq and Afghanistan we won the war but lost the peace.  Many of the Allies there were only committed as long as their troops were not involved in actual combat areas.  Iran is another failure (the product of compromise).

Incidentally, our military suffers from neglect precisely because of our compromises.  Standing up for what you believe is expensive and we generally are not willing to pay the price.  Or sadly, maybe we no longer believe at all


----------



## Kirkhill

A workable solution holding action:

This is not a solution to Assad and Putin but it is a solution to more Alan Kurdis.

Jordan is arming and supporting a buffer zone inside Syria held by Syrians against Assad. 

Now do the same on the Kurdish side - just exactly as was done in Iraq while Saddam was in power - and disregard the Turks and their sensibilities.

And while we are at it, arm and support the Ukrainians against the Russians that aren't there either.

Daily Telegraph



> An answer to Syria’s predictable disaster
> 
> Jordan is quietly carrying out the one policy that might stem the tide of refugees fleeing war
> 
> By David Blair 8:01PM BST 07 Sep 2015
> 
> It seems another age, but during the first eight months of Syria’s civil war, only 20,000 refugees fled Bashar al-Assad’s domain. By a cruel irony, that is exactly the number Britain alone is now preparing to accept.
> 
> The raw figures betray how the flow from Syria has become a tidal wave. At the end of 2012, there were 400,000 refugees; one year later, 1.5 million; by December 2014, the total reached 3 million; today, there are 4 million refugees in neighbouring states – and 6.5 million within Syria itself.
> 
> Such is the wreckage created by Assad’s struggle to subdue his people – and the fanaticism represented by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). Given that so many of Syria’s 20 million people have now been driven from their homes, who can be surprised that thousands are heading for Europe? This was surely the most predictable refugee crisis in modern time.
> Now that the tragedy is upon us, two stark lessons should be drawn. The first is that leaving events in Syria to take their course – which was, in effect, the choice made by those who doggedly opposed any form of armed intervention – amounted to a moral failure, with baleful consequences.
> 
> We have it on the authority of Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, that Syria needs a “long term political and diplomatic sustainable solution”. Perhaps she missed the Arab League peace plan, proposed within months of the outbreak of war in 2011, only to fall foul of Russian and Chinese vetoes at the United Nations Security Council.
> 
> Ms Sturgeon might also have overlooked the Kofi Annan peace plan of 2012, also blocked by Russia and China. Then there was the Annan Two peace plan, which Assad simply ignored, while Russia supplied him with weapons and Iran sent Hizbollah fighters to keep him in power.
> 
> In retrospect, there was only one course of action that might just have averted today’s tragedy – and done so at a time when Isil barely existed and Syria had produced fewer than 20,000 refugees. If the Western powers had told Assad to accept the Arab League peace plan in 2011 or risk an intervention that would have guaranteed his downfall, then Ms Sturgeon’s “political and diplomatic” solution might have stood a chance.
> 
> But she did not urge this at the time; instead, she would have marched in the streets to prevent it from happening. Instead of accepting the cold reality that diplomacy only works if supported by a willingness to use force, Britain’s “anti-war” campaigners now urge Britain to accept more refugees fleeing a catastrophe our inaction helped worsen.
> 
> This bring us to the second lesson: pay attention to the countries which have been forced to live with Syria’s agony from the very beginning.
> 
> Almost unnoticed by the Western world, one neighbouring state, Jordan, has managed to stem the flow over the border. In the course of 2013, the number of Syrian refugees in Jordan jumped from 120,000 to 570,000. Since then, the total has stabilised at about 600,000.
> 
> How has this happened? Aid agencies attribute the reduction to far tougher border controls – and that is certainly a big part of the explanation. But it’s not the whole story: the number of Syrians entering Jordan illegally, avoiding the established border crossings, is also believed to have fallen.
> 
> The reason is that Jordan has armed and supplied a new rebel coalition which now controls a de facto buffer zone in the provinces of Deraa and Suwayda in southern Syria. Here, large numbers of refugees have gathered. Assad’s forces have tried – and failed – to recapture this territory, proving the fighting ability of the insurgents. Crucially, Isil has not yet been able to penetrate this region.
> 
> In Syria, this is what counts as success: a buffer zone held by non-Isil insurgents, where refugees can find relative safety without fleeing their country, let alone risking the journey to Europe. With minimal outside help, Jordan has quietly brought this about in southern Syria.
> 
> If this approach could be replicated in northern Syria then the refugee crisis might become manageable. That will be far harder, mainly because Turkey has chosen to back the most dangerous Islamists while pounding the Kurdish guerrillas in Syria. But, at this desperate moment, there is no other remedy that might help.


----------



## a_majoor

More about the hardening responses that will arise in Europe. Perhaps the Europeans might take a leaf from the post above; ship them all back to become anti-Assad and anti-ISIS militia forces. Numbers do have a quality all opt their own after all:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2015/09/killing-the-goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg-or-culture-matters.html



> *Killing the goose that laid the golden egg, or, Culture Matters*
> September 5, 2015 by Jane the Actuary
> 
> Here’s the latest on the stream of refugee-migrants:  as you may recall, upwards of 10,000 refugee-migrants from Syria as well as elsewhere, had made their way into Hungary and were determined to make their way to Germany, in order to register and seek asylum there, to benefit from Germany’s much-stronger economy; Hungary insisted instead that they register there, as the first EU country that these people had reached, following established rules, and prevented them from boarding trains to travel to Germany.  After protests, demands, and a determined march, not for safety but to seek economic prosperity, Germany and Hungary both relented.  As (misleadingly, but with pictures) the Daily Mail reported, they are now streaming into Germany, in chaotic scenes that are being reported as if these people are at last finding refuge, rather than moving from one safe place to another (more prosperous) safe place.
> 
> And countless bloggers, columnists, and news outlets are now reporting the situation along the We Must Do Something template, along with the It’s Unjust Not to Resettle The Refugees As They Wish storyline.  (Remember, only a minority of refugee applicants in Germany in 2014 were Syrians.)  Now the first thing the West Must Do is to decide what its strategy and its expectation is with respect to ISIS.  Do we expect Syria to simply empty out, and do we believe that millions upon millions of Syrians must be resettled somewhere else, permanently?  Or do they need only temporary refuge?  Bloggers and tweeters have pointed to pictures coming from these refugee-migrants en route and arriving in Germany, and have observed that they are a very male crowd.  Are the women disproportionately trapped in Syria?  Or are they safe in refugee camps, but not as keen on making the trek further in hopes of furthering their economic situation?  Or is this further evidence that these are economic migrants from a multitude of home countries, rather than people fleeing warzones?
> 
> At the same time, discussion has already begun on the further question of whether the rich Gulf nations should be doing more — or, rather, complaints have been stepped up, while recognizing that these countries, which already treat “guest workers” so poorly (little regard for health and safety, expulsion upon losing a job, and, with respect to poor employees working as laborers, servants, etc., unable to live together as families), are hardly going to bring in others out of the kindness of their hearts.  (See yesterday’s post.)
> 
> But here’s the catch:  these Gulf States are wealthy due to their natural resources.  Whether any given national of those countries shares in that wealth directly, they do so indirectly via generous social welfare programs for citizens, national-ization (e.g., Saudi-ization) programs which have the effect of requiring that multinationals hire locals who may or may not show up for work, and other benefits.  But the pie is fixed; for any one of these Gulf States to accept resettling refugees in a Western sense (that is, on terms other than those of guest workers) would mean sharing the pie with more people.
> 
> And I’ll state it again:  the wealth of the Gulf States is due to their natural resources, not the culture of the people themselves.  After all, it’s outsiders who do all the heavy lifting of transforming the oil into wealth in the first place, and (with the exception, to a limited degree, of Dubai) there’s little more than lip service given to the question of  diversifying the economy.
> 
> But what about Germany?  The economic strength of the country is very much due to its people.  After all, its natural resources are rather ordinary:  the “Ruhrgebiet,” the former economic powerhouse coalmining area, is a powerhouse no longer, and the coal mines have been closed.  It’s got a decent amount of arable land, to be sure, and it’s not devoid of mineral wealth but it’s hardly been the key to its prosperity.  And after World War II, despite the narrative that the Allies had learned from World War I and eschewed harsh reparations, France and Russia dismantled such factories as remained (France in the West, Russia in the East, of course), to leave an already devastated country even more so, until, in 1948, the simultaneous currency reform and Marshall Plan implementation helped them get back on their feet.
> 
> Culture matters.  In Swabia, the part of Germany now largely the German state of Baden-Wurttemburg (as well as a slice now a part of Bavaria, including Augsburg, my husband’s hometown), there’s an expression, “schaffe, schaffe, Häusle baue,” which is meant to express, as the Swabian’s self-conception and the stereotype the rest of Germany holds, the key characteristic of Swabians (see here for an English-language piece, or here for a German-language one):  it’s generally translated as “work, work, build a house” and expresses the Swabians’ thriftiness.  But it’s more than that:  the word translated as “work” isn’t really that, “schaffen” means “to make” or “to create” and has more of a flavor of “do something productive” than simply “earn a living.”
> 
> Swabia is, by the way, the home of Daimler, maker of Mercedes cars as well as a whole host of other vehicle brands.  And it’s the birthplace of the automobile.
> 
> As far as Germany as a whole, I will not claim special competence in describing its key cultural characteristics and how they contribute to its economic success.  But it is clear to me that the culture of Germany is not the same as that of the United States.  And neither is the same as that of Japan (see here for my reading of a book on the topic) or Korea, each of which, with different cultures, took different paths to prosperity (though the long-term prosperity of Japan is very much in question).
> 
> It’s practically an article of faith in the United States in 2015 that “diversity is our strength” (I voiced skepticism here), and that we have to respect all world cultures and have a certain understanding of them.  But at the same time, we still gloss over cultural differences, and are too willing to resort to platitudes like “no culture is better than any other” or imagine that “culture” is limited to special foods or music or dance or celebrations, or perhaps recognize differences such as whether it’s polite to be on time or an hour later than the specified commencement of an event, but ignore the way culture is a mindset at a much deeper level.
> 
> If Germany admits 800,000 Syrians, or 8,000,000 Syrians, or some similarly huge number, this year or the next, or cumulatively over time, on top of Turks and other Muslims already living in the country, there is a very real issue of assimilation — and already-resident Turks are for the most part already poorly assimilated.  It’s not about their being Muslim, per se, if they were as indifferently Muslim as most Germans are indifferently Christian.  It’s about the sudden arrival of very large numbers of (mostly male) migrants who don’t speak the language and are by and large poorly educated in any language, and who, even if they learn German and become educated (and that alone is a huge task, much bigger than the simple provision of funds and social services), are unlikely to share in German culture.
> 
> It’s about more than sharing the wealth, though that’s part of it, as resettlement assistance risks overwhelming German finances.  Especially considering how low Germany’s birth rate is (a steady 1.4 TFR for the past generation), a high rate of immigration (via asylum-seekers or otherwise) will change Germany, and it risks becoming merely a place name, without the culture that built up its economic power.  Should this happen, the migrants who sought prosperity will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.


