Shots fired in Munich shopping centre?

[rscott]

Northern Munkee said:

rscott said:

Northern Munkee said:

Just heard it reported matter of factly that a Syrian refugee was turned away from a musical festival, now think about that for a moment (making his way to the front of the crowd in front of the stage.... Boom.... But before that, maybe acting suspiciously, or maybe someone turned him away just to be on the safe side, that might be tricky to explain ... So then Detonated his backpack in a restaurant (presumably instead).

And presumably speculating about his motives will also be wrong.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Monday 25th July 07:47

I don't think this was one of the most meticulously planned attacks - they turned him away because he didn't have a ticket..

This individual highlights there's something very wrong with the way Germany is processing refugees - he was denied asylum because he didn't meet their criteria, get couldn't be deported because it wasn't safe for him to go back home... Isn't that normally one of the common reasons for granting asylum - that to be sent back would put their life at risk.

You're not suggesting he blew himself up because he was inept not buying a ticket, and did not intend to go up with (suicide bomber - 72 virgins, etc, etc) and that he was somehow he ought to have been granted asylum.

Oh it's starting to rise the news agenda on BBC now, as the penny drops.

Nope - I can't see where I suggested either of those things. I'm simply saying he was turned away from the concert because he hadn't got a ticket, not that anyone was suspicious of him as had been suggested.

I'm also not saying that he should or shouldn't have been granted asylum - I don't think anyone knows the details of his application. What I am saying is that it seems very odd that they can deny his application because he's not at risk, then not send him back because it's not safe for him to go back.
Surely he should either have been granted asylum or deported once his application was rejected?

[aeropilot]

rscott said:

Surely he should either have been granted asylum or deported once his application was rejected?

You're thinking about this far too logically.....

[Northern Munkee]

rscott said:

Northern Munkee said:

rscott said:

Northern Munkee said:

Just heard it reported matter of factly that a Syrian refugee was turned away from a musical festival, now think about that for a moment (making his way to the front of the crowd in front of the stage.... Boom.... But before that, maybe acting suspiciously, or maybe someone turned him away just to be on the safe side, that might be tricky to explain ... So then Detonated his backpack in a restaurant (presumably instead).

And presumably speculating about his motives will also be wrong.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Monday 25th July 07:47

I don't think this was one of the most meticulously planned attacks - they turned him away because he didn't have a ticket..

This individual highlights there's something very wrong with the way Germany is processing refugees - he was denied asylum because he didn't meet their criteria, get couldn't be deported because it wasn't safe for him to go back home... Isn't that normally one of the common reasons for granting asylum - that to be sent back would put their life at risk.

You're not suggesting he blew himself up because he was inept not buying a ticket, and did not intend to go up with (suicide bomber - 72 virgins, etc, etc) and that he was somehow he ought to have been granted asylum.

Oh it's starting to rise the news agenda on BBC now, as the penny drops.

Nope - I can't see where I suggested either of those things. I'm simply saying he was turned away from the concert because he hadn't got a ticket, not that anyone was suspicious of him as had been suggested.

I'm also not saying that he should or shouldn't have been granted asylum - I don't think anyone knows the details of his application. What I am saying is that it seems very odd that they can deny his application because he's not at risk, then not send him back because it's not safe for him to go back.
Surely he should either have been granted asylum or deported once his application was rejected?

He was not sent back according to a German security expert on BBC,because that it is German policy not to send any failed asylum seekers back into a war zone. I can see the logic of that in isolation. Presumably human rights lawyers would have a field day with trying to deport them to Syria. Of course there's 12 injured people and 100s of lucky people at the festival who might disagree. So if you can get to Germany from ME even when you fail in your asylum application, no matter what ME hell hole you're from, you're going to be able to stay, virtually no matter what risk/how undesirable to the community you are. He also said there's 120,000 refugees they haven't even processed yet, so they have no idea who or what they are.

Can't believe Merkel is going to survive (metaphorically) another election.

[rscott]

Northern Munkee said:

He was not sent back according to a German security expert on BBC,because that it is German policy not to send any failed asylum seekers back into a war zone. I can see the logic of that in isolation. Presumably human rights lawyers would have a field day with trying to deport them to Syria. Of course there's 12 injured people and 100s of lucky people at the festival who might disagree. So if you can get to Germany from ME even when you fail in your asylum application, no matter what ME hell hole you're from, you're going to be able to stay, virtually no matter what risk/how undesirable to the community you are. He also said there's 120,000 refugees they haven't even processed yet, so they have no idea who or what they are.

