Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

Germany says migrants/refugees coming to Europe can't choose place to live. Also they say there will be border control for migrants.
I guess German government agrees with me.

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in. And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees. I think it's simply about that Sweden is more exotic sounding. Because if I was a refugee I'd go for Germany ever time. Seems awesome.

 

[bilby]

Germany says migrants/refugees coming to Europe can't choose place to live. Also they say there will be border control for migrants.
I guess German government agrees with me.

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in. And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees. I think it's simply about that Sweden is more exotic sounding. Because if I was a refugee I'd go for Germany ever time. Seems awesome.

One word: Abba.

 

[barbos]

Germany says migrants/refugees coming to Europe can't choose place to live. Also they say there will be border control for migrants.
I guess German government agrees with me.

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in.

I know that, but this clearly does not and can not work anymore, not with the amounts of people they are dealing
And Germany is a state in USE (United States of Europe), so technically EU can be treated as one country.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees. I think it's simply about that Sweden is more exotic sounding. Because if I was a refugee I'd go for Germany ever time. Seems awesome.

Sweden seems cold, that's the only thing I have against it. And I don't speak swedish of course.

 

[barbos]

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in. And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees. I think it's simply about that Sweden is more exotic sounding. Because if I was a refugee I'd go for Germany ever time. Seems awesome.

One word: Abba.

I put C.C. Catch against Abba

 

[Jokodo]

Germany says migrants/refugees coming to Europe can't choose place to live. Also they say there will be border control for migrants.
I guess German government agrees with me.

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in.

The UN charter doesn't mention how EU countries should split up refugees among each other. It doesn't mention EU countries at all, among other things because it is an international document, and also because it was written in 1951.

The Dublin III accords, an EU internal document, stipulate that refugees shall seek asylum in the first country which they reach, and can (in principle) be deported back there by other countries. But there are safeguards against that:

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member
State primarily designated as responsible because there are
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws
in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for
applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman
or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the
determining Member State shall continue to examine the
criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether
another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph
to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set
out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the
application was lodged, the determining Member State shall
become the Member State responsible.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled years ago that deportations back to Greece are in violation of this clause (a relevant ruling here: (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-3407679-3824378#{"itemid":["003-3407679-3824378"]} - you'll have to copy-paste the link, there's too many special characters for the forum software to parse it). There's no categorical ruling yet on Hungary, but it's obvious what result such a case would have.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely.<snip>

That's what the Dublin III accord stipulates, yes, but it's not in the Geneve Convention. To the contrary:

The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now it could be argued that, for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the signatories of the Dublin III accord are one country, and preventing refugees from one signatory to another is a necessary restriction to ensure an orderly handling of the original asylum application.

 

[DrZoidberg]

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in.

The UN charter doesn't mention how EU countries should split up refugees among each other. It doesn't mention EU countries at all, among other things because it is an international document, and also because it was written in 1951.

The Dublin III accords, an EU internal document, stipulate that refugees shall seek asylum in the first country which they reach, and can (in principle) be deported back there by other countries. But there are safeguards against that:

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member
State primarily designated as responsible because there are
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws
in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for
applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman
or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the
determining Member State shall continue to examine the
criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether
another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph
to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set
out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the
application was lodged, the determining Member State shall
become the Member State responsible.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled years ago that deportations back to Greece are in violation of this clause (a relevant ruling here: (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-3407679-3824378#{"itemid":["003-3407679-3824378"]} - you'll have to copy-paste the link, there's too many special characters for the forum software to parse it). There's no categorical ruling yet on Hungary, but it's obvious what result such a case would have.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely.<snip>

That's what the Dublin III accord stipulates, yes, but it's not in the Geneve Convention. To the contrary:

The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now it could be argued that, for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the signatories of the Dublin III accord are one country, and preventing refugees from one signatory to another is a necessary restriction to ensure an orderly handling of the original asylum application.

Sure it does. The EU is a club of sovereign states.

 

[Jokodo]

The UN charter doesn't mention how EU countries should split up refugees among each other. It doesn't mention EU countries at all, among other things because it is an international document, and also because it was written in 1951.