----------



## tomahawk6

IS may have agents within the refugee's and it is their stated goal to carry their war into Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11418966/Islamic-State-planning-to-use-Libya-as-gateway-to-Europe.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _Washington Post_ reports that Denmark is trying to "warn off" potential refugees by placing this ad (in English and Arabic) in several newspapers in Lebanon:


----------



## a_majoor

This blogger lives in Italy, so is reporting closer from the front lines. It is very interesting to see who the "refugees" really are, and watch the attitudes of Europeans changing rapidly. Not sure when the "tipping point" will happen, but there will be a violent counter reaction at some point (remember that nativist political parties are already strong in Europe because of _previous_ waves of immigration, this only increases their appeal):

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/09/invaders-not-refugees.html?showComment=1441755504951



> *Rent seekers, not refugees*
> 
> At this point, a lot of Europeans are beginning to think that Vlad the Impaler's solution is the correct one to the violent invasion of Western Europe:
> 
> _I saw an elderly Italian woman in a car that was surrounded by the immigrants. They pulled her by the hair out of the car and wanted to use it to go to Germany. They tried to topple the bus i was in. They threw feces at us, banging on the door for the driver to open it, spat on the glass. My question is- for what purpose? How do they want to assimilate in Germany? For a moment, i felt like in a warzone. I really feel sorry for these people, but if they would reach Poland – I do not think they would receive any understanding from us.
> 
> We spent three hours on the border, but failed to get through. The whole group was later transported back to Italy by the police. The bus is butchered, feces smeared, scratched, broken windows. And this is supposed to be an idea for the demographics? These big powerful hordes?
> 
> Among them there were almost no women and children – the vast majority was aggressive young men. Just yesterday I read the news on all the websites with real compassion, worried about their fate and today after what I saw I am just afraid. And I am happy they do not choose our country as their destination. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people – neither culturally nor financially. I do not know if anyone is ready. A giant pathology is approaching the EU, one which we have never seen before. And sorry if anyone is offended by this entry.
> 
> A car with humanitarian aid came. Food and water. They just toppled it and stole everything. With megaphones the Austrians announced a message that there is consensus for them to cross over the border – they wanted to register them and let them go on – but they did not understand these messages. None. And it was all the greatest horror … From those few thousand people nobody understood neither Italian nor English, or German, or Russian, or Spanish … What mattered was the law of the fist._
> 
> The media coverage is even worse than you think. Do you know why a lot of those "desperate refugees fleeing the Syrian war" are so well-dressed in relatively clean clothes? Because 39 percent of them are from the Balkans. They're EASTERN EUROPEAN MUSLIMS, they are not from the Middle East or Africa at all, and they aren't fleeing anything except the societies they've already ruined.
> 
> _About a fifth of asylum seekers to Germany in the first half of the year were from war-torn Syria, giving them a strong claim to refugee status. But about 39 per cent were from the western Balkans and primarily seeking better economic opportunities, giving them little chance of qualifying for asylum._
> 
> And, of course, one wouldn't want to offend these poor, helpless, grateful people, so the German girls need to start dressing differently, as one school in Bavaria near a "refugee" shelter has already instructed the parents of its students:
> 
> _"As our school is in the immediate vicinity, it would be appropriate to wear restrained everyday clothes, to avoid conflict. Transparent tops or blouses, short shorts or miniskirts could lead to misunderstandings. In addition, you are asked to refrain from "direct eye contact, ogling, or photographing. Derogatory or racist remarks can not be tolerated in any way."_
> 
> This is why the Social Justice ideals of Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, and Progress must be rejected, completely. Because this is exactly where it leads.


----------



## Kirkhill

A couple of coarse screening strategies:

No wife and kids  - you don't get to cross.

Riotous behaviour - you don't get to cross.

Not from a war zone - you don't get to cross


----------



## 211RadOp

An older article (July) but this is showing how some places are "dealing" with the situation.



> German Girls Must Cover Arms and Legs to Appease Syrian “Refugees”
> 
> So many nonwhite invaders from the Middle East have entered Germany over the past few months that a school headmaster in Bavaria has been forced to ask female pupils to cover up their arms and legs—for their own protection against local Syrian “refugees.”
> 
> In a letter sent to parents, Martin Thalhammer, head of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium in the town of Pocking, Bavaria—which has a normal population of around 15,000—female pupils have been asked to refrain from wearing “revealing clothes” because “refugee accommodation” has been set up next to the school’s gym.



More at link


http://newobserveronline.com/german-girls-must-cover-arms-and-legs-to-appease-syrian-refugees/


----------



## tomahawk6

Fake Syrian documents are a big business right now.Forged documents endow the bearer with war refugee status.


----------



## George Wallace

Good to see that Intelligence and Security Agencies are doing their jobs:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> ISIS in Europe? Hungary uncovers two ‘terrorists’ posing as refugees
> RT
> Published time: 9 Sep, 2015 09:21
> Edited time: 9 Sep, 2015 12:06
> 
> European politicians have expressed concerns that Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) militants could be infiltrating EU borders under the guise of refugees. Hungarian media reports that at least two ISIS militants were uncovered after entering an unspecified European country as refugees.
> 
> The identification of the extremist fighters was made possible after the two revealed their identities by posting photographs on social media, Hungary’s M1 television reported Tuesday.
> 
> “Islamist terrorists, disguised as refugees, have showed up in Europe. [The] pictures were uploaded on various social networks to show that terrorists are now present in most European cities. Many, who are now illegal immigrants, fought alongside Islamic State before,” the report said.
> 
> The Hungarian channel showed photographs from the alleged terrorists’ Facebook pages. The first set depicted two individuals with weapons in the Middle East and the second set showed them smiling as they arrived in Europe.
> 
> It is still not clear which country the two suspects were discovered – some suggested they made it as far as Germany – or if they have been arrested. No names have so far been released.
> 
> It is, however, convincing that these two individuals have been associated with terrorist groups in the past, a co-director of humanitarian organization Pressenza, Tony Robinson, told RT.
> 
> “From what I can see in the report it was an investigation of Facebook pages of individuals, who in the past associated with terror groups, and who now on their personal pages are posting pictures of themselves, showing that they are in Germany, they are in the West,” he said. “Either way there are almost certainly individuals, who have belonged to terrorist groups in the past, some of them, no doubt will be radicalized to the extent that they will be prepared to commit acts of violence and terrorism against cities of Europe.”
> 
> Some politicians have said that Islamic State might be winning if people are abandoning their homes in Iraq or Syria. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: “It’s very difficult, but if all these refugees come to Europe or elsewhere, then Islamic State has won.”
> 
> A Middle East expert has expressed similar concerns. “This is a major challenge for Europe, but it’s also giving [Islamic State] the possibility to claim victory, because it has claimed its goal is to get rid of every ethnic religious and cultural diversity from the Middle East. ISIS has stated very clearly that all the region should be under Sunni leadership. And therefore those who won’t convert should leave and they have been pushing a lot of people to leave,” Mansouria Mokhefi, of the French Institute for International Relations, told RT.
> 
> Hungary is among several European countries that have been struggling to deal with the influx of migrants and refugees breaching its borders, fleeing violence in the Middle East and North Africa. Hungarian police have been challenged with hundreds of asylum seekers stuck near the Serbian border. Hundreds have fled into nearby cornfields, aiming to reach Budapest on foot.
> 
> As Europe is left overwhelmed by the refugee crisis, the Gulf States have continued to ignore the problem by shutting their borders and refusing to take in asylum seekers, drawing in criticism from human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW).
> 
> “Other countries need to do more,” Human Rights Watch deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa, Nadim Houry, tweeted. He also described the wealthy countries’ inaction on the Syrian refugee crisis as “shameful.”
> 
> Since the war in Syria started in 2011, Kuwait has accepted only seven refugees, the United Arab Emirates just 16, and Saudi Arabia only four.
> 
> In fact, instead of embracing a solution, Saudi Arabia is putting up a 900-kilometer razor wire fence on its border with Iraq. There are also underground movement sensors being installed, which are capable of triggering silent alarms.
> 
> It would make a lot of sense for refugees to enter some Gulf States, where they can quickly become productive, hard-working residents, the director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, Ali Al-Ahmed, told RT.
> 
> “The Gulf countries are more interested in funding armed groups in Syria, rather than assisting the Syrian people, inviting them to live in the Gulf. Syrian refugees in the Gulf are not going to be refugees, they will be working. There are no social, cultural and religious barriers for Syrian refugees in the Gulf. It is going to be much cheaper to have them move to the Gulf and it will be easier for them to move back to Syria,” Al-Ahmed said.



RT Video NEWS and more on LINK.

Note at the end of the article, the actions being taken by other Islamic states to keep refugees out.


----------



## Kirkhill

Isn't it interesting how often RT gets cited these days?

One thing often forgotten about the guys and gals from the KGB was that only part of their job was to spread the Gospel of Lenin.  Another part of their job was to disrupt governments of the day by rendering their countries ungovernable.  That meant actively supporting opposition - parliamentary and non-parliamentary - regardless of the oppositions' and the governments' professed ideology.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> _Isn't it interesting how often RT gets cited these days?_
> 
> One thing often forgotten about the guys and gals from the KGB was that only part of their job was to spread the Gospel of Lenin.  Another part of their job was to disrupt governments of the day by rendering their countries ungovernable.  That meant actively supporting opposition - parliamentary and non-parliamentary - regardless of the oppositions' and the governments' professed ideology.




Yes, and sometimes by the same people who say that _Al Jazeera_ or _Xinhua_ are "false." I guess that, on some issues, _RT_ plays to our own perceptions of _truth_, or Правда, if you like.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Be that as it may source-wise, I have not doubt that ISIS wants to insert a wolf or two among  the sheep stampeding towards the exits and it's possible this report is genuine.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Be that as it may source-wise, I have not doubt that ISIS wants to insert a wolf or two among  the sheep stampeding towards the exits and it's possible this report is genuine.




No dispute; I agree 100%; but Russia's goal is not to help refugees and it is only peripherally to help IS** or Syria or Iran or anyone else. Russia's goal is to destabilize Eastern Europe and restore some semblance of Russian influence ... power is what Putin's after and _RT_ is one of his tools. Russia wants to drive _social_ wedges between the European peoples and their governments. Hungary is a weak link, the _Schengen Agreement_ ~ open borders ~ is a prize.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No dispute; I agree 100%; but *Russia*Putin's goal is not to help refugees and it is only peripherally to help IS** or Syria or Iran or anyone else. *Russia*Putin's goal is to destabilize *Eastern* Europe and restore some semblance of Russian influence ... power is what Putin's after and _RT_ is one of his tools. *Russia* Putin wants to drive _social_ wedges between the European peoples and their governments. Hungary is a weak link, the _Schengen Agreement_ ~ open borders ~ is a prize.



FTFY.

Edit (Missed one)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> FTFY.
> 
> Edit (Missed one)




I know it was some other guy, but _"l'état, c'est moi"_ applies in Putin's Russia, too ... or, at least, it does until some other guy sticks a knife between Putins ribs or puts a bullet between his eyes. Then we can interchange "Russia" with the other guy's name.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know it was some other guy, but _"l'état, c'est moi"_ applies in Putin's Russia, too ... or, at least, it does until some other guy sticks a knife between Putins ribs or puts a bullet between his eyes. Then we can interchange "Russia" with the other guy's name.



Or he suddenly has to visit a psychiatric hospital ....

An interesting and tangential debate might be whether or not there is a State of Russia - or whether or not it is strictly a construct of the strongman of the day.  I think I might be able to argue that Russian governance owes much to the model of Genghis and Khublai.  Absent the strong man there is only a collection of dispersed tribes.  Currently the dominant tribe is the Moscow tribe.  

As it stands I believe that, like Louis, the State of Russia (the internationally recognized government) is Putin and Putin alone.  And right now I believe the threat can be narrowed down to the particular and the personal.


----------



## CougarKing

How the wrath of the Twittersphere/Blogosphere can even end careers:

CBC



> *Video journalist fired after apparently kicking, tripping refugees in Hungary
> Videos spark outrage online*
> 
> CBC News Posted: Sep 08, 2015 8:49 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 08, 2015 9:35 PM ET
> 
> Thousands more refugees to arrive in Hungary in next 10 days: UN
> Refugee crisis brings out best and worst in Europe: Nahlah Ayed
> 
> *A Hungarian camerawoman has reportedly been fired after videos surfaced online that appear to show her kicking and tripping refugees as they run from Hungarian police.*
> 
> On Tuesday, hundreds of refugees broke away from a police registration point near Hungary's border with Serbia, reported the Associated Press.
> 
> A video posted on Twitter by German reporter Stephan Richter, shows a number of journalists filming as officers pursued the refugees.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## George Wallace

Another interesting take, from an Australian blog site, referencing other Middle Eastern nations views towards accepting Syrian refugees/migrants:



Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Kuwaiti official explains why Gulf States cannot accept refugees
> BY REDBAITER on SEPTEMBER 6, 2015
> 
> https://videos.files.wordpress.com/Eb7FsJTl/kuwaiti-says-no-to-refugees_dvd.mp4
> 
> I had to smile at this video. Perhaps less amusing is the expectation that such nonsense will probably find ready acceptance with the political class who maintain that the West has some unavoidable responsibility to accept mass invasion from cultures totally estranged from our customs, traditions and heritage. They will say “Yes, the Kuwaiti is right. They can’t go to the Gulf States, and this is why the West must take them all.”
> 
> For those who would prefer to see the reasons in text, here is what the official is saying-
> 
> 
> Kuwait and the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries are too valuable to accept any refugees.
> 
> Our countries are only fit for workers. Its too costly to relocate them here.
> 
> Kuwait is too expensive for them anyway. As opposed to Lebanon and Turkey which are cheap. They are better suited for the Syrian refugees.
> 
> In the end, it is not right for us to accept a people that are different from us. We don’t want people that suffer from internal stress and trauma in our country.
> 
> 
> 
> Update: Breitbart has a story on this issue where the Gulf States present another more realistic reason for their reluctance to accept the so called refugees, and that is that they cannot accept the risk of terrorism that such an influx brings. This of course is a completely valid reason, one that applies to Western countries as well.
> 
> Especially when ISIS is openly declaring its intent to have its agents mingle with the so called refugees, and proclaiming that 4000 have entered Europe by this means already.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another interesting take, from an Australian blog site, referencing other Middle Eastern nations views towards accepting Syrian refugees/migrants:


Agree or disagree, if the translation is correct, you have to give the guy credit for accuracy, brevity and clarity of message  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

> ...et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno...