Can't believe Merkel is going to survive (metaphorically) another election.

If they're not going to send back failed applicants, shouldn't they be held in a vaguely secure environment?
Radio 4 this morning were saying he wasn't even in a holding centre of any kind, but had been given an apartment to live in.

[aeropilot]

rscott said:

Northern Munkee said:

He was not sent back according to a German security expert on BBC,because that it is German policy not to send any failed asylum seekers back into a war zone. I can see the logic of that in isolation. Presumably human rights lawyers would have a field day with trying to deport them to Syria. Of course there's 12 injured people and 100s of lucky people at the festival who might disagree. So if you can get to Germany from ME even when you fail in your asylum application, no matter what ME hell hole you're from, you're going to be able to stay, virtually no matter what risk/how undesirable to the community you are. He also said there's 120,000 refugees they haven't even processed yet, so they have no idea who or what they are.

Can't believe Merkel is going to survive (metaphorically) another election.

If they're not going to send back failed applicants, shouldn't they be held in a vaguely secure environment?

Really......what with Germany's past! The media scum would have a field day if Germany set up any sort of 'secure detention' camp....no matter how sound and sensible the idea.
This is a huge problem for Germany in so many ways.

[Digga]

rscott said:

If they're not going to send back failed applicants, shouldn't they be held in a vaguely secure environment?
Radio 4 this morning were saying he wasn't even in a holding centre of any kind, but had been given an apartment to live in.

You are focusing on just one aspect of an asylum and immigration system that had absolutely no plan for dealing with the volume of traffic it is currently (supposed to be) processing. Neither Germany, nor the EU have much of a plan. Anyone could se that, at some point, there has to be a numerical limit to what is possible or advisable to assimilate.

Even taking IS out of the equation, the common thread in ALL recent, highlighted attacks in Germany is immigration.

[Sam All]

Digga said:

Even taking IS out of the equation, the common thread in ALL recent, highlighted attacks in Germany is immigration.

The big elephant in the room apologists always eager to ignore. If any of the Western leaders had balls, they would put an absolute embargo on all immigration till there is more clarity. Boot out all illegals pronto. Monitor all refugees better.

[T5XARV]

Gas blast ???!!!! Now we have a side-order of misinformation to deal with along with our terrorist threat. Thanks for that.
Summit Meeting urgently required !

My proposal would be to find a remote part of the world that the refugees could colonise. 'Displaced people emerging from the vulgarities of war and famine to begin a new life as a new nation'. A massive World/NATO operation to help these people start again. A kind of I'm a Celebrity/ Bear Grylls type thing.....
We could get Bob Geldof to organise it - 'fk the address, just send us yer fkin money !'..........
......and Ant and Dec to host it !

[dandarez]

Cobnapint said:

Northern Munkee said:

Just heard it reported matter of factly that a Syrian refugee was turned away from a musical festival, now think about that for a moment (making his way to the front of the crowd in front of the stage.... Boom.... But before that, maybe acting suspiciously, or maybe someone turned him away just to be on the safe side, that might be tricky to explain ... So then Detonated his backpack in a restaurant (presumably instead).

Failed asylum seeker, fails to get into concert, bomb (thankfully) fails to detonate properly killing himself and nobody else.

FAIL.

Fail?

No, I wouldn't say fail, I'd say more a simple fact of PURE fkING LUCK!

...this didn't turn out to be a mass killing!

[Oakey]

The BBC's earlier take on it;

http://imgur.com/a/0y9Vs

[dandarez]

Trabi601 said:

Puggit said:

Explosion in a restaurant in Ansbach, one reported dead. Could of course be anything.

"Police suspect gas explosion".

Wrong again Trabi.

Come on, we're missing you. Are you hiding under the sofa this morning?

You now have only 51 posts to reach your 1000 posts goal in 3 months.

Don't let us down!

[Cobnapint]

dandarez said:

Fail?

No, I wouldn't say fail, I'd say more a simple fact of PURE fkING LUCK!

...this didn't turn out to be a mass killing!

