Is it right for the media to use images of refugee tragedy?

[Batman]

I was thinking the very same thing about South America.

 

Brazil, India, Canada, USA.....

[hypochondriac]

Exactly, but the difference with the UK is how much the population is focused on England, particularly the South and East, not Scotland or North Wales for example.

 

The books really interesting actually. It predicts what is going to happen in the next century. Essentially says we will revert back to somethibg like the 19th century once the oil runs out. The wealthy will control the food and most. People won't give a toss about voting because they will be preoccupied with having enough to eat and surviving. The author questions the pledge for more housing since he says it's farmland we will need for bio fuel and sustainable energy in the next century and we will see much fewer houses not more. We should really be looking to house share now and restore farmland to make sure we are more sustainable as a country. Isn't going to happen though...

 

Overall a very good book abd makes you realise that all this fighting over immigrants is largely pointless. We will all be pretty fooked in about 90 years time and it's kind of inevitable. We are lucky to be born now because no other generations will ever have more than we currently have.

[bungle]

And all those millions of people that have their wages diluted due to huge increase in completion? And the effect on demand for housing, land, infrastructure? And the cultural takeover of areas? All easy to dismiss sat in an out of touch academic ivory tower.

 

Well, I'm not an academic. In fact, I live in Cardiff - an incredibly ethnically diverse city, home of the first Mosque built in the UK. I've lived in Bath and Dorset prior, both places that have a lack of ethnic diversity.

 

Years of underinvestment in national infrastructure (in particular in relation to housing) are nothing to do with immigration - and more to do with bad government. While, as I highlighted, there might be wage pressure among unskilled workers (which I would tackle with better education), increased immigration is likely to drive up standards of living for almost everyone and will make us better off as a nation. The only argument for reducing it, is if you personally want to be poorer, you want everyone to be poorer and you want reduced public services.

[hypochondriac]

What the earth really needs is some sort of big illness or catastrophe to get some of the population under control. Sounds awful but we are overdue something like that and the human race is pretty much a disease for the planet.

[buctootim]

What the earth really needs is some sort of big illness or catastrophe to get some of the population under control. Sounds awful but we are overdue something like that and the human race is pretty much a disease for the planet.

 

That's the root of it unfortunately. There were 5 million of us in total 5,000 years ago, now we add that number every month.

[holepuncture]

Two petitions running:

 

Stop allowing immigrants into the UK (Expires 26th Feb):

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106477

 

Accept more asylum seekers and increase support for refugee migrants in the UK (Expires 13th Feb):

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105991

[Verbal]

What the earth really needs is some sort of big illness or catastrophe to get some of the population under control. Sounds awful but we are overdue something like that and the human race is pretty much a disease for the planet.

 

This thread has become like a game of Mornington Crescent for racist dipsticks. The game is: who can say the most outrageous, thoughtless, hate-filled thing and pass it off as considered thought suitable for the wasp-chewing wiseacres on here.

 

So as you're the advocate of yet more death and pestilence for people, I declare you the winner. It's been a tough fight though, because the other pack hunters in the dipstick club - SM, WG, SiP - have given you a good run for your money.

 

Well done!

[buctootim]

This thread has become like a game of Mornington Crescent for racist dipsticks. The game is: who can say the most outrageous, thoughtless, hate-filled thing and pass it off as considered thought suitable for the wasp-chewing wiseacres on here.

 

So as you're the advocate of yet more death and pestilence for people, I declare you the winner. It's been a tough fight though, because the other pack hunters in the dipstick club - SM, WG, SiP - have given you a good run for your money.

 

Well done!

 

Surely you must accept there is some stop point - where individual rights to do as you want clash with the global reality of fixed land for food production and fresh water? In many countries around the world we have exhausted surface fresh water and are now pumping groundwater which took thousands of years to accumulate and will be exhausted in decades. Those Spanish tomatoes and grapes you eat, mainly gone in 20 years. California has the same problem.

 

There were 2.5bn people in 1950 and will likely be 10bn by 2050. Massive population growth, climate change and finite natural resources (arable land, freshwater, wood for fuel) will cause a car crash within the next 100 years.