   
Virgil, Aeneid VI, 87,  - per http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/2007/11/rivers-of-blood.html



> Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech
> 
> 
> Enoch Powell
> 
> 12:01AM GMT 06 Nov 2007
> 
> This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.
> 
> The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
> 
> One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
> 
> Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
> 
> Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
> At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
> 
> A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
> 
> After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
> I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
> 
> The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
> 
> I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
> 
> In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.
> There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
> 
> As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
> 
> The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
> 
> The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
> 
> It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
> 
> Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
> 
> I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.
> 
> I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
> 
> Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
> Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
> 
> Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
> 
> The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
> 
> There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
> 
> The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
> 
> This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
> 
> Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
> 
> Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.
> 
> But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
> 
> They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
> 
> In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
> 
> I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
> “Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out
> .
> “The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.
> 
> “The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
> 
> The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
> Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
> 
> But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
> 
> We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
> 
> Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
> 'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'
> 
> All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
> 
> For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
> That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
> 
> Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.



Link


----------



## CougarKing

In contrast to  what's reported below in the US, Mayor Gregor Robertson of Vancouver wants to bring in as many as 20,000 refugees by 2020? Where is he going to get the funding to support their resettlement here?  :facepalm:

Reuters



> *Obama wants U.S. to prepare for 10,000 Syrian refugees next year: White House*
> Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:23pm EDT
> U.S. President Barack Obama waves as he walks from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington before their departure  September 9, 2015.  REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
> 1 of 1Full Size
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has directed his administration to prepare to take in at least 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, a White House spokesman said on Thursday.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Jarnhamar

> German Girls Must Cover Arms and Legs to Appease Syrian “Refugees”
> 
> So many nonwhite invaders from the Middle East have entered Germany over the past few months that a school headmaster in Bavaria has been forced to ask female pupils to cover up their arms and legs—for their own protection against local Syrian “refugees.”
> 
> In a letter sent to parents, Martin Thalhammer, head of the Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium in the town of Pocking, Bavaria—which has a normal population of around 15,000—female pupils have been asked to refrain from wearing “revealing clothes” because “refugee accommodation” has been set up next to the school’s gym.


Someone should have had the backbone to tell them to GFT.

I watched a few videos this morning of refugees refusing Red Cross food because it wasn't Halal.  Guess lots of them didn't like the red cross either. They too, can GFT.

Everyone who posts online demanding we let these people in should be forced to provide room and board for them.


----------



## George Wallace

Driving home, listening to the politicians and political puntives talk about the "refugee/migrant crisis" and how "WE WERE RESPONSIBLE" and I asked myself:  Why are we responsible?  Why are we responsible for a mass migration of economic opportunists from the Middle East and Africa into Europe?   Are we responsible because we have worked hard to build our cultures and societies to be productive and relatively peaceful?  Are we responsible because we don't destroy everything in our sight without good cause, preferring to build for our betterment?  

The media seem to be focused on migrants from Syria, but the migrants are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Libya, and dozens of other African, Middle Eastern and South West Asian countries.  How some of them passed through IS controlled nations would be an interesting question to ask.  

But the main question is: "Why are WE responsible?"


----------



## George Wallace

How much more convoluted can this one story get.

At beginning of the week, we see photos (staged photos indicated from another source) of a drown child.  We hear from the child's aunt in Vancouver the sad tale of the family being thrown into the water when their boat capsized; how the father tried to save his two sons but they both drown.  The tale how the aunt was sponsoring another brother to come to Canada, while also sending this one money.  How this man had no teeth so he was desperate to get to Sweden (or Finland) as they had free Dental Care.  Other stories of how this man was working for two years in Turkey and brought his family to join him when bombs started falling on their hometown.  The story just kept on going.

Now we have this Bovine Scatoloy in the Globe and Mail:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Drowned Syrian migrant boy’s father says he blames Canada for tragedy
> The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, Sep. 10, 2015 3:52PM EDT
> Last updated Thursday, Sep. 10, 2015 8:08PM EDT
> 
> The father of a three-year-old Syrian boy whose body washed up on a Turkish beach has told a German newspaper that he blames Canadian authorities for the tragedy that also killed his wife and another son.
> 
> Abdullah Kurdi told Die Welt that he does not understand why Canada rejected his application for asylum, although Citizenship and Immigration Canada received no such application from the man.
> 
> “I wanted to move (to Canada) with my family and with my brother who is currently in Germany,” Kurdi told Die Welt in a telephone interview. “But they denied us permission and I don’t know why.”
> 
> When Die Welt asked Kurdi whether he blamed anyone for the tragedy, he responded: “Yes, the authorities in Canada, which rejected my application for asylum, even though there were five families who were willing to support us financially.”
> 
> Citizenship and Immigration received an application for Kurdi’s brother, Mohammed, but said it was incomplete and did not meet regulatory requirements for proof of refugee status recognition.
> 
> Kurdi’s sister, Tima, who lives in Coquitlam, B.C., has said that she only submitted an application for Mohammed. She intended to sponsor him, and subsequently to apply to sponsor Abdullah Kurdi and his young family as well.
> 
> In the meantime, she said, she also sent Abdullah Kurdi money to pay for the perilous maritime journey from Turkey to Greece.
> 
> Although no official application was made for Abdullah, Tima Kurdi said his plight was brought to the attention of Immigration Minister Chris Alexander when her local NDP MP handed over a letter to him in the House of Commons earlier this year.
> 
> 
> The fact that the Kurdis encountered red tape in their attempts to come to Canada has shone an international spotlight on the country.
> 
> Last week, as the world’s media relayed images of the lifeless boy, many outlets on different continents noted the Canadian connection to the tragic story.
> 
> A headline across Italy’s La Repubblica website quoted Abdullah Kurdi as saying: “I don’t want asylum in Canada anymore — I’ll take my son back to Kobani.”
> 
> Abdullah Kurdi said he had been working in Turkey for two years when the bombs began to rain down on his hometown of Kobani, where his wife and two sons were still living.
> 
> “I brought them to Turkey and that is where my tragedy began,” he told Die Welt.
> 
> The Kurdi boys — Alan, 3, and five-year-old Ghalib — and their mother were among at least 12 migrants, including five children, who drowned Sept. 2 when two boats carrying them to the Greek island of Kos capsized.



More on LINK



Sorry, but I find this whole convoluted story to be BS, and I don't want liars (and I consider Liars as thieves who have stolen my trust) to be brought into my country.  Our quota is already more than full.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Driving home, listening to the politicians and political puntives talk about the "refugee/migrant crisis" and how "WE WERE RESPONSIBLE" and I asked myself:  Why are we responsible?  Why are we responsible for a mass migration of economic opportunists from the Middle East and Africa into Europe?   Are we responsible because we have worked hard to build our cultures and societies to be productive and relatively peaceful?  Are we responsible because we don't destroy everything in our sight without good cause, preferring to build for our betterment?
> 
> The media seem to be focused on migrants from Syria, but the migrants are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Libya, and dozens of other African, Middle Eastern and South West Asian countries.  How some of them passed through IS controlled nations would be an interesting question to ask.
> 
> But the main question is: "Why are WE responsible?"



We are not responsible. We are not beholden, by guilt, to do one single thing about this 'exodus'.

Once the homeless, destitute, sick, jobless and aged people in this country, including Veterans, are taken care of, then perhaps we can see what we can help with.

I refuse to carry any sort of 'white man's guilt' for things that happened before I was born or I had no control over. Whether that's people from the ME, Japanese Canadians, Aboriginals or any other race or religion.

We owe these people fleeing Syria (and Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan to name a few more mixed in with this current influx) nada.

I'm waiting until some bleeding heart in some town, here, takes in a couple of these poor young men and is horrified when they turn the basement into a bomb factory.


----------



## George Wallace

Pretty much my sentiments as well.


----------



## larry Strong

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now we have this Bovine Scatoloy in the Globe and Mail:
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> More on LINK




What a crock............I watched the video of the sister telling about the teeth....funny how that is never mentioned.....



Cheers
Larry


----------



## a_majoor

My sympathy for the child, but most certainly not for the father. I hope we ensure that this disgusting human being NEVER arrives in Canada under any circumstances:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/europes-migrant-crisis/migrant-crisis-father-of-dead-toddler-a-people-smuggler/story-fnws9k7b-1227523338355



> *Migrant crisis: father of dead toddler a ‘people smuggler’*
> AAP|
> September 11, 2015 8:35PM|
> 
> A woman on the same boat as Alan Kurdi says the boy’s father is a people smuggler who begged her not to dob him in.
> 
> Zainab Abbas said Abdullah Kurdi had lied to the world after the image of his dead three-year-old son on a Turkish beach sparked a global outpouring of support for Syrian refugees.
> 
> “Yes, it was Abdullah Kurdi driving the boat,” Ms Abbas told Network Ten through her cousin Lara Tahseen today.
> 
> Ms Abbas also lost two children when the boat capsized shortly after leaving Bodrum for the Greek islands.
> 
> After the tragedy, Mr Kurdi told the media he took over steering the boat after the captain panicked and jumped ship.
> 
> But Ms Abbas said Mr Kurdi was the driver of the boat, and the man she paid to book her passage told her it would be safe because the driver was taking his wife and two children.
> 
> “When I lost my kids, I lost my life, how can he lie to the media?” her cousin Ms Tahseen said, translating for Ms Abbas.
> 
> “He said, ‘Please don’t dob me in.’ That was in the water.”
> 
> Ms Abbas said Mr Kurdi was speeding in the overcrowded boat, which did not have enough life jackets.
> 
> She said her husband told him to be careful just before the boat capsized, reportedly killing at least 12 people.
> 
> Ms Abbas is now in Iraq and her family has called on the federal government to include them in the 12,000 refugees Australia has pledged to take in.
> 
> Liberal senator Cory Bernardi came under fire this week, particularly from the Greens, for suggesting the Kurdi family had not fled Syria recently.
> 
> Senator Bernardi accused some “opportunistic” Syrians of seeking asylum in the West when they are “very safely ensconced” in the Middle East.
> 
> The Coalition and Labor have rejected any suggestion Syrian or Iraqi asylum-seekers in Nauru or Manus Island detention be included in the extra 12,000 refugee places because it could “spring the lock” on people-smuggling to Australia.
> 
> Prime Minister Tony Abbott has ruled out taking in Syrians or Iraqis who are being held for offshore processing, because there was “a world of difference” between the people in camps on the border of Syria and “people who have done a deal with people-smugglers to go way beyond the country of first asylum”.
> 
> “We will never, ever do anything that encourages the evil trade of people-smuggling and all of those who have come to Australia by boat are here as a result of people-smuggling and this is the selfsame trade which resulted in the deaths of more than 1000 people at sea in the waters to our north and has currently resulted in the deaths of perhaps many, many more thousands in the Mediterranean,” the Prime Minister said in Port Moresby.


----------



## Robert0288

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The media seem to be focused on migrants from Syria, but the migrants are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, Libya, and dozens of other African, Middle Eastern and South West Asian countries.  How some of them passed through IS controlled nations would be an interesting question to ask.