The Dublin III accords, an EU internal document, stipulate that refugees shall seek asylum in the first country which they reach, and can (in principle) be deported back there by other countries. But there are safeguards against that:

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member
State primarily designated as responsible because there are
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws
in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for
applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman
or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the
determining Member State shall continue to examine the
criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether
another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph
to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set
out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the
application was lodged, the determining Member State shall
become the Member State responsible.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled years ago that deportations back to Greece are in violation of this clause (a relevant ruling here: (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-3407679-3824378#{"itemid":["003-3407679-3824378"]} - you'll have to copy-paste the link, there's too many special characters for the forum software to parse it). There's no categorical ruling yet on Hungary, but it's obvious what result such a case would have.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely.<snip>

That's what the Dublin III accord stipulates, yes, but it's not in the Geneve Convention. To the contrary:

The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now it could be argued that, for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the signatories of the Dublin III accord are one country, and preventing refugees from one signatory to another is a necessary restriction to ensure an orderly handling of the original asylum application.

Sure it does. The EU is a club of sovereign states.

Which "it" does what?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The UN charter doesn't mention how EU countries should split up refugees among each other. It doesn't mention EU countries at all, among other things because it is an international document, and also because it was written in 1951.

The Dublin III accords, an EU internal document, stipulate that refugees shall seek asylum in the first country which they reach, and can (in principle) be deported back there by other countries. But there are safeguards against that:

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member
State primarily designated as responsible because there are
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws
in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for
applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman
or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the
determining Member State shall continue to examine the
criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether
another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph
to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set
out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the
application was lodged, the determining Member State shall
become the Member State responsible.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled years ago that deportations back to Greece are in violation of this clause (a relevant ruling here: (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-3407679-3824378#{"itemid":["003-3407679-3824378"]} - you'll have to copy-paste the link, there's too many special characters for the forum software to parse it). There's no categorical ruling yet on Hungary, but it's obvious what result such a case would have.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely.<snip>

That's what the Dublin III accord stipulates, yes, but it's not in the Geneve Convention. To the contrary:

The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now it could be argued that, for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the signatories of the Dublin III accord are one country, and preventing refugees from one signatory to another is a necessary restriction to ensure an orderly handling of the original asylum application.

Sure it does. The EU is a club of sovereign states.

Which "it" does what?

The rule is that the first country they report themselves to is the country responsible for taking care of them

 

[Jokodo]

The UN charter doesn't mention how EU countries should split up refugees among each other. It doesn't mention EU countries at all, among other things because it is an international document, and also because it was written in 1951.

The Dublin III accords, an EU internal document, stipulate that refugees shall seek asylum in the first country which they reach, and can (in principle) be deported back there by other countries. But there are safeguards against that:

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member
State primarily designated as responsible because there are
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws
in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for
applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman
or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the
determining Member State shall continue to examine the
criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether
another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph
to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set
out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the
application was lodged, the determining Member State shall
become the Member State responsible.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled years ago that deportations back to Greece are in violation of this clause (a relevant ruling here: (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-3407679-3824378#{"itemid":["003-3407679-3824378"]} - you'll have to copy-paste the link, there's too many special characters for the forum software to parse it). There's no categorical ruling yet on Hungary, but it's obvious what result such a case would have.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely.<snip>

That's what the Dublin III accord stipulates, yes, but it's not in the Geneve Convention. To the contrary:

The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now it could be argued that, for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the signatories of the Dublin III accord are one country, and preventing refugees from one signatory to another is a necessary restriction to ensure an orderly handling of the original asylum application.

Sure it does. The EU is a club of sovereign states.

Which "it" does what?

The rule is that the first country they report themselves to is the country responsible for taking care of them

That's what I said, but that is an EU internal rule (not part of the UN charta, as you falsely claimed), and it comes with safeguards that have forced the ECHR to suspend it for Greece, and it would surely be similarly suspended for Hungary should any member state be silly enough to try deporting refugees back there in the current situation.

Did you even read my post?

 

[TSwizzle]

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in. And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees.

There is nothing weird about it. The "refugees" are well aware of Sweden's generous welfare programs.

 

[Trausti]

Given the UN estimate that 72% of the "refugees" are men, their number pouring into Europe must be well over 100,000. This is much greater (by perhaps 2 to 3 times) any approximation of ISIS's strength. If they just fought back they could bring stability to Syria. But I guess the generous welfare benefits paid by the embarrassingly guilt-ridden Swedish and German gutmensch is too tempting to pass up.

 

[Jokodo]

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in. And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees.

There is nothing weird about it. The "refugees" are well aware of Sweden's generous welfare programs.

Tell me more about Sweden's generous welfare system. How much more does an individual (single, no children) who has never worked in the country receive in Sweden than, say, in Austria or Germany, adjusting for the higher price level? How much more does a family (two adults, three children aged 2, 6, and 8) receive?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is nothing weird about it. The "refugees" are well aware of Sweden's generous welfare programs.