Edited 7 September, 2015 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

This thread has become like a game of Mornington Crescent for racist dipsticks. The game is: who can say the most outrageous, thoughtless, hate-filled thing and pass it off as considered thought suitable for the wasp-chewing wiseacres on here.

 

So as you're the advocate of yet more death and pestilence for people, I declare you the winner. It's been a tough fight though, because the other pack hunters in the dipstick club - SM, WG, SiP - have given you a good run for your money.

 

Well done!

 

It's what the earth need to survive, not what I'm wishing for dummy.

[Sour Mash]

Well, I'm not an academic. In fact, I live in Cardiff - an incredibly ethnically diverse city, home of the first Mosque built in the UK. I've lived in Bath and Dorset prior, both places that have a lack of ethnic diversity.

 

Years of underinvestment in national infrastructure (in particular in relation to housing) are nothing to do with immigration - and more to do with bad government. While, as I highlighted, there might be wage pressure among unskilled workers (which I would tackle with better education), increased immigration is likely to drive up standards of living for almost everyone and will make us better off as a nation. The only argument for reducing it, is if you personally want to be poorer, you want everyone to be poorer and you want reduced public services.

 

Cardiff doesn't have anywhere near the problems large chunks of England have.

 

I'm still unclear what you're proposing - Completely unlimited, uncontrolled immigration?

 

And the building of housing and associated infrastructure for a million extra people every few years?

[hypochondriac]

The fact is we already don't have enough resources for the current population to keep their lifestyles now and it's only going to get worse. The situation can't continue and I would imagine we will return to the life quality of previous centuries for many, short of some kind of incident that causes mass death as I previously mentioned.

[Whitey Grandad]

Well, I'm not an academic. In fact, I live in Cardiff - an incredibly ethnically diverse city, home of the first Mosque built in the UK. I've lived in Bath and Dorset prior, both places that have a lack of ethnic diversity.

 

Years of underinvestment in national infrastructure (in particular in relation to housing) are nothing to do with immigration - and more to do with bad government. While, as I highlighted, there might be wage pressure among unskilled workers (which I would tackle with better education), increased immigration is likely to drive up standards of living for almost everyone and will make us better off as a nation. The only argument for reducing it, is if you personally want to be poorer, you want everyone to be poorer and you want reduced public services.

 

'a lack of ethnic diversit'. A revealing choice of words. Why should everywhere have an ethnic diversity? You'll be calling us 'hideously white' next.

 

Nothing to do with bad government and all to do with lack of money and increasing demand. Can you not see that if we had not had the ten million extra inhabitants that have arrived over the recent past then there would be plentiful housing?

 

'increased immigration is likely to drive up standards of living for almost everyone'. I haven't got a clue as to what might possibly make you think that. I know of no circumstances where an increased population using the same resources can lead to better living standards, quite the reverse.

[Whitey Grandad]

What the earth really needs is some sort of big illness or catastrophe to get some of the population under control. Sounds awful but we are overdue something like that and the human race is pretty much a disease for the planet.

 

In the past wars have performed this role.

[Wes Tender]

Years of underinvestment in national infrastructure (in particular in relation to housing) are nothing to do with immigration - and more to do with bad government. While, as I highlighted, there might be wage pressure among unskilled workers (which I would tackle with better education), increased immigration is likely to drive up standards of living for almost everyone and will make us better off as a nation. The only argument for reducing it, is if you personally want to be poorer, you want everyone to be poorer and you want reduced public services.

 

I would be interested to read your justification for your assertion that if we invite in increased immigrant numbers, living standards will be driven up and if we reduced immigrant numbers they would fall. Presumably by your logic, the higher the number of immigrants, the higher will be the rise in the living standards of almost everybody, apart from the unskilled workers. And it also sounds as if you infer that public services would decline if fewer immigrants were admitted, whereas I would have thought that a huge influx of immigrants would have necessitated massive increases in demand for them.

 

Undoubtedly the case could be argued that living standards here would increase if we were able to choose which skilled immigrants we allowed in, but unless we have control over our own borders, we are not in any position to lay down these sorts of parameters.