They may not have even passed through IS controlled territory, and arrived in Turkey via other legitimate means.  There is also a huge market right now for forged Syrian ID documents for evidence to support a ref claim.  In addition there are individuals who are now arriving in Europe and immediately ditching their actual identities and claiming Syrian citizenship.


----------



## a_majoor

WRM in The American Interest on the migration crisis and what it measn for Europe and the West:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/11/wrm-in-the-wsj-the-migration-crisis-and-europes-crippling-doubts/



> *The Migration Crisis and Europe’s Crippling Doubts*
> Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Walter Russell Mead puts the European immigration crisis into context:
> 
> What we are witnessing today is a crisis of two civilizations: The Middle East and Europe are both facing deep cultural and political problems that they cannot solve. The intersection of their failures and shortcomings has made this crisis much more destructive and dangerous than it needed to be—and carries with it the risk of more instability and more war in a widening spiral.
> 
> The crisis in the Middle East has to do with much more than the breakdown of order in Syria and Libya. It runs deeper than the poisonous sectarian and ethnic hatreds behind the series of wars stretching from Pakistan to North Africa. At bottom, we are witnessing the consequences of a civilization’s failure either to overcome or to accommodate the forces of modernity. One hundred years after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and 50 years after the French left Algeria, the Middle East has failed to build economies that allow ordinary people to live with dignity, has failed to build modern political institutions and has failed to carve out the place of honor and respect in world affairs that its peoples seek.
> 
> Meanwhile, in Europe, the Great Wave of immigration from the Middle East and North Africa is crashing into a continent beset with its own problems:
> 
> In Europe and the West, the crisis is quieter but no less profound. Europe today often doesn’t seem to know where it is going, what Western civilization is for, or even whether or how it can or should be defended. Increasingly, the contemporary version of Enlightenment liberalism sees itself as fundamentally opposed to the religious, political and economic foundations of Western society. Liberal values such as free expression, individual self-determination and a broad array of human rights have become detached in the minds of many from the institutional and civilizational context that shaped them.
> 
> Capitalism, the social engine without which neither Europe nor the U.S. would have the wealth or strength to embrace liberal values with any hope of success, is often seen as a cruel, anti-human system that is leading the world to a Malthusian climate catastrophe. Military strength, without which the liberal states would be overwhelmed, is regarded with suspicion in the U.S. and with abhorrence in much of Europe. Too many people in the West interpret pluralism and tolerance in ways that forbid or unrealistically constrain the active defense of these values against illiberal states like Russia or illiberal movements like radical Islam.
> 
> Europe’s approach to the migration crisis brings these failures into sharp relief. The European Union bureaucracy in Brussels has erected a set of legal doctrines stated in terms of absolute right and has tried to build policy on this basis. Taking its cue from the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other ambitious declarations and treaties, the EU holds that qualified applicants have an absolute human right to asylum. European bureaucrats tend to see asylum as a legal question, not a political one, and they expect political authorities to implement the legal mandate, not quibble with it or constrain it.
> 
> As ever, we highly recommend you read the whole thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> My sympathy for the child, but most certainly not for the father. I hope we ensure that this disgusting human being NEVER arrives in Canada under any circumstances:
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/europes-migrant-crisis/migrant-crisis-father-of-dead-toddler-a-people-smuggler/story-fnws9k7b-1227523338355


LIES!  All lies!  (at least according to the CBC)  Add this to the "he was a quiet guy, kept to himself" file?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Article from the American Interest that says Germany may end up regretting its generous refugee program. Posted under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> THE REFUGEE CRISIS: Insane Asylum
> ADAM GARFINKLE
> 
> Germany’s warm welcome to Syria’s refugees is earning the country good press, but it may also be sowing the seeds of long-term agony.
> 
> I happened to be in Germany when the current refugee/asylum crisis struck. Indeed, for about a week I was in Berlin, the capital, in the Kreutzberg section of town, which happens to be about as multicultural as any thirty square block area in Germany. I did a “brown bag” seminar, as they are called, at the Aspen Institute, and also lucked into a fairly long meeting with an old friend who now works as a special assistant to the German President, Joachim Gauck. All anyone wanted to talk about, really, was the refugee crisis, and the first feeling that came to the fore was how proud—indeed astonishingly so—everyone was at the outpouring of welcome encouragement, volunteerism, and outright nobility on display in Munich and elsewhere around (most of) the country. Even columnists in Handelsblatt were blushing with pride.
> 
> Sober souls, my old friend among them in the 1994 “disappearing” black office building right next to Bellevueschloss, the President’s sprawling office complex, are counting mounting costs and waiting for the next shoe to drop. They know it will, even as they share in the wonderment that refugees far away in the Middle East could think of Germany as a country of hope. Few people say it out loud, but it’s the image of Germans welcoming “others” on in-bound trains from the east—from Hungary, very telegenically, when I was there—that arrests their attention. What a contrast with the pictures of other Germans in an earlier time shipping “others” to the east, on out-bound trains, to places like Treblinka and Auschwitz.
> 
> Germans say they have an identity problem, and so they do. It’s mainly because they believe it to be so, in other words. But there are also reasons beyond self-perception. This is neither the time nor place to go into why this is, but certainly what has happened in recent days has transformed the question of Germans’ self-image. It hasn’t answered the question, but it has rephrased it in what most take to be a felicitous way. It goes something like this: We may not know exactly who we are, but whoever we are, we’re better people that we have feared we might be. We believed we could change. Now we see, at an unexpected moment of testing, that we have changed. The earth no long shakes under our feet as much as it did even a month ago.
> 
> That is the sense of things, as I observed it, and it seems to me, further, to be infusing in the German elite a greater sense of self-confidence and willingness to lead within European affairs—at least for the time being. It has certainly transformed Chancellor Merkel from an austerity scold to someone with what we could call, for lack of a better phrase, abundant moral capital in a part of the world that values such a thing far more than it does other virtues of leadership.
> 
> What sort of sound is that other shoe going to make when it finally does drop? Truth be told, the German leadership—and the EU leadership as well, with Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker of Luxembourg in the lead—are planting the seeds for long-term agony. That agony will comes in three forms: the economics of the welfare state; the self-blinding politics of multiculturalism; and security.
> 
> As to this third matter, DNI General James Clapper’s warning earlier this week, that this surge of Arabs into Europe is a security nightmare in the making, is surely correct. I tried to express this at a dinner in Warsaw on Tuesday evening, with an assortment of Poles, Germans, Norwegians, Brits, a Ukrainian, and some miscellaneous others present. I predicted that within five years Poland will be forced to erect passport control at airports for incoming European flights. (In case you are not aware, there are none now. We flew from Berlin to Warsaw by way of Munich, and when one lands there is simply no passport control at all—meaning that any non-EU national who can get into Germany and pay for a ticket to get to Poland can indeed fly to Poland without anyone so much as asking his name or how long he intends to stay.) They all said I was wrong, but just a few days ago look what the Danes did: They basically sealed the border to rail and road traffic from Germany. And they are right to do it. If only a tenth of one percent of these Arabs are or are turned toward salafi-based political violence for any number of reasons we can all think of, then Germany will have a problem that will shred its esteemed privacy laws to bits, whether Germans like it or not.
> 
> I confess do not understand Juncker’s thinking. With the Schengen Zone in effect, what is to keep arriving refugees in the place to which they are originally assigned—assuming for a moment that some form of his share-the-burden scheme is agreed to? After a year or a month or even a few days they can pick themselves up and come to Berlin, can’t they? Or Paris? Even if they are not supposed to, they will do it anyway—and who is going to stop them now? What Germans, in the mood the country is now in, are willing to shove them on a train against their will heading back east? (Imagine what those photos would look like . . . some ass will surely airbrush “Arbeit macht frei” into the pictures.) Why would a Syrian family want to stay in Poland, where everyone quietly hates them, when they can come to Berlin, where nearly everyone, in public anyway, professes to love them?
> 
> Meanwhile, the moral hazard problem is getting entirely out of control. The word is out in Syria, and Iraq, and Lebanon, and among Palestinians in various places: They see the pictures, they send the men, then comes family reunification, and the next thing you know, in as little as a year or so, there are five million Levantine Arabs clotting about in German cities.
> 
> I do not wish to delve into the economic side of the story. The numbers are too soft in every sense, and I am not very good at the bean-counting business. I will only note that many Germans seem to think that the Levantine Arabs now entering their country by the hundreds of thousands will act like their Gastarbeiter Turks. They are in for a shock. Many also think that they’re getting the cream of the educated crop from Syria. I heard several people note that the people coming are young men, coming not directly from Syria but from camps in Jordan and Turkey. They are presumed to be engineers, doctors, and the like, and given Germany age-cohort picture, the consensus among the saintly is that they will boost the German economy in the not-too-distant future. This means that they know not the first thing about the real status of education in the Arab world. Only a very tiny percentage of these asylum seekers are well enough educated to hold down a middle-class enabling professional job in an economy like Germany’s.
> 
> So the sound of the other shoe will consist of gunfire and bombs, most likely, and the sucking sound of cash exiting the coffers of the still very generous but increasingly fiscally fragile German welfare state. And what of the politics?
> 
> The Left’s normative seizure of Germany is truly amazing. Even the Chancellor, who by German standards is far from a raving leftist, appears to firmly believe that everyone must be a multiculturalist for moral reasons, and that people who want to preserve the ethno-linguistic integrity of their communities—whether in Germany or in Hungary, Poland, and elsewhere—are acting out of base motives. One even sees self-righteous criticism of the Australians now in the German press. The German leadership’s understanding of its moral obligation is without limit, and they refuse to limit in any way the number of refugees who can be taken into Germany, or the speed with which they may come. But more in Europe—a place of bloodline nationalisms compared to the U.S. creedal version—than in the United States there is a moral basis, too, for a community’s own sense of self-determination, which presumes the right of self-definition and self-composition. That is not racism in Europe any more than nervousness about immigrants is racism here in the United States. Wanting one’s own community to be a certain way is not aggressively or actively prejudicial against others, any more than declining to give money to a beggar on a city street is morally equivalent to hitting him in the head with a crowbar. It is simply preferring the constituency of a high-social trust society, from which, social science suggests, many good things come: widespread security, prosperity, and a propensity toward generosity being prominent among them.
> 
> It is, in my view, better morally to respect the dignity of difference than it is to try to expunge it though the mindless homogenization of humankind, which is the unstated premise at the base of the “thinking” of much of the EU elite. What better way to get rid of pesky nationalism than to get rid of nations, eh? One can hardly blame contemporary Germans for this sort of thinking, for their own nationalism turned out to be rabidly illiberal at one point in their history. But it is nonetheless an error of moral reasoning. Asylum seekers distort the moral choice with the intensity of their need, and their innocence, but the point is that what we see in Western Europe is not a case of what is moral versus what is base, but two kinds of rights, incommensurate (à la Isaiah Berlin) as they are, clashing. This basic truth seems to have gone missing in Germany lately, and, unfortunately, its expression in Hungary comes from a man who is toxic morally and opportunistic as well, and so gives that side of the argument a very bad name.
> 
> What the Europeans are doing, under the aegis of the European Union, but really at the instigation of Germany most of all, will have two basic political effects. First it will split the EU east and west, possibly even more bitterly than the economic woes of the past five years have split north and south. Second, it will reshape politics within West European countries.
> 
> As to the former effect, think about Poland for just a moment. When Poland re-emerged into independence after World War I, it was a highly heterogeneous place. And that was troublesome, to put it mildly. The situation of most other Central and East European states was roughly comparable. Thanks to World War II and then the Russian insistence on a postwar territorial settlement of a certain kind, far more homogenous states emerged from the bloodbath. Poland today is vastly more homogeneous, both in ethno-linguistic and sectarian terms, than it ever was, and Poles by and large seem quite happy with the current situation—and they are doing well as a society by most measures partly because of it. Why should they jump for joy when Mr. Juncker and the Commission in Brussels tell them that all this needs to end? They clearly are not jumping for joy, and the pressure from without is bound to help President Duda’s party in next month’s parliamentary elections.
> 
> To Poland’s west we are about to witness the biggest boon for right-wing xenophobes since the 1930s. All this moral unction reminds me of the reality-challenged 1920s in Europe, which gave rise to the very ugly 1930s (and yes, there will be a sharp economic downturn to speed the effect; it’s already begun, in China, because we have allowed a half dozen major regional business cycles with their own, often balancing-out, dynamics to coalesce into one huge global business cycle), and we all know what happened next. How is the thinking in Berlin now different in essence from the calamity of Kellogg-Briand and Locarno? It is downright Kantian: The ethereal categorical imperative über alles. It also seems to me very Christian in the sense that it represents a tilt of intentions over consequences—and Kant was, remember, a Lutheran Pietist, so we know where his basic intellectual urges came from. Indeed, the denizens of the German Left seem to me a very religious people, only they think they’re secularists just because a clutch of proper names has changed, and they don’t often go to church anymore, but rather collect for the functional equivalent of communal worship in political meetings, university seminars, and protest rallies.
> 
> For all this we can blame the Nazis, because the moral ricochet over time is clear, and it is in many ways very noble. It’s nice that the Germans want to be moral, isn’t it? But absent a heavy doze of Niebuhrian moral realism, they now risk letting dead Nazis derange living thought from beyond the grave. At this point, sober Germans are worried about money, about what all this will cost. But this is not really about money. It’s about much more important kinds of business, political business ultimately, and politics is trump.
> 
> I would love to be proved wrong about all this. But the derangement of moral reasoning in Western Europe seems so advanced and deep that it is hard to be optimistic. One fears that if reasonable people do not somehow apply a brake to this wild excess of selfless saintliness, unreasonable people eventually will. And guess who might still be around to cheer, encourage, and perhaps even arm the unreasonable? Yes, Vlad the Putin himself, as he is indeed already doing in a minor key. Then there will be a problem, and it will ultimately be a problem for Americans as well as for Europeans. Doesn’t it always go like that, again, whether we like it or not?
> 
> Anyway, folks, that’s my slant on this week’s news from Germany and Poland. Darn good beer in both countries, however. So not all the news is bad.
> 
> Adam Garfinkle is editor of The American Interest.