Woosh

[MrNoisy]

rscott said:

I don't think this was one of the most meticulously planned attacks - they turned him away because he didn't have a ticket..

This individual highlights there's something very wrong with the way Germany is processing refugees - he was denied asylum because he didn't meet their criteria, get couldn't be deported because it wasn't safe for him to go back home... Isn't that normally one of the common reasons for granting asylum - that to be sent back would put their life at risk.

Planned enough that he had a fairly developed weapon (relatively) ready to go. I suggest the concert was his primary target, when foiled he did what is expected of an insurgent in such circumstances and found the nearest viable target.

Asylum is supposed to be for those who cannot return to their homeland for fear of reprisal, as in, permanently under danger, commonly from the state. The plan here is that hopefully a lot of these folks can return to their homes once it is safe; surely what everyone would want? So it is quite possible to have asylum rejected but it is not currently safe to send him back. As for housing him in a secure compound, well, i'm sure that wouldn't be what anyone would think is humane.

As long as Putin continues to use mass migration as a destabilising weapon against Europe/the West and we continue to be paralysed to act by our own self blame and perceived humanity this will continue. Well it will continue until far right extremism (and no, I don't mean UKIP ffs) rises up and turns this into a de facto civil war/crisis.

All this talk of the West creating this through foreign policy is utter guff. Anyone who thinks that needs to do far more research into the absolute horrific atrocities that are being carried out in the name of Islam by ISIS and also by forces loyal to Assad. The Russian bit has been covered, ask yourself what possible strategic gain there can be by a policy of targeting civilian populations, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc. It is a policy of removing opposition via relocation rather than annihilation. The massive benefit is the destabilising effect in Europe and of course lucrative Russian arms deals plus military basing and regional influence in the Med.

It's not simple of course. The tribal factions interplay, the global powerplay of Russia/a weak USA, local Turkish issues,PKK etc etc it just goes on. An extremely complex and murky situation. Start bringing in the Arab spring, paralysis in the West due to the huge failure that was Bush/Blairs Iraq and the fact that there is no appetite to get bloodied in the ME again following Afghan and surely it is obvious that this is not a simple two sided issue.

I believe that British servicemen and women and for that matter British policy towards the 'current' state of the conflict is a decent one. It is to try to eradicate ISIS and bring some stability for the civilian population and hopefully the region in general. In my opinion it is behoven of the established Muslim Western populations to distance themselves more vocally from these factions in the ME and to align more with the West. Unless that happens, and it should, we will only see matters get worse on Mainland Europe I feel.

[rscott]

MrNoisy said:

rscott said:

I don't think this was one of the most meticulously planned attacks - they turned him away because he didn't have a ticket..

This individual highlights there's something very wrong with the way Germany is processing refugees - he was denied asylum because he didn't meet their criteria, get couldn't be deported because it wasn't safe for him to go back home... Isn't that normally one of the common reasons for granting asylum - that to be sent back would put their life at risk.

Planned enough that he had a fairly developed weapon (relatively) ready to go. I suggest the concert was his primary target, when foiled he did what is expected of an insurgent in such circumstances and found the nearest viable target.

Asylum is supposed to be for those who cannot return to their homeland for fear of reprisal, as in, permanently under danger, commonly from the state. The plan here is that hopefully a lot of these folks can return to their homes once it is safe; surely what everyone would want? So it is quite possible to have asylum rejected but it is not currently safe to send him back. As for housing him in a secure compound, well, i'm sure that wouldn't be what anyone would think is humane.

As long as Putin continues to use mass migration as a destabilising weapon against Europe/the West and we continue to be paralysed to act by our own self blame and perceived humanity this will continue. Well it will continue until far right extremism (and no, I don't mean UKIP ffs) rises up and turns this into a de facto civil war/crisis.

All this talk of the West creating this through foreign policy is utter guff. Anyone who thinks that needs to do far more research into the absolute horrific atrocities that are being carried out in the name of Islam by ISIS and also by forces loyal to Assad. The Russian bit has been covered, ask yourself what possible strategic gain there can be by a policy of targeting civilian populations, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc. It is a policy of removing opposition via relocation rather than annihilation. The massive benefit is the destabilising effect in Europe and of course lucrative Russian arms deals plus military basing and regional influence in the Med.