 

I'm pleased to see though that St.Alex has an ally in blaming former governments for not having the foresight to create the increased housing to accommodate all of these EU economic migrants and the refugee victims of strife in the Middle East

[mightysaints]

If you are already living here and paid tax and NI all your life and say need expensive cancer care but it is being refused on the grounds of expense you are not going to be happy that the funds are going to be put aside for the migrants. In the end of the day its dog eat dog whether we like it or not.

Its about time the West said to the Arab states, its your mess and you deal with it. I know many we say we created this mess but we cant keep continuing to clear up the middle east. East and West will never get on to much difference with ideologies

[benjii]

Reasonably interesting piece from Robert Peston on why Germany has a particular need for a growth in its younger workforce:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729

 

An excerpt:

 

"So in Germany, age-related spending on pensions, health and long-term care is expected to rise by a hefty five percentage points of GDP or national income by 2060, more than double the projected 2.3% increase anticipated for the UK.

Here is the thing. Wherever you stand in the debate on whether immigration is a good or bad thing - and most economists would argue that immigration promotes growth - right now immigration looks much more economically useful to Germany than to the UK.

Which is perhaps one of the unspoken reasons why Germany is being much more welcoming to asylum seekers from Syria and elsewhere right now.

That said, some business leaders and a couple of Tory ministers gave me what can only be described as an off-message critique of David Cameron's approach to the migrant crisis over the weekend.

They said that Angela Merkel is creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those that have shown the gumption and initiative to risk life and limb by fleeing to Europe.

Precedent suggests they will be the ones that find work fastest and impose the least economic burden on Germany or any other host country.

By contrast, David Cameron appears to be doing what many would see as the more morally admirable thing - which is to go to the Syrian camps and invite children and the most vulnerable of refugees to Britain."

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

Well, I'm not an academic. In fact, I live in Cardiff - an incredibly ethnically diverse city, home of the first Mosque built in the UK. I've lived in Bath and Dorset prior, both places that have a lack of ethnic diversity.

 

Years of underinvestment in national infrastructure (in particular in relation to housing) are nothing to do with immigration - and more to do with bad government. While, as I highlighted, there might be wage pressure among unskilled workers (which I would tackle with better education), increased immigration is likely to drive up standards of living for almost everyone and will make us better off as a nation. The only argument for reducing it, is if you personally want to be poorer, you want everyone to be poorer and you want reduced public services.

Ferk Me! You sound like a Labour Spin doctor. Because there is no Diversity in parts of the country, we must wipe out this non diversified (english) community. So you can feel good about yourself ,and can sleep well at night. English Heritage be blowed!!! Edited 7 September, 2015 by SOTONS EAST SIDE

[Lord Duckhunter]

There's more diversity in this part of Dorset than in most Muslim countries Bungle. We even allow homosexuality.

[bridge too far]

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-34176631

[LGTL]

The books really interesting actually. It predicts what is going to happen in the next century. Essentially says we will revert back to somethibg like the 19th century once the oil runs out. The wealthy will control the food and most. People won't give a toss about voting because they will be preoccupied with having enough to eat and surviving. The author questions the pledge for more housing since he says it's farmland we will need for bio fuel and sustainable energy in the next century and we will see much fewer houses not more. We should really be looking to house share now and restore farmland to make sure we are more sustainable as a country. Isn't going to happen though...

 

Overall a very good book abd makes you realise that all this fighting over immigrants is largely pointless. We will all be pretty fooked in about 90 years time and it's kind of inevitable. We are lucky to be born now because no other generations will ever have more than we currently have.

 

The oil won't run out anytime soon, certainly not in the next century. Fracking will make sure of that.

 

There is more oil being found then they know what to do with.

[hypochondriac]

The oil won't run out anytime soon, certainly not in the next century. Fracking will make sure of that.

 

There is more oil being found then they know what to do with.

 

Will certainly become more scarce which will push prices up and probably lead to restrictions.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

There have been some pretty doom laden views expressed on here lately, from a (claimed) ever poorer future for our children to what appears to be a call for mass culling of Humanity! I for one however am far from convinced that we as a species are nearly as 'screwed' as some would have you believe.

