Those moving through Europe are those with the gumption and more importantly the financial resources to pay criminal gangs to smuggle them into Europe, provide them with phony documentation etc. Most of these are young men looking for the opportunity to either work or claim benefits in the EU. 80% of them have not come from Syria

rickyp wrote:

Fingerprints on the passport matching the terrorist taken in October used to enter Greece.

In Germany, Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told reporters in Berlin that a Syrian passport found with one of the Paris attackers may have been a false flag intended to make Europeans fearful of refugees. The passport showed registrations in Greece, Serbia and Croatia, which he described as "unusual."

He said the multiple registrations by a person using the passport were "evidence that this was a trail that was intentionally laid, but it can't be ruled out at the moment that this was an IS terrorist who came to France ... via Germany as a refugee."

Fate, I was going to point out to you that although the Syrian books might be real, most passports have electronic information contained within them that is much harder to forge... However I can't find out whether this is true of Syrian passports....

Most of them are young men? Even the televisio images don't support this...
Whats your source for this?

Sassenach wrote:

Most of them are young men? Even the televisio images don't support this...
Whats your source for this?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'even' the television images. My point is that the television images overwhelmingly focus on the women and children (presumably because this makes for a bigger emotional impact) and ignore the fact that the vast majority are men.

Here you go, you surely can't quibble with UNHCR right ?

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

The figures cited here are 65% men, 20% children and 14% women. Keep in mind that 'children' is likely to include anybody up to the age of 17..

Sassenach wrote:I'd say that's unlikely.... but it wouldn't really alter my point.

Just to be perfectly clear on my point re: the definition of 'children' here. I think it's highly probable that a very substantial proportion of the people in this category are actually boys aged between 15-17 and could just as easily be placed in the 'men' category for the purposes of this discussion. It would be very difficult to prove that of course, but it does seem very likely indeed.

So, why has the UN not voted to crush these buzzards?

But what is success? No one knows. No one, no one, has a plan for success, because there isn’t one. Or maybe there is one, but it involves massive commitments from the gulf states and Turkey of the sort that they’re very unlikely to make. Or it involves us openly allying with Putin and Assad, which is a) distasteful in the extreme and b) bound to result in hideous unforeseen consequences. In other words, things that aren’t likely to happen until the situation gets much, much worse, or things that we should really think carefully about entering into.

So there isn’t a solution. Unless you think a ground war is a solution. Ultimately, it might have to come to that, I suppose. But if it is to come to that, we’re going to have to be a very different country, a more mature and decent country, than we currently are. We’re going to have to have a draft, so that all this doesn’t fall on the same 1 percent of the population that’s already suffering and committing suicides in intolerable numbers; and we’re going to have to convert some portion of the economy to war footing. Because it’ll be a real war that can’t be won by having people going out and doing more shopping, as they urged us to do after 9/11. It’s going to be brutal. And not for the three or four years it might take to vanquish ISIS, but for 20 or so, because as we’re still learning in Iraq, who do these idiot critics think is going to come in and run Syria, some latter-day incarnation of Vaclav Havel?

And if you’re being remotely honest, you know all this. These Republicans are so completely full of shit that it’s hard to read and watch. Here’s a Mitt Romney tweet from shortly after the press conference ended: “Tired of Obama’s dissembling. No one calling for massive troop intervention. Instead calling for winning strategy to replace current failure.” Completely dishonest nonsense, and I guess here would be a good time to point out that Bill Kristol has called for 50,000 troops to fight ISIS just yesterday. Yeah, I know it was just a tweet. But this is the trick, even when they’re not limited to a tweet. Just use vague language about winning strategies and being strong not weak without saying what it means.

If forced to be specific, they might say, let’s step up the air war. OK then, let’s step up the air war. But let’s be aware of what it might be inviting. So Obama follows the Republicans’ advice, steps up the air war, and then someday in the near future we have our own Paris. What would they say then? Would they have his back, because, hey, buddy, you took our advice, you tried, now let’s stand together? Please. There would be instant hearings and perhaps even impeachment.

And then there’s the stupid reactionary posture of the presidential candidates who have suggested establishing a religious (i.e. non-Muslim) test for entry into the country, and the governors who have already announced that they won’t be accepting Syrian refugees. In smacking down these people at the press conference, Obama was at his best. “The people fleeing Syria,” he said, “are the most harmed by terrorism.” Duh. To use Paris as an excuse to refuse these people help makes any decent American ashamed.

That’s the Republicans. And the media, with questions like Acosta’s and Allen’s, enable them. The underlying premises of most media coverage of how Obama handles this situation going forward will be simple: hawkish good, dovish bad. That’s how it always goes once this kind of fever takes hold.

It's a misleading question which doesn't bear any relation to the facts on the ground. We're not talking about refugees in need here. The refugees in need were those who fled Syria and landed in safe countries on the border

Now let me posit an alternate world scenario: Canada has a civil war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees flee south. What would the US do? We'd take them. It would be easy because they understand our culture and it's not dissimilar

Using the numbers you provided (thank you) 92% of the sea migrants ARE from Syria.

If a family has been living in Turkey for three years in a refugee centre, imagine what waiting for a chance to settle somewhere is like over that time? Those years are lost years...Imagine how the parents feel about providing for the children's future?
The apparent failure to cope in Europe may be an indictment of the system Sass. But it doesn't change the moral equation.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, why has the UN not voted to crush these buzzards?