Tell me more about Sweden's generous welfare system. How much more does an individual (single, no children) who has never worked in the country receive in Sweden than, say, in Austria or Germany, adjusting for the higher price level? How much more does a family (two adults, three children aged 2, 6, and 8) receive?

You're forgetting that all Swedish residents get a 15% discount at IKEA stores. That's invaluable when you're a poor refugee looking to furnish an apartment.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UN charter doesn't mention how EU countries should split up refugees among each other. It doesn't mention EU countries at all, among other things because it is an international document, and also because it was written in 1951.

The Dublin III accords, an EU internal document, stipulate that refugees shall seek asylum in the first country which they reach, and can (in principle) be deported back there by other countries. But there are safeguards against that:

Where it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member
State primarily designated as responsible because there are
substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws
in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for
applicants in that Member State, resulting in a risk of inhuman
or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the
determining Member State shall continue to examine the
criteria set out in Chapter III in order to establish whether
another Member State can be designated as responsible.

Where the transfer cannot be made pursuant to this paragraph
to any Member State designated on the basis of the criteria set
out in Chapter III or to the first Member State with which the
application was lodged, the determining Member State shall
become the Member State responsible.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:180:0031:0059:EN:PDF

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled years ago that deportations back to Greece are in violation of this clause (a relevant ruling here: (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-3407679-3824378#{"itemid":["003-3407679-3824378"]} - you'll have to copy-paste the link, there's too many special characters for the forum software to parse it). There's no categorical ruling yet on Hungary, but it's obvious what result such a case would have.

And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely.<snip>

That's what the Dublin III accord stipulates, yes, but it's not in the Geneve Convention. To the contrary:

The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Now it could be argued that, for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the signatories of the Dublin III accord are one country, and preventing refugees from one signatory to another is a necessary restriction to ensure an orderly handling of the original asylum application.

Sure it does. The EU is a club of sovereign states.

Which "it" does what?

The rule is that the first country they report themselves to is the country responsible for taking care of them

That's what I said, but that is an EU internal rule (not part of the UN charta, as you falsely claimed), and it comes with safeguards that have forced the ECHR to suspend it for Greece, and it would surely be similarly suspended for Hungary should any member state be silly enough to try deporting refugees back there in the current situation.

Did you even read my post?

Deporting genuine refugees yes, but economic migrants, not so likely.

 

[TSwizzle]

Given the UN estimate that 72% of the "refugees" are men, their number pouring into Europe must be well over 100,000. This is much greater (by perhaps 2 to 3 times) any approximation of ISIS's strength. If they just fought back they could bring stability to Syria.

To be fair, I don't think it as simple as picking picking up a rifle and joining a militia against ISIS. There are quite a few groups vying for power in Syria, some of them are fighting the Assad government as well as other militias. Switching allegiances seems common depending on which way the wind blows. Syria is a basket case so I can't say I'm surprised at how many would rather just walk away from that mess.

But I guess the generous welfare benefits paid by the embarrassingly guilt-ridden Swedish and German gutmensch is too tempting to pass up.

Yes but not all "refugees" claiming asylum are in fact escaping from the conflict in Syria. A lot of them are just chancers and economic migrants.

 

[Trausti]

Yes but not all "refugees" claiming asylum are in fact escaping from the conflict in Syria. A lot of them are just chancers and economic migrants.

No doubt. And Sweden is El Dorado.

Mr. Haile said he had nothing against Italy. But throughout his ordeal, it was the dream of reaching Scandinavia, famous among migrants for generous welfare and asylum policies, that kept him going.

Sweden, Mr. Haile said, is hardly paradise. He said that people in Sandviken, while rarely hostile, were cool and distant, and that they “only really talk when they are drunk.” He longs to see his son, who was born in Eritrea after he left.

But in many ways, he has achieved the dream that is drawing so many people toward Europe today. He is a registered refugee, attends free language classes provided by the state and receives a monthly living allowance of more than $700.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/world/europe/migrants-europe-lampedusa-sinking.html?_r=0

So how are things working out in the most immigration-friendly country on the planet?

Not so well, says Tino Sanandaji. Mr. Sanandaji is himself an immigrant, a Kurdish-Swedish economist who was born in Iran and moved to Sweden when he was 10. He has a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago and specializes in immigration issues. This week I spoke with him by Skype.

“There has been a lack of integration among non-European refugees,” he told me. Forty-eight per cent of immigrants of working age don’t work, he said. Even after 15 years in Sweden, their employment rates reach only about 60 per cent. Sweden has the biggest employment gap in Europe between natives and non-natives.