 

One of the ironies of the world today is that most people get the impression that things are getting worse and worse while the truth is that for the majority of people on the planet life is actually getting better - and quite significantly better for many. Worldwide poverty and death rates are plummeting while many major diseases (like tetanus and polio) have nearly been eliminated. Malaria, the disease that has killed more people than any other throughout history, is in steep decline because of medical advances and the splendid efforts of international organisations such as the World Health Organisation. Despite the rise of ISIS war related deaths have actually been declining since World War II ended and that decline continued after the Cold War eliminated most communist governments in 1991.

 

But if the 'big picture' then for humanity is not nearly as bleak a some say then why do most people think otherwise? You can place much of the blame for this pervasive sense of doom on the mass media and their most effective marketing tool; FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). We are saturated with news - both via the traditional media and now the Internet - and all this good news about the modern world is drowned in a veritable torrent of head line grabbing despair. Good news just isn't 'news' as those who set the news agenda see it - it certainly won't make you money or get you noticed.

 

So bugger off SWF doom mongers - Humanities manifest tendency towards violence and self-destruction can be matched I think, and then overcome perhaps one fine day, by our innate ability for cooperation, compassion and inventiveness. That's the future I prefer to believe in anyway.

Edited 7 September, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[aintforever]

Will certainly become more scarce which will push prices up and probably lead to restrictions.

 

How's that prediction any different to Malthus predicting that in under 60 years time every street in London would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure?

 

Fact is there is more than enough room and resources on the planet for billions more, the problem is the greedy and tribal nature of humans. We can see in this whole asylum debate that some people would rather watch other people die than be slightly poorer.

[hypochondriac]

How's that prediction any different to Malthus predicting that in under 60 years time every street in London would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure?

 

Fact is there is more than enough room and resources on the planet for billions more, the problem is the greedy and tribal nature of humans. We can see in this whole asylum debate that some people would rather watch other people die than be slightly poorer.

 

That's where you are wrong. There is only loads more room if everyone significantly alters their current lifestyle and rate of consumption. The primary reason for the change over the last two centuries is due to an anomalous windfall of energy and many of these changes will undoubtedly be reversed at some point in the future as resources are depleted. It is thus highly likely that society will see an even greater set of social changes than those of the last two centuries and we will probably see a more hierarchical society again with the general standard of living showing a downward curve and the wealthy gaining more power.

 

Modern technologies (if they are adopted quickly enough) will no doubt be able to support sizable populations without fossil fuels if everyone is organised enough but they won't be able to provide everyone with our current standards of living as we do now.

 

I read up on this a while ago and the German scientist Paul Ehrlich recently pointed out that to support todays population of seven billion sustainably would require half an additional planet and to do so with all citizens consuming at the rate of a typical American, we would need three or four abd that's before you take into account the population explosion which is still going on.

 

To suggest otherwise is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and putting your head in the sand.

Edited 7 September, 2015 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

And in case anyone misunderstood what I said earlier, I was referring to the human race which kills the earth not migrants. Our population is too numerous and eventually somethibg will happen to address that. Let's hope it's the least painful option...

[Jonnyboy]

That's where you are wrong. There is only loads more room if everyone significantly alters their current lifestyle and rate of consumption. The primary reason for the change over the last two centuries is due to an anomalous windfall of energy and many of these changes will undoubtedly be reversed at some point in the future as resources are depleted. It is thus highly likely that society will see an even greater set of social changes than those of the last two centuries and we will probably see a more hierarchical society again with the general standard of living showing a downward curve and the wealthy gaining more power.

 

Modern technologies (if they are adopted quickly enough) will no doubt be able to support sizable populations without fossil fuels if everyone is organised enough but they won't be able to provide everyone with our current standards of living as we do now.

 

I read up on this a while ago and the German scientist Paul Ehrlich recently pointed out that to support todays population of seven billion sustainably would require half an additional planet and to do so with all citizens consuming at the rate of a typical American, we would need three or four abd that's before you take into account the population explosion which is still going on.

 

To suggest otherwise is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and putting your head in the sand.

 

So what steps have you taken to reduce your impact on the planet?