 Aricle Link


----------



## George Wallace

This is something that all are going to have to be prepared for:

Paris, 30 Aug 2015

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=45f_1441705296


----------



## Teager

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is something that all are going to have to be prepared for:
> 
> Paris, 30 Aug 2015
> 
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=45f_1441705296



George the comments below state this is an old video from years ago and there are other videos with the same footage posted in the comments as well. Although I'm running directly off the comments below the video it might not be legit for this year and has a different cause.


----------



## CougarKing

The Saudis' response to outside accusations that they're not taking in refugees:

Canadian Press



> *Saudi Arabia says 2.5M Syrians have been sheltered, hundreds of thousands given residency*
> The Canadian Press
> By Adam Schreck,
> 
> DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Saudi Arabia said it has taken in about 2.5 million Syrians on religious and humanitarian grounds in the years since the country's conflict began and has offered residency to hundreds of thousands, as it sought to rebut suggestions that oil-rich Gulf states should do more to address the plight of refugees fleeing civil war.
> 
> The official Saudi Press Agency quoted an unnamed official at the Foreign Ministry as saying the kingdom does not consider those it has taken in as refugees and does not house them in camps "in order to ensure their dignity and safety."
> 
> *The OPEC heavyweight is not a signatory to the U.N. Refugee Convention, which outlines the rights of refugees and obligations on those countries that are party to it.*
> Saudi Arabia did not specify how many of those Syrians admitted remain in the country, saying only that those who wished to stay — a figure it put at "some hundreds of thousands" — have been granted residency status.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar

Another passenger in the boat is also claiming that the Kurdi family members are lying...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3233802/Second-passenger-claims-Aylan-Kurdi-s-father-driving-boat-son-died-working-people-smugglers.html


----------



## Edward Campbell

Matt Davies, staff editorial cartoonist at _Newsday_ (New York), offers his views on how both Europe and the USA are reacting to the Syrian refugee crisis:









Source: _Newday_

Canadians, and especially Canadian politicians should put our (modest) efforts in proper perspective.

The best thing we can do ~ sending money ~ is what we are doing: sending money to where it will do the most good. The next best thing would be to send even more aid to, especially, Jordan, to help that country provide for the refugees there. The last thing we _might_ need to do is to provide refuge, here, for seniors, women and children, *not for any* able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 55 who should be back in Syria fighting against IS* and Assad, not hiding behinjd their wives and mothers' skirts here in Canada.


----------



## a_majoor

As I was preparing to board the bus to Kingston I saw some stuff on the news which indicates that the European governments are starting to wake up to the seriousness of the crisis.

Austria temporarily closed the border and mobilized military forces to assist in securing the borders, while Germany also closed their borders temporarily and will institute ID checks and screenings when the borders reopen. I also caught the tail end of a "news ticker" which seemed to indicate that European navies are being given orders to turn back "refugee" ships, but I was not quite clear on that one.

How much longer before Europeans mobilize military forces to close their borders to these migrants? And after that , how long before the European public demands they be sent back (and takes steps to ensure this happens)?


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/14/refugee-crisis-eu-governments-set-to-back-new-internment-camps

To your point Thuc.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Rick Hillier says the CF can help to bring 50,000 here; with all due respect to the retired CDS: _that's crazy!_


Roméo Dallaire ups the ante ....


> Retired lieutenant-general and former senator Roméo Dallaire says Canada has the capacity to take in between 80,000 and 90,000 Syrian refugees, and he dismisses security concerns over accepting them as a "smokescreen."
> 
> Reacting to former chief of the defence staff Rick Hillier's push for 50,000 Syrian refugees by Christmas, Dallaire said Hillier was "dead on," but his figures were "at the bottom end of the requirement." ....


----------



## Edward Campbell

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Roméo Dallaire ups the ante ....




And then see this (2 in every 100 "refugees" are IS** fighters) which daftandbarmey posted in another thread. I'm sorry, Gens (ret'd) Dallaire and Hiller, but you two are showing your partisan political colours, not your "servants of the country" ones.


Edit: typo


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And then see this (2 in every 100 "refugees" are IS88 fighters) which daftandbarmey posted in another thread.


A ME country looking like it _doesn't_ want refugees to leave?!?!?!  Man bites dog - whazzup with that?


----------



## tomahawk6

Hungary closes the EU border ro refugee's.Smart move although the article paints the government as "right wing". :

http://news.yahoo.com/border-free-europe-unravels-migrant-crisis-hits-record-110230875.html

SERBIAN-HUNGARIAN BORDER (Reuters) - Hungary's right-wing government shut the main land route for migrants into the EU on Tuesday, taking matters into its own hands to halt Europe's unprecedented influx of refugees while the bloc failed to agree a plan to distribute them.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> *Hungry* closes the EU border ro refugee's.Smart move although the article paints the government as "right wing". :
> 
> ....



Freudian much?  >


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well you know you're not you when you're hungry... perhaps they should airdrop some Snickers.


----------



## crowbag

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would suggest that the migrants are moving for economic reasons, as opposed to the refugees fleeing from persecution from an ethnic or religious majority.  When I see a Pakistan being interviewed by the media (probably because he could speak English and no translation was needed), I would say he was a migrant.  The migrants from Libya and other North African nations, coming from Eritrea, Ethiopia and other African nations; I would call migrants.  Christians, Kurds and other non-Islamic religions fleeing persecution in Syria, Iraq, etc.; I would call refugees.



So you're calling people from Libya, and muslims from Syria and Iraq "migrants" as opposed to "refugees"? I'm pretty sure they are leaving the region for more immediate reasons than economic reasons, George. Sure, economic reasons are part of it, but you can't really divorce economic from security concerns can you? There is no economy left in Syria (as a result of the conflict), and as such, these people have no way of earning money to feed their children.


----------



## Jarnhamar

crowbag said:
			
		

> *There is no economy left in Syria* (as a result of the conflict), and as such, these people have no way of earning money to feed their children.



Sure there is. They buy and sell children to have sex with.

If you have enough kids you could probably buy a suite here


----------



## tomahawk6

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Freudian much?  >



Can I buy a vowel ?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

crowbag said:
			
		

> So you're calling people from Libya, and muslims from Syria and Iraq "migrants" as opposed to "refugees"? I'm pretty sure they are leaving the region for more immediate reasons than economic reasons, George. Sure, economic reasons are part of it, but you can't really divorce economic from security concerns can you? There is no economy left in Syria (as a result of the conflict), and as such, these people have no way of earning money to feed their children.



Let me see now.....I have seen a Pakistani being interviewed in one of the Hungarian Refugee sites.  Many fleeing through Libya over the past five or more years, flooding into Italy, Malta and other Mediterranean countries in Europe are from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Somalia, Cote d'Ivory, and other African nations.  We see Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and numerous other Middle Eastern nationals in the crowds of migrants.  Not to forget the numerous Afghan refugees who have made it to Europe as well.  
What is the population of Syria, and what is the number of migrants invading Europe?  
Sorry.  I do not share your views to the extent that you do.

PS:  Tonight on TV they are broadcasting an extreme race that was staged recently in no other location than Libya.


----------



## Teager

If anyone is interested the below link although from 2006 gives a good insight to what has been happening in Germany with many Highly educated Germans leaving the country to find work elsewhere. 

The impact of all these Refugees with little education won't help.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/bye-bye-deutschland-more-and-more-leave-germany-behind-a-446045.html


----------



## a_majoor

Attitudes are starting to harden more. When do you think the switch will be flippen on these refugees and their enablers and these ugly scenes become reality?

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2015/09/14/post-modern-warfare-re-revisited/?singlepage=true



> *Post-Modern Warfare Re-Revisited*
> How bad could it get in Europe? So bad that the refugees might flee back to the Middle East.
> by Stephen Green
> 
> September 14, 2015 - 12:18 pm
> 
> An unidentified Sarajevo resident braves the dangers of the central Marindvor area of the besieged Bosnian capital to cut wood for fuel, July 13, 1993 in Sarajevo. Despite an agreement between the Bosnian government and Bosnian Serbs to restore water and power to Sarajevo, most residents remain skeptical as to how long this will last and some are stocking up on fuel. (AP Photo/Peter Northall)
> 
> There’s no telling just how ugly things will get in Europe before this “immigration” crisis is over. It’s safe to say though that the ugliness is just getting started. How bad could it get? So bad that the refugees might flee back to the Middle East. Let’s revisit a VodkaPundit column from January, 2005, republished here unedited and in its entirety.
> 
> We call the French “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” The Germans, for all their fearsome reputation, haven’t thrown a winning war since 1870. It took Italy two wars before it could beat godforsaken Ethiopia. Poland owes its national existence to the kindness of strangers negotiating around a Versailles conference table. The last time the Spanish won a war, they were fighting each other – and so ineptly that the damnable, sad affair was half-fought by foreigners.
> 
> But make no mistake: The Europeans are good at killing. Revolutionary France started the first modern revolution in warfare by inventing the mass army of conscription. A Brit, James Puckle, invented the machine gun. Put the two together, and you get the First World War – global war and “total war” being two other European gifts to the world, wrapped into one shiny little conflict.
> 
> From tanks to civilian bombing to Hitler’s ovens, Europe has given the world more ways to kill more numbers of people than probably any other continent. In fact, Europeans named Lenin and Hitler invented those human abattoirs we call “totalitarian states.”
> 
> Not that each and every one of those items is a bad thing. Were it not for the tank, Europe might still be fighting on the Western Front, nearly 91 years after the Great War started. Civilian bombing certainly shortened that war’s popular 1939 sequel. Despite some local atrocities, it’s hard to argue that European colonialism wasn’t more civil for western Africa and the Middle East than the local governments they have in those places today. And how did European nations become global empires? In no small measure because of their talents for killing.
> 
> Anyway, that’s what popped into my head after reading the most recent post here by Will Collier. After reading an article showing that the Netherlands (former owners of Indonesia, one of the world’s largest Muslim nations) could be majority-Islamic fairly shortly, Will said:
> 
> 
> What happens 20 or 30 years from now, when demographic trends could well result in “minority-majority” (or even outright majority) status for the Islamic cohort in western Europe? If they’re faced with the options of dhimmitude or flight, where will the native Europeans flee to?
> 
> Why, here, of course.
> 
> What Will left out is the third option.
> 
> If somewhere down the road the worst should come to worst, Europeans could always stay home and fight. And don’t think they couldn’t.
> 
> Problem is, the fight wouldn’t be the pretty kind where you see a few bold arrows drawn on the map, confidently slicing through history and the enemy lines. We’re not talking Desert Storm here, which you could draw with five arrows and lasted only 96 hours. We’re not even talking about the Liberation of France in 1944, which took slightly more arrows and just six weeks. Oh, no.
> 
> We’d be talking about city fighting. But not the kind of city fighting you saw in Saving Private Ryan, where the likable, well-trained and battle-hardened soldiers could call in an air strike just when all seemed lost. Thanks to modern Europe finally putting “ain’t gonna study war no more” into nearly full effect, they hardly have any battle-hardened soldiers. They hardly have any soldiers left at all.
> 
> The city fighting we’d see in Europe would look like what we saw in Sarajevo ten years ago. You know, ragtag bands of men with no uniforms, stolen weapons, and a desire to kill anybody who looked Muslim (or on the Muslim side, European). Holland and Denmark would fare worst. They’re both tiny, both have very high (and increasing) Muslim populations, and neither country has much of a modern military tradition. In this worst-case scenario, the likelihood of ethnic mob rule a la Bosnia seems high.
> 
> Want to take the worst-case a little further? Both countries border Germany, which might feel the very legitimate need to march in to restore Ordnung. I think we all know what usually happens once the Germans start goose-stepping through their smaller neighbors.
> 
> No, the result wouldn’t be World War III (or V?). But Europe could very well become Bosnia on a continental scale, with all the devastation, mass graves, and ethnic cleansing that implies. You can bet, at best, there would be a whole lot of people put at gunpoint onto refugee boats bound for North Africa and the Levant. Assuming, of course, the Europeans win in such a scenario. If not, the poor refugees would speak languages much like our own, and be bound for our own shores – just like Will suggested.
> 
> Me, though, I’d put my money on the Europeans winning a war of mass, mechanized murder.
> 
> After all, they invented it.


