Migrants - Italy making a stand

While I don't subscribe to most of what Raoh is on about, he has a point about western interference with regards to the Arab spring. Many of the groups and leaders in the uprisings were trained and funded in part by the US. Not directly militarily or to push violence, but with the tools (and hope) to foment their own "peaceful" uprisings against their rulers.

Again, if you want just how pernicious the west has influenced the Arab region, I cannot stress enough the need to get the Secret Affair book. As someone who always knew it was bad, I honestly wasn't prepared to realize just how bad. UK authorities - as an example - knew an airport was going to be bombed, that the airport was Rome and they had a window. They didn't tell the Italian Security Services. 29 dead and many more wounded when a bombing was carried out (by people they were pally with, supportive of etc).

Funding and training was also given to many of those involved in the protests in Syria at the beginning of the civil war there, so it's reasonable to assume training may well have been given to some of those in Libya in the hope they used it against Gadaffi and his regime.

They were, in fact, the trend was:
1 - claim to fight for an opposition group and name it (in Syria)
2 - be transported/given support getting to Jordan
3 - be trained by UK SFs and military service personnel
4 - go back to Syria and join ISIS

Now, al-Nusra (effectively al-Qaeda in Syria) is being financed through various back channels by the Saudi government who are laundering money through their network.

The UK does work with multiple terror groups operating out of hostile regions. It gives them safety, sanctuary and support. Lets not forget bin Ladens ARC organization was only one among many operating with impunity out of London. We knew its operation and nature and rather than shut it down, we gave the green light.

Its inconceivable to me how people can think the Libyan situation was nothing to do with the UK/US (and those people do exist)
 
Aside from Benghazi being under threat and it literally being the reason given for the UN resolution in the first place? You're the one suggesting I'm naive and yet when prompted it seems you have nothing to back up your position.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm






Funny that, there doesn't appear to be a pro-Western Leader - the country is a bit of a mess now really... Gaddafi had started making peace with the west before he decided massacring civilians was an appropriate response to protests/descent. I don't doubt that the West have found it useful to get rid of him in the end he is a dictator after all (you'll find if you look at the state department communications on Wikileaks for example that, for example, US diplomats in the region were doing pretty much what they purport to do publicly - promoting democracy, human rights etc..) but it certainly wasn't preferable for what actually happened to happen... Obama stalled when it came to intervening and it was only when it became critical that he decided to do so and that was heavily influenced by the threat of a massacre occurring in Benghazi.

What, some bs document that they are invading due to safeguarding civilians is the real reason? It's just a excuse to intervene for there own nefarious reasons.

When civilians are massacred elsewhere, there is no UN resolution or anything.

It seems it's convenient to use these resolutions against Arab dictators.
 
What, some bs document that they are invading due to safeguarding civilians is the real reason? It's just a excuse to intervene for there own nefarious reasons.

When civilians are massacred elsewhere, there is no UN resolution or anything.

It seems it's convenient to use these resolutions against Arab dictators.

Some peeps on the security council love to use there veto to block UN resolutions and mandates to send in peace keepers
 
What, some bs document that they are invading due to safeguarding civilians is the real reason? It's just a excuse to intervene for there own nefarious reasons.

When civilians are massacred elsewhere, there is no UN resolution or anything.

It seems it's convenient to use these resolutions against Arab dictators.

So I'll try again, what evidence do you have? Is this just a general distrust of the West and your own preconceived ideas of Western leaders? It just seems a bit rich that you're calling me naive for pointing out that the intervention was motivated by wanting to prevent the massacred of civilians yet you've got nothing to the contrary - when asked for evidence you have nothing and when presented with evidence you call it "some bs document" etc...
 
So I'll try again, what evidence do you have? Is this just a general distrust of the West and your own preconceived ideas of Western leaders? It just seems a bit rich that you're calling me naive for pointing out that the intervention was motivated by wanting to prevent the massacred of civilians yet you've got nothing to the contrary - when asked for evidence you have nothing and when presented with evidence you call it "some bs document" etc...