[hypochondriac]

So what steps have you taken to reduce your impact on the planet?

 

Nothing at all really. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. It's human nature. If world governments had any sense they would make proper safeguards for the future but it won't win elections so it won't happen.

Edited 7 September, 2015 by hypochondriac

[Jonnyboy]

Nothing at all really. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. It's human nature. If world governments had any sense they would make proper safeguards for the future but it won't win elections so it won't happen.

 

So your reason for not wanting any refugees here is that they are a symptom of a world you help create.

[CB Fry]

So what steps have you taken to reduce your impact on the planet?

 

Nothing at all really. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. It's human nature. If world governments had any sense they would make proper safeguards for the future but it won't win elections so it won't happen.

I've started composting my old tea bags and veg peelings recently. I've done my bit so all refugees can suck my balls.

[trousers]

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/dont-make-a-moral-melodrama-out-of-the-migrant-crisis/17409#.Ve3wsZeMSB0

[hypochondriac]

So your reason for not wanting any refugees here is that they are a symptom of a world you help create.

 

What on earth are you talking about not wanting refugees here? I didn't say that.

[hypochondriac]

It's very difficult. It's much too simplistic to dismiss people as callous if they question the wisdom of giving all asylum seekers asylum. I think everyone agrees that that photo is awful. The problem we have is that if we collectively agreed to take them all, it would send a message out to all those still abroad to come and try their luck. I have no doubt that many are fleeing war then Syria but there will also be a number of economic migrants trying it on and attempting to take advantage. I'm not sure what the answer is but letting everyone in will just encourage loads more to try.

 

Just so people can't misquote me and think I was opposing migrants here is what I said in this thread originally. I actually think the strategy of taking those from Syria rather than encouraging others to take the dangerous trip here is the correct one.

[aintforever]

That's where you are wrong. There is only loads more room if everyone significantly alters their current lifestyle and rate of consumption. The primary reason for the change over the last two centuries is due to an anomalous windfall of energy and many of these changes will undoubtedly be reversed at some point in the future as resources are depleted. It is thus highly likely that society will see an even greater set of social changes than those of the last two centuries and we will probably see a more hierarchical society again with the general standard of living showing a downward curve and the wealthy gaining more power.

 

Modern technologies (if they are adopted quickly enough) will no doubt be able to support sizable populations without fossil fuels if everyone is organised enough but they won't be able to provide everyone with our current standards of living as we do now.

 

I read up on this a while ago and the German scientist Paul Ehrlich recently pointed out that to support todays population of seven billion sustainably would require half an additional planet and to do so with all citizens consuming at the rate of a typical American, we would need three or four abd that's before you take into account the population explosion which is still going on.

 

To suggest otherwise is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and putting your head in the sand.

 

But you and I, just like Malthus, have no idea what technological advances are around the corner, fossil fuels of every type might pay no part in energy production at some point in the future.

[Jonnyboy]

Just so people can't misquote me and think I was opposing migrants here is what I said in this thread originally. I actually think the strategy of taking those from Syria rather than encouraging others to take the dangerous trip here is the correct one.

 

I think after 3 years+ of war they're a bit tired of waiting for the visa form to come back in the post.

 

[Verbal]

Nothing at all really. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. It's human nature. If world governments had any sense they would make proper safeguards for the future but it won't win elections so it won't happen.

 

You do realise that on your own logic you should top yourself - to save the Earth, like.

[hypochondriac]

You do realise that on your own logic you should top yourself - to save the Earth, like.

 

That's an idiotic conclusion.

[Ludwig]

The interesting thing about those who say there are too many people in the world is that they never identify themselves as the superfluous ones.

[buctootim]

The interesting thing about those who say there are too many people in the world is that they never identify themselves as the superfluous ones.

 

Awesome. A thread winning A bomb of brilliance.

[Ludwig]

Awesome. A thread winning A bomb of brilliance.

 

Your "thread winning" comment pretty much sums up why you can't have a discussion or debate on here anymore. You're too busy trying to score points. I'm not trying to "win" the thread. I take it you're upset because I dared to point out that your "facts" about population density were wrong (or possibly wrong)?