It's not simple of course. The tribal factions interplay, the global powerplay of Russia/a weak USA, local Turkish issues,PKK etc etc it just goes on. An extremely complex and murky situation. Start bringing in the Arab spring, paralysis in the West due to the huge failure that was Bush/Blairs Iraq and the fact that there is no appetite to get bloodied in the ME again following Afghan and surely it is obvious that this is not a simple two sided issue.

I believe that British servicemen and women and for that matter British policy towards the 'current' state of the conflict is a decent one. It is to try to eradicate ISIS and bring some stability for the civilian population and hopefully the region in general. In my opinion it is behoven of the established Muslim Western populations to distance themselves more vocally from these factions in the ME and to align more with the West. Unless that happens, and it should, we will only see matters get worse on Mainland Europe I feel.

Wouldn't disagree at all with anything you've said there. As for the last paragraph, I'd only add it's also in the West's interests for the mainstream media to highlight the occasions Western Muslims condemn and protest against IS (and the like). Something which doesn't always happen now.

I'd certainly agree with you that the current British policy is about right - no mass acceptance of refugees, but processing in the area to determine those at greatest risk and accepting those only.

[Esseesse]

MrNoisy said:

As long as Putin continues to use mass migration as a destabilising weapon against Europe/the West and we continue to be paralysed to act by our own self blame and perceived humanity this will continue. Well it will continue until far right extremism (and no, I don't mean UKIP ffs) rises up and turns this into a de facto civil war/crisis.

All this talk of the West creating this through foreign policy is utter guff. Anyone who thinks that needs to do far more research into the absolute horrific atrocities that are being carried out in the name of Islam by ISIS and also by forces loyal to Assad. The Russian bit has been covered, ask yourself what possible strategic gain there can be by a policy of targeting civilian populations, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc. It is a policy of removing opposition via relocation rather than annihilation. The massive benefit is the destabilising effect in Europe and of course lucrative Russian arms deals plus military basing and regional influence in the Med.

Who arms ISIS?
Where did you learn that Russia has been targeting civilians/hospitals etc?

[Esseesse]

rscott said:

I'd certainly agree with you that the current British policy is about right - no mass acceptance of refugees, but processing in the area to determine those at greatest risk and accepting those only.

I agree it's better than the rest of Europe, however I think I remember whoever it was that Cameron met in Jordan (King Abdullah?) warned him that they thought that a not insignificant proportion of those in the refugee camps were jihadis.

[MrNoisy]

rscott said:

MrNoisy said:

rscott said:

I don't think this was one of the most meticulously planned attacks - they turned him away because he didn't have a ticket..

This individual highlights there's something very wrong with the way Germany is processing refugees - he was denied asylum because he didn't meet their criteria, get couldn't be deported because it wasn't safe for him to go back home... Isn't that normally one of the common reasons for granting asylum - that to be sent back would put their life at risk.

Planned enough that he had a fairly developed weapon (relatively) ready to go. I suggest the concert was his primary target, when foiled he did what is expected of an insurgent in such circumstances and found the nearest viable target.

Asylum is supposed to be for those who cannot return to their homeland for fear of reprisal, as in, permanently under danger, commonly from the state. The plan here is that hopefully a lot of these folks can return to their homes once it is safe; surely what everyone would want? So it is quite possible to have asylum rejected but it is not currently safe to send him back. As for housing him in a secure compound, well, i'm sure that wouldn't be what anyone would think is humane.

As long as Putin continues to use mass migration as a destabilising weapon against Europe/the West and we continue to be paralysed to act by our own self blame and perceived humanity this will continue. Well it will continue until far right extremism (and no, I don't mean UKIP ffs) rises up and turns this into a de facto civil war/crisis.

All this talk of the West creating this through foreign policy is utter guff. Anyone who thinks that needs to do far more research into the absolute horrific atrocities that are being carried out in the name of Islam by ISIS and also by forces loyal to Assad. The Russian bit has been covered, ask yourself what possible strategic gain there can be by a policy of targeting civilian populations, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc. It is a policy of removing opposition via relocation rather than annihilation. The massive benefit is the destabilising effect in Europe and of course lucrative Russian arms deals plus military basing and regional influence in the Med.