Sweden’s generosity costs a fortune, at a time when economic growth is stagnant. The country now spends about $4-billion a year on settling new refugees – up from $1-billion a few years ago, Mr. Sanandaji said. And they keep coming. Sweden automatically accepts unaccompanied minors. “We used to take in 500 unaccompanied minors a year,” he said. “This year we are expecting 12,000.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/swedens-ugly-immigration-problem/article26338254/

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 4097

Given the UN estimate that 72% of the "refugees" are men, their number pouring into Europe must be well over 100,000. This is much greater (by perhaps 2 to 3 times) any approximation of ISIS's strength. If they just fought back they could bring stability to Syria. But I guess the generous welfare benefits paid by the embarrassingly guilt-ridden Swedish and German gutmensch is too tempting to pass up.

While I am generally against mass immigration and cautious with asylum seekers, this whole situation was instigated but the US and some of its European poodles to bring about regime change. The package involved mass destruction, death and injury which are ongoing even now. Perhaps we can consider sending 5 million refugees from Syria to the US. I doubt if all these men are Syrian. Syrians are normally very light and in fact most are indistinguishable from Europeans. Some these in the photo are very dark. My assumption (opinion) is not all are even Arabic). While not 'easy' it is very possible for almost anyone to enter Europe.

My wife wants to visit the UK with me and she has to wait 4 months for a visa despite being married for several years.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, I don't think it as simple as picking picking up a rifle and joining a militia against ISIS. There are quite a few groups vying for power in Syria, some of them are fighting the Assad government as well as other militias. Switching allegiances seems common depending on which way the wind blows. Syria is a basket case so I can't say I'm surprised at how many would rather just walk away from that mess.

But I guess the generous welfare benefits paid by the embarrassingly guilt-ridden Swedish and German gutmensch is too tempting to pass up.

Yes but not all "refugees" claiming asylum are in fact escaping from the conflict in Syria. A lot of them are just chancers and economic migrants.

Assuming they are Syrians, we can propose they could fight but Europe has given them an easy option.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Tell me more about Sweden's generous welfare system. How much more does an individual (single, no children) who has never worked in the country receive in Sweden than, say, in Austria or Germany, adjusting for the higher price level? How much more does a family (two adults, three children aged 2, 6, and 8) receive?

You're forgetting that all Swedish residents get a 15% discount at IKEA stores. That's invaluable when you're a poor refugee looking to furnish an apartment.

Are they making the boat trip just to get cheap furniture?

- - - Updated - - -

Germany says migrants/refugees coming to Europe can't choose place to live. Also they say there will be border control for migrants.
I guess German government agrees with me.

According to the UN charter for refugees they're to be granted asylum in the first EU country they report themselves to the authorities in. And then they're not allowed to travel from that country freely. It's weird though how Sweden is more popular than Germany for refugees. I think it's simply about that Sweden is more exotic sounding. Because if I was a refugee I'd go for Germany ever time. Seems awesome.

The Charter is only as useful to the extent it is applied.
Italy is a first port of call for many but in passing through only..

 

[Jokodo]

No doubt. And Sweden is El Dorado.

According to this page (no English version available, but if your French or Swedish is better than your German, you can replace the last two characters by "fr" or "sv") a singe adult with no claims to unemployment benefits (i.e. who has not worked, or not worked for a sufficiently long period, in the country) can claim 3880,- Swedish Crowns, or € 415,-, plus housing allowance. In Austria, the same adult can claim € 813.99 + housing allowance capped at 203.50.

If people want to go to Sweden, it's because they have personal connections to friends or family already in Sweden, or because they fear Austria is going to deport them back to Hungary. They're not in it for the money (especially not if they're "organised and informed", as some like to claim).

 

[Trausti]

While I am generally against mass immigration and cautious with asylum seekers, this whole situation was instigated but the US and some of its European poodles to bring about regime change. The package involved mass destruction, death and injury which are ongoing even now.

Well, I'll be the contrarian here. Though it's fashionable to blame the West, and in particular the US, for every bad thing that happened ever, using the Syrian crisis to guilt trip the West is a bit tenuous. Modern Syria has been a power keg since it's formation. The majority Sunni Arab population has never quite accepted rule by a non-Sunni Arab political class. Assad, and his Alawite religious brethren, are apostates worthy of death. This religious hatred did not spring anew with the invasion of Iraq, it has been there pretty much forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_Islamic_uprising

Europeans, and the West, should quit playing the fool.