[JRM]

"I am happy that Germany has become a country that many people outside of Germany now associate with hope. This is something to cherish when you look back at our history"

 

A direct quote there from Angela Merkel speaking yesterday.

 

And there we have it, a guilt conscience cleansing exercise by Germany to right some of their wrongs , an expensive PR project.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

If the horrors of their collective past has led the German people to develop a more humane and compassionate 'body politic' then that surely is a good thing and not much of a cause for criticism.

 

Indeed, it takes a special type of cynicism I think to conflate what appears to be a perfectly genuine concern with the welfare of your fellow Human Beings with some venal ''PR project''.

[colehillsaint]

"I am happy that Germany has become a country that many people outside of Germany now associate with hope. This is something to cherish when you look back at our history"

 

A direct quote there from Angela Merkel speaking yesterday.

 

And there we have it, a guilt conscience cleansing exercise by Germany to right some of their wrongs , an expensive PR project.

 

Just seems like a very eloquent and statesmanlike thing to say. I wish some of our politicians could delineate right and wrong like that, instead of sounding like they have a vox pop jack lead shoved up there arse.

[Sour Mash]

What Merkel really meant was "We're stuck with these people now that have fled the horrors of Hungary and Greece, so look at how great we are, can the Holocaust be forgotten now, thanks"

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What Merkel really meant was "We're stuck with these people now that have fled the horrors of Hungary and Greece, so look at how great we are, can the Holocaust be forgotten now, thanks"

 

If modern Germany is really so very obsessed with portraying itself as Europe's 'Mr Nice Guy' then how do you explain the hard-line (and extremely unpopular with many) approach they took to the recent Greek debt crisis?

 

Could it be that there are multiple forces at play here and the situation is not quite as simple a one as you think it?

[Sour Mash]

If modern Germany is really so very obsessed with portraying itself as Europe's 'Mr Nice Guy' then how do you explain the hard-line (and extremely unpopular with many) approach they took to the recent Greek debt crisis?

 

Could it be that there are multiple forces at play here and the situation is not quite as simple a one as you think it?

I didn't say Germany was "so very obsessed with portraying itself as Europe's 'Mr Nice Guy'". They're stuck with these people and so are trying to spin it as best they can, its what politicians do. Merkel has rattled on for ages about other countries taking their "fair share", as that falls on deaf ears, she has no choice but to deal with the situation the best she can.

[SuperMikey]

I didn't say Germany was "so very obsessed with portraying itself as Europe's 'Mr Nice Guy'". They're stuck with these people and so are trying to spin it as best they can, its what politicians do. Merkel has rattled on for ages about other countries taking their "fair share", as that falls on deaf ears, she has no choice but to deal with the situation the best she can.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729

 

Stuck with the labour force required to help support their ageing population - which will see 60% of the population be aged 65+ by 2060? Those German idiots, they're stuck with them now.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729

 

Stuck with the labour force required to help support their ageing population - which will see 60% of the population be aged 65+ by 2060? Those German idiots, they're stuck with them now.

 

That's a giant Ponzi scheme. In time these younger contributors will get old and need supporting themselves.

[Sour Mash]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34172729

 

Stuck with the labour force required to help support their ageing population - which will see 60% of the population be aged 65+ by 2060? Those German idiots, they're stuck with them now.

Of course, that's why Merkel was campaigning for other countries to take more.

[SuperMikey]

That's a giant Ponzi scheme. In time these younger contributors will get old and need supporting themselves.

 

Is everyone being sterilised now? I must've missed that memo. If that's not the case I suppose there would be people younger than them at some stage to replace them.

 

Of course, that's why Merkel was campaigning for other countries to take more.

 

I'm not sure if I understand your wonderfully eloquent and well-developed point. Care to elucidate?

[Sour Mash]

Is everyone being sterilised now? I must've missed that memo. If that's not the case I suppose there would be people younger than them at some stage to replace them.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand your wonderfully eloquent and well-developed point. Care to elucidate?

If Merkel/Germany was so keen and desperate for all these extra people to save their economy, why was she trying to get rid of many to other nations? Why aren't they laying old planes direct from Syria to Munich Airport?