----------



## CBH99

Kind of like when the Red Cross was handing out bottles of water to refugees in Greece, who refused to accept the help due to the "Red CROSS" being on the bottle - on religious grounds.  

It's symbolic.  Their refugees, and immediately upon arrival they are demanding we accommodate them in such petty ways as ensuring the Red Cross emblem isn't visible on the bottles of water being given to them.  If that's how they act when arriving illegally on the shore, how else are they going to demand we accommodate them once they are actually given refuge?  Pathetic.  

Throwing fellow refugees off the boat because they happen to have a different faith than you??   It's because of this mindless, barbaric, medieval bull$hit that their refugees in the first place.  And why their country sucks (just being blunt).  

There was a great talk by Neil Degrasse Tyson (I'll post the link later) - talking about how modern Islam has basically been the death of moderate & intellectual thinking.  That a thousand years ago, some of the most prominent & leading edge scientists & astronomers came from the Muslim world.  Today?   None.


----------



## George Wallace

Well.  We are seeing our own problems come to the fore now.  A

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 




> Niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies unlawful, as Ottawa loses appeal
> 
> Appeal Court rules so woman has chance to take oath and vote on Oct. 19
> CBC News
> Posted: Sep 15, 2015 2:26 PM ET
> Last Updated: Sep 15, 2015 8:32 PM ET
> 
> The federal government has lost its appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a ban on wearing niqabs at citizenship ceremonies.
> 
> Three justices on the Federal Court of Appeal, in a ruling from the bench, said they wanted to rule now so the woman at the centre of the case could take her citizenship oath and vote in the federal election on Oct. 19.
> 
> The case started with a lawsuit from Zunera Ishaq, a devout Muslim who moved to Ontario from Pakistan in 2008 to join her husband. Ishaq agreed to remove her niqab for an official before writing and passing her citizenship test two years ago, but she objects to unveiling in public at the oath-taking ceremony.
> 
> In the Federal Court ruling, Judge Keith Boswell said the government policy, introduced in 2011, violates the Citizenship Act, which states citizenship judges must allow the greatest possible religious freedom when administering the oath.
> 
> Boswell asked how that would be possible, "if the policy requires candidates to violate or renounce a basic tenet of their religion."
> 
> When Appeal Justice Mary Gleason made the ruling Tuesday, Ishaq wiped away tears, hugged her lawyer, shook hands with friends and then left the courtroom to pray.
> 
> Ishaq, who had many supporters from Mississauga, including her husband and newborn son, told reporters that voting in the coming election is "very important to me."
> 
> "Now I am going to be the Canadian citizen and I will be enjoying the full rights in Canada as well, so very lucky for me," she said outside court.
> 
> Justice Department lawyer Peter Southey argued unsuccessfully that the lower court judge made errors in his original decision to overturn the ban. But Gleason said the court saw no reason to interfere with the earlier ruling.
> 
> The ban on face coverings sparked a bitter debate in the House of Commons when it was first announced.
> 
> At the time, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his government's ban reflected the views of the "overwhelming majority" of Canadians, including moderate Muslims.
> 
> Stephen Lecce, a spokesman for the Conservative campaign, repeated that assertion Tuesday afternoon, adding that "the government is considering all legal options" after losing the appeal.
> 
> In a news release, Lecce said the Conservatives would update Canadians on their intention to introduce legislation to ban niqabs at citizenship ceremonies in "the days ahead."
> 
> Conservative candidate and Defence Minister Jason Kenney, who introduced the controversial policy when he was immigration minister, said he made the decision to underscore the public nature of the oath because citizenship defines who Canadians are.
> 
> "That's why we believe that everyone taking the oath of citizenship, a public act, should do so openly, on equal terms, and without covering their face," he said.
> 
> "Today's ruling not only goes against the democratic will of Canadians, but against long-held Canadian values of openness and the equality of women and men."
> 
> But Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told CBC News that for the government to pursue yet another appeal at the cost of taxpayers' dollars "would not make much sense when the ruling seems to be very, very clear and reaffirmed today."




We have been down this road before.  The Nijab is a cultural form of dress, NOT a religious costume.  

Where have all our Canadians gone?  Where are our "statesmen"?



> Wilfrid Laurier - "We must insist that the immigrant that comes here is willing to become a Canadian and is willing to assimilate our ways, he should be treated on equal grounds and it would be shameful to discriminate against such a person for reasons of their beliefs or the place of birth or origin. But it is the responsibility of that person to become a Canadian in all aspects of life, nothing else but a Canadian. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says that he is a Canadian, but tries to impose his customs and habits upon us, is not a Canadian. We have room for only one flag, the Canadian flag. There is room for only two languages here, English and French. And we have room for loyalty, but only one, loyalty to the Canadian people. We won't accept anyone, I'm saying anyone, who will try to impose his religion or his customs on us." - 1907



http://canadachannel.ca/canadianbirthdays/index.php/Quotes_by_Prime_Ministers_-_Wilfrid_Laurier


----------



## YZT580

Thanks for that George.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Migrants REFUSE to claim asylum in Denmark - because they don't get enough BENEFITS


> Refugees from Middle Eastern countries - like war-torn Syria - are demanding they are allowed to go to Sweden or Finland because the terms of asylum are more favourable for them.
> 
> Asylum seeker Marwen el Mohammed said there are two reasons migrants do not want to go to Denmark.
> 
> Mohammed claimed the first reason is that "the salary for refugees decreased about 50 per cent from 10,000 kroner (£1,000) to about 5,000 (£500)".
> 
> The second is that Finland and its neighbouring countries allow migrants' families to join them within two or three months - but under Denmark's new laws they have to wait a year before they are able to join their loved ones.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/605252/Migrants-Denmark-Finland-Sweden-Marwen-el-Mohammed-TV2-News-Immigration-Refugee


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Migrants REFUSE to claim asylum in Denmark - because they don't get enough BENEFITShttp://www.express.co.uk/news/world/605252/Migrants-Denmark-Finland-Sweden-Marwen-el-Mohammed-TV2-News-Immigration-Refugee



That's the problem with Europe.  So much to choose from.  These migrants are not coming from some back water shyte hole that have only huts for housing.  i suspect they were used to a standard of living.

I guess we see teh same thing in Canada.  People will migrate to wheer there are jobs and benefits.

They shouldn't, however, look a gift horse in the mouth.


----------



## Kirkhill

Remius said:
			
		

> That's the problem with Europe.  So much to choose from.  These migrants are not coming from some back water shyte hole that have only huts for housing.  i suspect they were used to a standard of living.
> 
> I guess we see teh same thing in Canada.  People will migrate to wheer there are jobs and benefits.
> 
> They shouldn't, however, look a gift horse in the mouth.



Just down the coast a bit - 














Something for everyone.

http://ginosblog.com/2014/04/27/10-epic-before-after-war-photos-of-beirut/


----------



## a_majoor

More on the rise of natavist parties, and now support for the UK leaving the EU is close to the tipping point. (I will not call European parties "Right Wing", since by almost any practical metric they are National Socialists at best):


http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/16/chances-of-brexit-rise-as-migrant-crisis-roils-eu/



> *Chances of Brexit Rise as Migrant Crisis Roils EU*
> 
> The migrant crisis increasingly looks like it could break the EU, with euroskepticism on the rise as the crisis continues. The biggest news: The chances of a Brexit are up, with a poll by ICM putting support for leaving the EU at 40 percent, with 43 percent in favor of staying and 17 percent undecided. The poll gives the pro-union camp an edge—unlike the Survation poll earlier this month that found a majority of respondents favored leaving—but that lead has narrowed from 11 percent to just 3 percent. The uptick in support for a Brexit comes after a change in the way the poll question was worded, but the reason for the change appears to be the migrant crisis.
> 
> And the UK isn’t the only country seeing knock-on effects from the crisis. Euroskeptics are also picking up steam in Germany. We noted in yesterday’s newsletter that support for Germany’s far-right AfD party rose to 5.5 percent in a recent poll, even as Angela Merkel’s coalition was down to 40 percent approval, a loss of 1.5 percent. But today another poll shows that AfD is tied in Saxony with the SPD, a party that belongs to Merkel’s coalition. Both are polling at 13 percent in that region.
> 
> If you haven’t read it yet,  Alina Polyakova’s latest feature for us is an excellent account of how far-right parties have benefited from the EU’s ineptitude:
> 
> And the migrant crisis convulsing Europe these days is only likely to strengthen the allure of the far-right’s pitch, even as Europe’s elites continue to remain obstinately deaf and blind to its appeal. “Our answer [to the migrant crisis] must be in line with our history and our values, in line with what Europe is about,” Europe’s Economic Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said as hundreds of thousands of refugees poured into Euope. “To be European means to care about humanity and to care about human rights. […] When the world and Europe face such a drama, the answer should never be nationalistic. Never to close borders, never to renounce our values. Never.” Alas, fervently wishing for something does not make it so. Just yesterday, Germany “temporarily” exited the Schengen zone and started requiring passport checks on its border with Austria.
> 
> The far-right is licking its chops as the EU struggles to come up with a coherent response to the refugee crisis.
> 
> Indeed.


----------



## The Bread Guy

<pedantic tangent>


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> (I will not call European parties "Right Wing", since by almost any practical metric they are National Socialists at best):


I'll bite:  How is a "National Socialist" party not "Right Wing?"  What "practical metrics" are you using?

I'm far from a sandal-wearing hippy, but my read would put parties with posters like these ....




"Guess who ends up last?  For rights to home, work, health ...."




"We only give residence to honest foreigners who work - secure in our own home."








.... would put them well into the "social stratification," "religion" and "nationalistic" ends of the spectrum.
</pedantic tangent>


----------



## Kirkhill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_of_the_European_Parliament_in_Strasbourg

Get rid of the Bureaucrats blocking the middle ground and you would find a vanishingly small distance between "Left/Nordic Green" and "Freedom and Democracy".

Having said that - Church Socialist, Russian Socialist, International Socialist, National Socialist - the only point of debate is who is in charge.  The one constant is that it is not the demos.


----------



## Edward Campbell

An article in Britain's _Daily Mail_ shows just how easy it is for IS** to get phoney passports to pass terrorists off as refugees.


----------



## a_majoor

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> <pedantic tangent>I'll bite:  How is a "National Socialist" party not "Right Wing?"  What "practical metrics" are you using?