You didn't even read the governments own report did ya. ٩(◕‿◕。)۶

Doesn't fit the narrative right.
 
Again, if you want just how pernicious the west has influenced the Arab region, I cannot stress enough the need to get the Secret Affair book. As someone who always knew it was bad, I honestly wasn't prepared to realize just how bad. UK authorities - as an example - knew an airport was going to be bombed, that the airport was Rome and they had a window. They didn't tell the Italian Security Services. 29 dead and many more wounded when a bombing was carried out (by people they were pally with, supportive of etc).



They were, in fact, the trend was:
1 - claim to fight for an opposition group and name it (in Syria)
2 - be transported/given support getting to Jordan
3 - be trained by UK SFs and military service personnel
4 - go back to Syria and join ISIS

Now, al-Nusra (effectively al-Qaeda in Syria) is being financed through various back channels by the Saudi government who are laundering money through their network.

The UK does work with multiple terror groups operating out of hostile regions. It gives them safety, sanctuary and support. Lets not forget bin Ladens ARC organization was only one among many operating with impunity out of London. We knew its operation and nature and rather than shut it down, we gave the green light.

Its inconceivable to me how people can think the Libyan situation was nothing to do with the UK/US (and those people do exist)

I was talking about prior to the uprisings, not during the civil war, where its pretty widely known we helped train various fighters etc.
 
I was talking about prior to the uprisings, not during the civil war, where its pretty widely known we helped train various fighters etc.

You think we haven't been keeping them nice and safe prior to the war? As Rogal Dorn said about his psykers locked in a deep prison at the heart of the Phalanx : "They are right where they need to be" (1 cookie for anyone who knows the book!)
 
A highly unusual and very short notice meeting has been convened, Merkel is obviously seriously rattled now.

I love the way they throw in these figures quite casually, I mean, yep nigh on a million unprocessed claims for asylum *IS* err, a bit high and could take a day or two, while yet more continue to pour in....:

"the asylum backlog remains high with 954,100 claims outstanding. This highlights the need to overhaul and speed up the claims process and improve the ability for the EU to return failed asylum seekers to their home countries".


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

05:54, UK, Thursday 21 June 2018
Leaders given four days' notice for emergency European Commission summit on migration

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker announces an "informal working meeting" to discuss migration and asylum.
By Mark Stone, Europe correspondent

An emergency meeting of key European leaders has been convened in Brussels this Sunday to discuss migration at the request of Germany.

In a highly unusual move, the European Commission is organising the "informal working meeting" with just four days' notice.

Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced the meeting in a tweet, saying: "I am convening an informal working meeting on migration and asylum issues in Brussels on Sunday in order to work with a group of heads of state or governments of member states interested in finding European solutions ahead of the upcoming European Council."

The leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Bulgaria, Spain and Malta have all been invited to attend the meeting which comes just four days ahead of the June European Council summit at which migration will be a key focus.

In a sign of tensions around the migration issue, Sky News understands that the German government first suggested holding the meeting in Berlin but some other countries objected.

The European Council, which would be the appropriate forum for leaders to convene, was then asked to organise the meeting but president Donald Tusk is known not to favour hosting mini-summits with select groups of nations and rejected the idea. The European Commission then stepped in.

The migration issue has caused renewed and deep divisions between European governments and even within national coalitions.

The latest crisic was brought into focus both by political conflict in Germany and after the new Italian government turned away a boat packed with 630 migrants rescued in dinghies off the coast of Libya 10 days ago.

The Aquarius was denied a safe port to dock in by the Italians and the Maltese. It eventually docked in the Spanish port of Valencia on Sunday.
Aid workers are helping migrants on the Aquarius rescue boat. Pic: SOS Mediterranee
Image: Issues surrounding the Aquarius rescue boat are likely to be discussed at the meeting. Pic: SOS Mediterranee

In Germany, Angela Merkel's interior minister Horst Seehofer threatened to defy her by closing German borders to migrants who had already registered in another EU country.