Have you even considered what this means?
Its like Jim Acosta's "why can't we take out these bastards?"

But what is success? No one knows. No one, no one, has a plan for success, because there isn’t one. Or maybe there is one, but it involves massive commitments from the gulf states and Turkey of the sort that they’re very unlikely to make. Or it involves us openly allying with Putin and Assad, which is a) distasteful in the extreme and b) bound to result in hideous unforeseen consequences. In other words, things that aren’t likely to happen until the situation gets much, much worse, or things that we should really think carefully about entering into.

So there isn’t a solution. Unless you think a ground war is a solution. Ultimately, it might have to come to that, I suppose. But if it is to come to that, we’re going to have to be a very different country, a more mature and decent country, than we currently are. We’re going to have to have a draft, so that all this doesn’t fall on the same 1 percent of the population that’s already suffering and committing suicides in intolerable numbers; and we’re going to have to convert some portion of the economy to war footing. Because it’ll be a real war that can’t be won by having people going out and doing more shopping, as they urged us to do after 9/11. It’s going to be brutal. And not for the three or four years it might take to vanquish ISIS, but for 20 or so, because as we’re still learning in Iraq, who do these idiot critics think is going to come in and run Syria, some latter-day incarnation of Vaclav Havel?

And if you’re being remotely honest, you know all this. These Republicans are so completely full of shit that it’s hard to read and watch. Here’s a Mitt Romney tweet from shortly after the press conference ended: “Tired of Obama’s dissembling. No one calling for massive troop intervention. Instead calling for winning strategy to replace current failure.” Completely dishonest nonsense, and I guess here would be a good time to point out that Bill Kristol has called for 50,000 troops to fight ISIS just yesterday. Yeah, I know it was just a tweet. But this is the trick, even when they’re not limited to a tweet. Just use vague language about winning strategies and being strong not weak without saying what it means.

If forced to be specific, they might say, let’s step up the air war. OK then, let’s step up the air war. But let’s be aware of what it might be inviting. So Obama follows the Republicans’ advice, steps up the air war, and then someday in the near future we have our own Paris. What would they say then? Would they have his back, because, hey, buddy, you took our advice, you tried, now let’s stand together? Please. There would be instant hearings and perhaps even impeachment.

And then there’s the stupid reactionary posture of the presidential candidates who have suggested establishing a religious (i.e. non-Muslim) test for entry into the country, and the governors who have already announced that they won’t be accepting Syrian refugees. In smacking down these people at the press conference, Obama was at his best. “The people fleeing Syria,” he said, “are the most harmed by terrorism.” Duh. To use Paris as an excuse to refuse these people help makes any decent American ashamed.

That’s the Republicans. And the media, with questions like Acosta’s and Allen’s, enable them. The underlying premises of most media coverage of how Obama handles this situation going forward will be simple: hawkish good, dovish bad. That’s how it always goes once this kind of fever takes hold.

That press conference was a disaster. Not for Barack Obama. He did fine. It was a disaster for the press, for America, for the world. The media are going to help push us back into war.

rickyp wrote:fate

Now let me posit an alternate world scenario: Canada has a civil war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees flee south. What would the US do? We'd take them. It would be easy because they understand our culture and it's not dissimilar

You probably aren't aware of the history Fate, but through history Canada has been the recipient of a large number of American refugees. First the United Empire Loyalists, Tories escaping from the revolutionaries who burnt or seized their properties. Then slaves escaping through the underground railway. Then there was a huge influx of draft dodgers in the 1960s.
All were welcomed...
Its unlikely a civil war would break out here. After all we dealt with the Quebec separation issue through democratic means. But that doesn't matter because I can tell you that there are already Canadian refugees in the US. Well, for 6 months a year in Florida, and Arizona. We call them snow birds and they are refugees from the cold. The bitter bitter cold.
And although Canadians are familiar with American culture, and even largely a part of it (where would the American entertainment industry be without Canadians) there are still things that are largely incomprehensible.

bbauska wrote:Danivon, Have you agreed that one of the attackers came from the outside the EU, came into Greece with refugees, went through Serbia and made his way to Paris? His fingerprints were taken at both Greece and Serbia, and found on his body and the passport (which I agree is fake).

What does everyone think of the "Grand Coalition" against ISIS? I would love to see 4 divisions each from Russia, France and the US come in.

Sassenach wrote:

Using the numbers you provided (thank you) 92% of the sea migrants ARE from Syria.

Err.. no. The figures quoted here state that 52% of the sea arrivals are from Syria. This contradicts the Eurostat figure of approximately 20%. Given that fake Syrian passports are available in astonishing numbers, that identity checks have essentially ceased and that every single one of the migrants has a huge incentive to pretend to by Syrian I'd say the real figure is probably about a third.

If a family has been living in Turkey for three years in a refugee centre, imagine what waiting for a chance to settle somewhere is like over that time? Those years are lost years...Imagine how the parents feel about providing for the children's future?
The apparent failure to cope in Europe may be an indictment of the system Sass. But it doesn't change the moral equation.

So the definition of a refugee is now a family which worries about providing a better future ? Seriously ?

I should add btw that harping on about the future of the children and whatnot seems an odd argument to make when we've just established statistically that the vast bulk of the migrants are young males. But let's allow that very pertinent point to slide for the moment and look at your 'moral equation'. If we're really expected to accept anybody as a refugee who is worried about providing for their children's future then why doesn't Canada lay on a whole load of charter flights and ship the entire population of Eritrea across ?