The name "National *Socialist*" is the first give away that it is not a right wing party, Socialism is one of the basic foundational philosophies of the "Left" (Progressive, Liberal , SJW, Fascist, Communist etc.), with the emphasis on the State controlling the collective production of the State for the benefit of "the people" or a subset of the "people" (traditionally defined by social or economic class). *Nativists/National Socialists simply define the "people" whom the State benefits by ethnic criterion * (and by that measure, the BQ/PQ here in Canada was most definitely a National Socialist party).

The pejorative of Nazi/Fascist as being "Right Wing" is an artifact of 1930 era Soviet propaganda, which saw competing socialist movements (National Socialism and Fascism) as a potential threat to the spread of International Communism in Europe, and defined these forms of Socialism as being to the "right" of Soviet Communism. Of course in the post war world, Leftists everywhere were happy to continue using the pejorative, realizing that the "Nazi=right wing" formulation was a perfect attack vector against conservative parities and values everywhere in the West.


----------



## a_majoor

Hard choices are leading to hard borders:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/09/17/cascading-border-closures-rock-europe/



> *Cascading Border Closures Rock Europe*
> 
> Europe is experiencing a series of cascading border closures, rippling outward like circuit breakers tripping during a power surge. A week ago, Denmark suspended its rail link to Germany. On Monday, Germany closed its border with Austria. Austria, Slovakia, and the Netherlands all clamped “temporary” border restrictions into place.
> 
> On Tuesday, Hungary sealed its border with Serbia; yesterday, Hungarian border guards used water cannons, tear gas, and truncheons to beat back a sea of migrants. This in turn forced more than 5,000 people to seek an alternate path through Croatia north to Slovenia and Germany. Croatian authorities indicated that while they want to help, Croatia’s capacity for handling migrant flows was limited to the thousands, not to the tens of thousands. And then Slovenian authorities today announced that they would reinforce their border with Croatia, potentially creating another dead end for the thousands of migrants massing in the Balkans.
> 
> This was inevitable when Brussels and Berlin signaled a determination to treat the immigration problem—which is a hybrid refugee crisis and migrant moment—in purely humanitarian terms. Those languishing in the south of Europe or even in refugee camps in Turkey heard the official declarations as an open-ended invitation to the generous, prosperous, new Germany; they rushed northward and overloaded the system.
> 
> European leaders had no practical plans to deal with the wave of migrants they were encouraging. While some of the border shutdowns—such as Hungary’s—were triggered by ideology, many are a matter of logistics. Germany, it turns out, has absolutely no legal immigration mechanism. It hasn’t enforced a land border since 1995. Is it any wonder it wasn’t able to process the inflow into Bavaria, despite the government’s best intentions? Now, border controls are now rippling from the desirable destinations in Europe (Germany and Scandinavia) outward to its more remote borders.
> 
> In Brussels, leaders failed to agree to a refugee-sharing quota scheme earlier this week, and may now have abandoned mandatory redistribution plans entirely. As the numbers continue to mount, absent a unified border-enforcement-cum-resettlement plan, a return to national borders may be the only way some governments can see to deal with the crisis.
> 
> And while all of these measures are technically “temporary”, it doesn’t take Nostradamus to see a world in which they might be extended indefinitely. The end of Schengen is now being openly discussed.
> 
> European leaders acted on ideology and sentiment, counting real-world planning as a sign of backward-looking hard-heartedness. The result is that well-meaning centrists have egg on their face, and, as Adam Garfinkle put it in a must-read essay on Sunday, “One fears that if reasonable people do not somehow apply a brake to this wild excess of selfless saintliness, unreasonable people eventually will.” As the European far right grows stronger, the Continent badly needs some adults who can balance do-gooder instincts with some practical sense. Will they step to the fore in time?


----------



## George Wallace

I have to give Hungary credit, and they stated it when they started putting up their walls and stopping the migration:  Once these migrants get into a nation that is part of the Schengen Area, they can move freely anywhere withing the countries of the Schengen Agreement.  Why none of the European nations came to the same conclusions, agreeing with Hungary and actually assisting them, is beyond me.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Reminds me a bit of our future sovereign, Prince Charles' conversations with (then) Camilla Parker Bowles, about wishing to be her tampon  :  because, _I suppose_, he's a bit above having to have paid attention to the briefing* where he was told that his mobile phone is just an unencrypted radio.

____
* I'm about 99% sure that he, like most senior officials and politicians and important _public persons_ (in Britain and Canada, at least) were given such briefings back in the early to mid 1980s.


----------



## George Wallace

An interesting 29 minute report by a German TV network, ZDF, on immigration/refugees/migrants into Germany, present day to over twenty years ago, and reference to the Canadian system of accepting immigrants.  It talks of the affects of Islam on German culture, society and Legal System.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKoatWM


----------



## tomahawk6

Sharia law vs host country law.Islam will once again rule Europe and it will be possible by the pc left.France wont fall because they are unapologetic about preserving their culture.


----------



## Halifax Tar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sharia law vs host country law.Islam will once again rule Europe and it will be possible by the pc left.France wont fall because they are unapologetic about preserving their culture.



In my mind this thread and the one linked below are tied at the hip.  And your quoted statement is the how and why. 

http://army.ca/forums/threads/113297.0.html

How ironic is it that conservatives a speaking up in defence of liberal ideals, while liberals are rolling over on their own ideals in an effort to feel good about themselves ? 

Its a phenomena that I have become all to aware of as of late.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Why Europe Needs Syria's Refugees: A Continent 'In Demographic Decline'

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/21/europe-declining-population-refugees_n_8169804.html?utm_hp_ref=canada


----------



## YZT580

In the 17th and 18th centuries a few thousand people from Europe invaded N. America and completely changed the continent forever.  The then residents were forced into subservient positions and pushed to the fringes of what had been their own country.  What is happening in Europe is no less than another invasion and will end up with the same results.  Huffington to the contrary, the people of Europe have to decide if they wish to have these changes forced upon them.  It is more than just a few jokes about the loss of Octoberfest.  The cultural changes will be profound.  Islam is not interested in being changed but in changing the lands into which it expands.  Hungary has already said no and that is their legitimate choice.


----------



## The Bread Guy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> In the 17th and 18th centuries a few thousand people from Europe invaded N. America and completely changed the continent forever.  The then residents were forced into subservient positions and pushed to the fringes of what had been their own country.  What is happening in Europe is no less than another invasion and will end up with the same results ....


Here's how one Italian nationalist/right-wing party puts it:  "They couldn't regulate immigration - now they live on reserves."


----------



## jollyjacktar

To be fair, they're not wrong.  That was the outcome even if it's not a honest comparison to today's drama.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Italian Connection: The origin of Europe's, and the West's ills.

Too bad the Islamic world didn't read the book.



> Limits to Growth (1972)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William W. Behrens III, (1972) Limits to Growth, New York: New American Library.
> 
> In 1972, the Club of Rome’s infamous report “The Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al., 1972) presented some challenging scenarios for global sustainability, based on a system dynamics computer model to simulate the interactions of five global economic subsystems, namely: population, food production, industrial production, pollution, and consumption of non-renewable natural resources. Contrary to popular belief, The Limits to Growth scenarios by the team of analysts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology did not predict world collapse by the end of the 20th Century. This paper focuses on a comparison of recently collated historical data for 1970–2000 with scenarios presented in the Limits to Growth. The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard run” scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century. The data does not compare well with other scenarios involving comprehensive use of technology or stabilizing behaviour and policies. The results indicate the particular importance of understanding and controlling global pollution.
> 
> Source: http://www.manicore.com/fichiers/Turner_Meadows_vs_historical_data.pdf



I will sum up the message as it was broadcast to me in Grade 10 Geography.  I was 16 when the book came out.

"Everybody Stop! You are doomed!  You are all going to die!  Stop making things!  Stop eating!  Stop making babies!"

And to add a degree of piquancy to the end of the world, there was a seasoning of "Ice Age Hysteria".

The politicians took it to heart.

They introduced policies which favoured the elimination of babies - low and behold there are no follow on generations to perform work.
They introduced policies that changed the diet (margarine and high fructose corn syrup and the Green Revolution*).
They introduced policies that shut down the industrial society (closed mines and mills).

In the rest of the world the policies were adopted hodge-podge.

China agreed with limiting babies - but eagerly turned itself into a land of "Dark, satanic mills".  Just as did India (Gandhi originally complained that his dhoti was made in England of cotton grown in India - he wanted Satanic Mills for Indians).

In Islam, and much of the Catholic world, the call for smaller families went unheeded.

So, now we are surprised that the Average European is retiring (quite nicely on a government pension thank-you very much). And the multitudes of unemployed Muslims and Catholics (sorry TV but I don't know how else to broadly categorize the Phillipinos and Latinos) are confronted with three options:

They can move to China or India and work in over-crowded, less than tolerant societies, for low wages in DSMs.

They can move to America and work in a less crowded but still less than tolerant society, for whatever the market will bear doing whatever they can find, legal or illegal.

They can move to Europe and retire on Government benefits.....

Oh and by the way.  We never did run out of oil, coal, gas or copper, or trees.

* The Green Revolution and industrial policy was so successful in solving the food shortage that now the biggest problems are an over-supply of "empty" calories, so that we are reduced to burning wine, whiskey, corn oil and tortillas, and the population is obese because it has more fuel than it needs.  Food. Feed. Fertilizer. Fuel.   It is all the same stuff.  All carbon based.  The only difference is where the cells that consume that carbon are located.


----------



## daftandbarmy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> In the 17th and 18th centuries a few thousand people from Europe invaded N. America and completely changed the continent forever.  The then residents were forced into subservient positions and pushed to the fringes of what had been their own country.  What is happening in Europe is no less than another invasion and will end up with the same results.  Huffington to the contrary, the people of Europe have to decide if they wish to have these changes forced upon them.  It is more than just a few jokes about the loss of Octoberfest.  The cultural changes will be profound.  Islam is not interested in being changed but in changing the lands into which it expands.  Hungary has already said no and that is their legitimate choice.



Rubbish.

These immigrants are not being sent as formed vanguards of a conquering, hugely technologically advanced, civilization. They are refugees who will likely quickly settle into all the jobs that the Europeans need people for. In two generations they won't even remember where they came from.

You know, kind of like the Irish in North America  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Rubbish.
> ........ In two generations they won't even remember where they came from.




I disagree.  Here is a documentary (29 minutes) done by ZDF on German TV, and note the mention of the Turkish Guastwerker's who have been in Germany for over twenty years.  They may not remember where they came from, but they have also not integrated into German society, culture, nor accepting of German Laws.  It takes a look at Canada's immigration process, and also questions where tolerance should end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVWAIKoatWM


----------



## CougarKing

Meanwhile, in Vienna...

Reuters



> *Austrian far-right party gets electoral boost from migrant crisis*
> Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:15pm EDT
> 
> VIENNA (Reuters) - Austria's far-right Freedom Party (FPO) doubled its votes to finish a strong second in a state election on Sunday, dealing a blow to the two main centrist parties which were left nursing heavy losses.
> 
> The conservative Austrian People's Party (OVP) came in first at 36.4 percent of the vote, despite losing about 10 percentage points compared to the last election in 2009, and was followed by the FPO at 30.4 percent, according to the final results.
> 
> The Social Democrats (SPO) lost around six percentage points to finish third at 18.4 percent.
> 
> The anti-immigrant FPO has scored over 30 percent in recent national opinion polls, overtaking the Social Democrats and conservatives who have traditionally ruled Austria in coalitions since World War II.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Having some issues getting on the Internet in my current location, but read two reports that Europeans are starting to react violently against the "migrants".

In the first instance, the largest mosque in the UK was set on fire, apparently by two British youths, suffering extensive damage. In the second instance, a former gym in Germany was torched when it was being prepared to accommodate up to 400 people. the town will now not be able to accept any new people.

If anyone can find the links to these stories and post them it will be helpful.


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .................. reports that Europeans are starting to react violently against the "migrants".
> 
> In the first instance, the largest mosque in the UK was set on fire, apparently by two British youths, suffering extensive damage. In the second instance, a former gym in Germany was torched when it was being prepared to accommodate up to 400 people. the town will now not be able to accept any new people.
> 
> If anyone can find the links to these stories and post them it will be helpful.