Given that all migrants arrive in either Greece, Italy or Spain and register there, this move would mean those three countries agreeing to take them back.

Mrs Merkel agreed with Mr Seehofer that she would secure EU-wide agreement within two weeks on how his demand could be achieved. The issue will be a key focus for the Sunday crisis talks.

They will centre on how to overhaul the EU's asylum system which requires all migrants arriving in the EU to register and claim asylum in the country where they arrive.

This has put huge strain on the bloc's frontier countries - Italy, Greece and Spain. They have called, in vain, for other EU states to share the burden.

If the German chancellor fails to secure agreement on the issue, Mr Seehoffer, whose CSU Party is a key part of her coalition, has said he will act unilaterally.

She would then have little option but to fire him which could bring down the German government.

Although the issue is now highly politicised, ironically the migratory pressures are now far less acute than they were at the height of the crisis in 2015.

Figures released this week by Eurostat show that there were 739,000 asylum applications made across the EU in 2017. That represents a 44% drop on the previous year.

However the asylum backlog remains high with 954,100 claims outstanding. This highlights the need to overhaul and speed up the claims process and improve the ability for the EU to return failed asylum seekers to their home countries.

Controversial deals with Turkey and Libya have reduced the number of people trying to cross into Europe over the Mediterranean.
 
0_C5_B97_C4-2_BA0-4_DC2-82_CC-_E06_B6_F08_E41_B.png


Yep, as your quote pointed out, asylum claims have dropped significantly from their highs in 15/16. That should mean the processing time should speed up significantly. That means the high number is likely not as bad as it initially sounds.

The issue is some German politicians want to re-enforce the first country rule (have to claim asylum in the first country they arrive), while those countries (like Italy) want more countries to share their burden. That’s basically the reason Merkel “opened the doors” in the first place, so I highly doubt anything useful will come of the meeting. All the non first arrival countries want it to be someone else’s problem, while the first arrival countries want help...

Edit: And so far every country the EU has approached about an offshore processing centre have refused, with Tunisia pointing out that they are already having to deal with a refugee problem themselves because of the EUs action in Libya.

Tahar Cherif, the Tunisian ambassador to the EU said: The proposal was put to the head of our government a few months ago during a visit to Germany, it was also asked by Italy, and the answer is clear: no!

“We have neither the capacity nor the means to organise these detention centres. We are already suffering a lot from what is happening in Libya, which has been the effect of European action.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-country-has-agreed-to-host-migration-centre
 
Last edited:
If the German chancellor fails to secure agreement on the issue, Mr Seehoffer, whose CSU Party is a key part of her coalition, has said he will act unilaterally.

She would then have little option but to fire him which could bring down the German government.

Although the issue is now highly politicised, ironically the migratory pressures are now far less acute than they were at the height of the crisis in 2015.

Figures released this week by Eurostat show that there were 739,000 asylum applications made across the EU in 2017. That represents a 44% drop on the previous year.

However the asylum backlog remains high with 954,100 claims outstanding. This highlights the need to overhaul and speed up the claims process and improve the ability for the EU to return failed asylum seekers to their home countries.

Controversial deals with Turkey and Libya have reduced the number of people trying to cross into Europe over the Mediterranean.

problem is the damage has already been done among the voters... voters have swung to the right a bit the AfD increased in popularity and in response Merkel's Bavarian CSU partners have shifted to the right and started mimicking AFD rhetoric on the migrants in order to recover.. Merkel now has this demand from the CSU as a result.
 
Seems America is making a stand now too, the President is now victorious over the travel ban saga.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the Trump administration's travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries.

Lower courts had deemed the ban unconstitutional, but the US top court has reversed this decision in a 5-4 ruling announced on Tuesday.

The ban prohibits most people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen from entering the US.

The court's reversal is viewed as a victory for the Trump administration.
 
Back
Top Bottom