It's not simple of course. The tribal factions interplay, the global powerplay of Russia/a weak USA, local Turkish issues,PKK etc etc it just goes on. An extremely complex and murky situation. Start bringing in the Arab spring, paralysis in the West due to the huge failure that was Bush/Blairs Iraq and the fact that there is no appetite to get bloodied in the ME again following Afghan and surely it is obvious that this is not a simple two sided issue.

I believe that British servicemen and women and for that matter British policy towards the 'current' state of the conflict is a decent one. It is to try to eradicate ISIS and bring some stability for the civilian population and hopefully the region in general. In my opinion it is behoven of the established Muslim Western populations to distance themselves more vocally from these factions in the ME and to align more with the West. Unless that happens, and it should, we will only see matters get worse on Mainland Europe I feel.

Wouldn't disagree at all with anything you've said there. As for the last paragraph, I'd only add it's also in the West's interests for the mainstream media to highlight the occasions Western Muslims condemn and protest against IS (and the like). Something which doesn't always happen now.

I'd certainly agree with you that the current British policy is about right - no mass acceptance of refugees, but processing in the area to determine those at greatest risk and accepting those only.

Thanks for the reply.

We could and should be doing far more imho to give safe haven to people displaced by conflict. We have gone far too far though. Bad things are happening on a regular basis now, add in the fact that our media and possibly governments are purposely spinning this (probably for our own good!) and there is a large undercurrent of blaming ourselves and people will rightly complain. Of course everybody understands they are the tiny minority but the Humans do love a good moral panic!

It is not a position of blame. I do however strongly believe that the mainstream Muslim Western community are the only people that have any hope of putting a lid on this. As for reporting I simply don't know, I would hazard a guess though that the BBC would hack off a testicle to get senior muslim figures on their main bulletins and also would love access to Mosques/Imams throughout the UK. My conclusion can only be that they don't want to be heard or don't wish to speak up that openly? That is where the true conflict of interest lays, that is the true battle line if you like.

[anonymous-user]

chris watton said:

Why do threads like this almost always end up as a pissing contest of who knows more about guns'n'ammo!

This is what irks me. 99.9% of the time they'll be walts who have read too many Tom Clancy novels.

[MrNoisy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...

I can't answer your question ref who arms ISIS. I would suggest it is not as 'coherent' an outfit as you may suspect, very much like AQ weren't, though they probably will align more. I would also hazard a guess that there are large swathes of Syrian and Iraqi forces now loyal to ISIS and iirc in the early days of this they took many military instillations throughout both countries.

My reading suggests that ISIS from the start were a much more formidable foe due to their ex military background, unlike the TB who were a bunch of rag tag freedom fighters in the main.

There is a lot of info out there that opens ones eyes to some of the complexities of this. I assure you I wouldn't be as rude as to suggest this of yourself (or anyone in particular) but most of the arguments I see about this issue are infantile at best. Some of the worst comes from our own MP's sadly who should spend much more time reading upon this issue.

We need to unite more, that hand of unity needs to come from Muslims settled/settling in the West. Don't hold your breath for our leaders to be able to sort this out.

Esseesse said:

MrNoisy said:

As long as Putin continues to use mass migration as a destabilising weapon against Europe/the West and we continue to be paralysed to act by our own self blame and perceived humanity this will continue. Well it will continue until far right extremism (and no, I don't mean UKIP ffs) rises up and turns this into a de facto civil war/crisis.

All this talk of the West creating this through foreign policy is utter guff. Anyone who thinks that needs to do far more research into the absolute horrific atrocities that are being carried out in the name of Islam by ISIS and also by forces loyal to Assad. The Russian bit has been covered, ask yourself what possible strategic gain there can be by a policy of targeting civilian populations, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc. It is a policy of removing opposition via relocation rather than annihilation. The massive benefit is the destabilising effect in Europe and of course lucrative Russian arms deals plus military basing and regional influence in the Med.

Who arms ISIS?
Where did you learn that Russia has been targeting civilians/hospitals etc?

[aeropilot]

MrNoisy said:

All this talk of the West creating this through foreign policy is utter guff.

So you really think we'd be in this situation today if those dumb arse Western politicians hadn't decided to support the removal of Saddam Hussain, Gadaffi and Assad and thereby destabilising most of the region over the past 15 years.