London mosque on fire:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/27/teenagers-arrested-arson-south-london-mosque-fire-morden

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-34369710

German protests:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34050393

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/refugee-crisis-germany-1.3225663

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dresden-riots-protesters-in-germany-attack-refugee-buses-shouting-foreigners-out-10467287.html


Finns blockage buses of refugees:  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/refugee-finland-demonstrators-kkk-1.3243195

http://www.dw.com/en/protesters-form-human-wall-against-refugees-at-finnish-swedish-border/a-18724593

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/finnish-protest-throws-rocks-and-launch-fireworks-at-refugees-and-at-least-one-dresses-in-kkk-garb

France's Marine Le Pen wades in 14 Sep 2015:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a30_1442946771&comments=1#tefKytMMvSiJfGYR.99


----------



## a_majoor

And a Slovakian town votes "no" to accepting refugees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-small-slovakian-town-held-a-vote-on-accepting-refugees-97-percent-said-no/2015/09/28/1d29b1c0-6168-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html



> *A small town in Slovakia held a vote on accepting refugees; 97 percent said no.*
> Syrians arrive in Gabcikovo, Slovakia, this month. (Samuel Kubani/AFP/Getty Images)
> 
> By William Booth September 28  Follow @boothwilliam
> 
> GABCIKOVO, Slovakia — The next act of the European refugee crisis will unfold in little places like this one, where hundreds of Syrian war refugees are coming to live in a town that just voted by overwhelming numbers to oppose their stay.
> 
> Over the past few days, the first of 500 Syrian asylum seekers arrived to take up three-month residency at a state-run dormitory in the center of town.
> 
> Last month, as locals watched the news of streams of migrants winding their way through Europe, the town held a special referendum: 97 percent voted to oppose reopening the Slovak government’s refugee facility.
> 
> “We’re not haters,”said Zoltan Jakus, one of the organizers of the vote. “But I think this will end badly.”
> 
> With the refugee crisis escalating, European Union leaders last week approved a plan to spread 120,000 asylum seekers across 28 nations on the continent, over the objections of Central European countries. Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia voted against the measure, a rare note of discord.
> 
> The residents of Gabcikovo wonder why wars and unrest thousands of miles away, involving Muslims, should be their business.
> 
> Gabcikovo is a town of 5,000 residents, where pensioners ride bicycles along quiet lanes lined with sturdy houses, many with overflowing gardens and ceramic gnomes, where everybody knows not only your name, but also what football club you support and what beer you drink. Most of them speak Hungarian and are Catholic.
> 
> The people of Gabcikovo say they are not cold-hearted or racist, but they are clearly worried, and many of them are asking the same questions as other Europeans who feel uneasy about the rising numbers of war refugees and economic migrants.
> 
> “Who are these people? Where do they come from? Why are they here?” said Daniel Koczkas, 27, who works at a coffee distributor and has lived in Gabcikovo all his life.
> 
> He waved a greeting to his mother, who was passing by on her bicycle. “We have no problem with different colors,” Koczkas said, “but we don’t know them.”
> 
> Breaking down Europe's migrant crisis
> 
> A look at the numbers behind the stream of refugees flowing into Europe as political leaders struggle to ease the burden. (Jason Aldag/The Washington Post)
> 
> One of his friends, Zoltan Zsemlye, 26, who works for Volkswagen, said, “If they’re all war refugees, why don’t they go to the Arab countries?”
> 
> The two friends asked how many refugees were being taken in by rich Arab states in the Persian Gulf.
> 
> They answered in unison, “None!”
> 
> A pair of young mothers pushing baby strollers, who declined to give their names, asked, “Would you want them in your home town?”
> 
> A vegetable vendor said she was worried that terrorists could slip in among the refugees.
> 
> Several local people expressed fears that on the nearby Danube, a massive dam and its hydroelectric plant would be a choice target.
> 
> “They flew airplanes into the twin towers. Why not blow up the dam?” the greengrocer said. She pointed to the church steeple. The water from the dam would be that high.
> 
> Other residents mentioned diseases — and the prospect of single young men walking the streets with no work and no money.
> 
> “They’re scared,” said Peter Borbely, a graphic artist from Hungary who works here. “It’s a small town, really a village. Very tight, maybe even closed to outsiders, even to me.”
> 
> He predicted that their fears would be allayed in time.
> 
> [Face to face with Europe’s refu­gee crisis]
> 
> Gabcikovo has a long history of hosting outsiders, but this time it is different. During the early 1990s, the dormitories at the Slovak Technical University sheltered people fleeing the Balkan wars.
> 
> The dormitories were used again to house other refugees and migrants seeking asylum in Europe.
> 
> “We had Chechens, Iranians, Sri Lankans, Romanians, you name it,” said Zoltan Jaros, an administrator of the dorms.
> 
> Jaros said that between 1993 and 2008, more than 5,000 refugees and migrants spent time at the campus dorms. “We have not had a single serious crime,” he said. “Maybe somebody stole an apple from a tree. But no rapes, assaults, robberies. Nothing.”
> 
> He stressed that the refugees are to be housed in dorms for only three or four months — that all are Syrians applying for asylum in Austria and that none will remain in Slovakia. (The E.U. plan calls for 800 refugees to be settled eventually in Slovakia, though Slovak leaders are opposed).
> 
> “Austria has run out of room, so we are being good neighbors and helping them,” Jaros said.
> 
> Vienna is just an hour away. “They’ll do all their paperwork there. We have nothing to do with that. Here they will sleep, eat, meet with social workers and study German, and if they are accepted, they will move to Austria.”
> 
> Jaros said he has been impressed with the first arrivals at the dormitories. “Very calm. Very orderly. You can see they are educated people. They speak better English than me,” he said.
> 
> He has no patience for townspeople who fear the newcomers will bring terror or disease.
> 
> “Some people think refugees eat little children for breakfast,” Jaros said. He shrugged and suggested that the complaints were naive or worse.
> 
> Basil and Etidal Taroun, pharmacists from the Syrian capital, arrived last week and were strolling through town, relieved and maybe a bit stunned at where they ended up. They were applying for asylum in Austria.
> 
> “It is nice for us,” Basil said. “It is okay.”
> 
> His wife was smiling and said they would never complain. They would share a bathroom and toilet with another family.
> 
> Their 2-year-old son was sucking on a lollipop. They would learn German quickly, Etidal promised. They would be given asylum, they were sure. They had made it here after 24 days on the road.
> 
> They did not know that the town had voted to oppose their stay.
> 
> Zoltan Jakus, who led the referendum effort, said that volunteers collected 1,881 signatures in just three days to stage the vote and that the “no” campaign won 97 percent of the ballots with a turnout of 60 percent.
> 
> “So that says something,” Jakus said.
> 
> “The village people are ready to help. We would provide clothes, food and help them on their way, but we don’t want them to live here,” he said.
> 
> “The fact that they are another ethnicity, another religion, another language, this will cause conflict,” Jakus said, adding that it was his impression, from media reports, that the Arabs are quick to anger.
> 
> “They like to protest,” he said. “Maybe they will want to fight.”
> 
> He said villagers wondered where the Muslims would pray.
> 
> “We have no mosques here,” he said. “I don’t know if there is a single mosque in all Slovakia. You see? That is the problem.”
> 
> 
> Gergo Saling contributed to this report.


----------



## YZT580

According to friends in Germany there have been demands that church bells not be rung as they serve to remind them that they are in a Christian land.  No comments regarding prayer call from the neighbourhood mosque however.  Butcher shops with pork in the windows were asked to put up screens and outdoor tables at the pubs were frowned upon.  Even Octoberfest came under attack.  So no, they aren't content with your normal resettlement assistance.  They wasn't their homeland rules established wherever they settle.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/truth-revealed-behind-petition-ban-6459561


----------



## George Wallace

YZT580 said:
			
		

> According to friends in Germany there have been demands that church bells not be rung as they serve to remind them that they are in a Christian land.



Don't believe everything you hear.  The Church Bells are still ringing.  Every hour on the hour, and every fifteen minutes.


----------



## YZT580

I said demands not compliance.  I don't expect that Octoberfest celebrations were curtailed much either.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The problem with these migrants (NOT those that are sponsored by family members.) is that they are not happy with what is being given to them and are *inclined to wander off the environs that are set up for their administration*



Also smashing stuff, setting stuff on fire and rioting.


Housing these refugees, many of whom probably have sketchy pasts,  on military bases is absolutely brilliant.

Bases outside of major urban areas are already packed full of people and often feel crowded. Adding thousands more will only help.  I can see crime levels plummeting to an all time low too.




> http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260393/muslim-migrants-increase-crime-germany-65-daniel-greenfield
> A mass brawl occurred between refugees from Afghanistan and Albania. Some 60 refugees went after one another in the camp in the Wilhelmsburg district on Tuesday evening. Some were armed with iron bars, also witnesses had testified that a refugee had a firearm, a police spokesman said.
> 
> In Lower Saxony in Braunschweig there was also an altercation between 300 to 400 refugees between Algerians and Syrians from a dispute over stolen goods.
> 
> In the brawl in Hamburg five refugees were injured, one got a wound in his arm and had to be hospitalized. Whether they were stabbed, was initially unclear. The police had deployed a large contingent on site to separate the warring Afghans and Albanians, said the spokesman. 30 police cars were in use.
> 
> After police managed to stop the fight, a tent was set on fire. Two people were poisoned by smoke. It was unclear whether there was a link between the arson and the fight. According to the police spokesman, the  odor of drugs was detected.
> 
> According to statistics from the Federal Criminal Police vedomstva Germany the number of offenses committed by asylum seekers has increased dramatically. Given the large number of immigrants, it is not surprising. In 2013 it was registered 32 495 crimes, and in 2014 - already 53 890. A particularly sharp increase in thefts (from 9421 to 16066) attacks with bodily injury (from 5172 to 8994)


----------



## George Wallace

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I said demands not compliance.  I don't expect that Octoberfest celebrations were curtailed much either.



The "Oktoberfest" speil was all an unknown blogger in the UK, with not known identity, who raised a bogus "demand".  It has NO credible authenticity.


----------



## Stoker

Would we be so accommodating


German Village of 102 Braces for 750 Asylum Seekers 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/world/europe/german-village-of-102-braces-for-750-asylum-seekers.html?src=me&_r=0


----------



## larry Strong

Another fence goes up.....

Shared as per usual....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/migrant-refugee-slovenia-fence-1.3313615



> Slovenia on Wednesday began erecting a razor-wire fence along its border with Croatia to control the influx of migrants, as European and African leaders gathered in Malta to seek long-term solutions to the flow of people making their way across Europe.
> 
> A convoy of army trucks carrying the fence and bulldozers arrived in Veliki Obrez Wednesday morning, and soldiers began unwinding the spirals of wire and stretching them along the Slovenian side of the river Sutla that divides the two countries. Other units were later seen further southwest, near the town of Gibina, also stretching the spirals of wire and stacking them on top of each other.
> 
> Prime Minister Miro Cerar said a day earlier that his country expects about 30,000 new migrants to reach Slovenia's borders. His government fears that if neighbouring Austria restricts their entry, the number of people that would be stranded in Slovenia would be too much for the tiny Alpine state to handle.
> 
> "If we don't act on time," Cerar said, "this could cause a humanitarian catastrophe on the territory of Slovenia." He said the "technical barrier" will be used to direct the refugee flow, not to close the 670-kilometre border as was the case in Hungary.
> 
> Nearly 170,000 migrants have crossed Slovenia since mid-October when Hungary closed its border with Croatia with a razor-wire fence and the flow was redirected to Slovenia.
> 
> Interior Minister Vesna Gyorkos Znidar said these measures "are not popular, but they are necessary."



More on the link


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Stoker

I think Germany has a good idea there

Germany imposes surprise curbs on Syrian refugees 

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/germany-imposes-surprise-curbs-on-syrian-refugees/ar-CC2Bcm


----------



## Freedom_Fighter88

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This is not an invasion.  This is a migration.  The vast majority of the people have no evil intents on Europe, or anywhere else.  A large number are possibly even beyond rational thought.  They, like the Goths driven by the Huns into Rome's orbit, are being driven by ISIS and Assad (and Putin).



Yes, it is an invasion. Military aged men are invading Europe.
And no, it's not because of Putin and Assad, but because of ISIS, which they are fighting.


----------

