Dutch journalist buys Syrian passport for Dutch Prime Minister to make a point - Polidicks

[quote][img]http://images0.tcdn.nl/binnenland/article24499113.ece/BINARY/q/paspoort+rutte.jpg[/img][img]http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/3/j/o/m/4/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.11hcn6.png/1415227611977.jpg[/img] A journalist working for a Dutch magazine (Nieuwe Revu) had a fake Syrian passport ready for him in less than two days – with the picture of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands printed on it. Reporter Harald Doornbos who is currently based in Syria and works for the Dutch Nieuwe Revu magazine said anyone – including jihadists, terrorists, and Syrians who have committed crimes against humanity and are therefor normally banned from entering Europe, can easily do the same. A forged passport and an ID card cost the journalist US $825, he said on Twitter. He only had to make a phone call to order the fake documents, and was able to pick them up all ready within 40 hours. The man was told he would be able to enter Cyprus with his newly obtained documents. Both were under the [OP edit: RIDICULOUS] fake name of Malek Ramadan, but had the photograph of the Dutch PM Mark Rutte printed on them. The journalist said it wasn't an initial idea to have the picture of the high-ranking official on the document, he just opted for it when asked to supply a name and a photograph – which only shows you can have pretty much anything printed on "good quality" fake documents. "If we are able to buy a good quality forged Syrian passport, so can Syrian fighters… and jihadists," Doornbos said, concluding that "then it is relatively simple for them to enter the EU unnoticed and commit terrorist attacks." According to Doornbos's sources, the fighters illegally getting the same fake documents travel from ISIS- and Al-Qaeda-controlled areas in northern Syria to Bodrum in Turkey, and illegally crossing over to Greece from there. "In Greece, he shows his false Syrian passport to the authorities. Since the passport is fake, under the fake name, the Greeks have no idea that they are not dealing with a Syrian refugee but a member of ISIS or Al-Qaeda," Nieuwe Revu wrote, adding that from Greece such illegal travelers proceed to Hungary through Macedonia and Serbia, and then "travel without control to the other Schengen States."[/quote] Absolute strange how little of this was shown in British, German and other foreign media. Quite a big 'scandal' that received little to no exposure. One of the few english sources is RT. [url=https://www.rt.com/news/315591-fake-syrian-passport-journalist/]Source, one of many although few in english are available.[/url] Here are some Dutch sources: [url=http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/journalist-koopt-syrisch-paspoort-voor-mark-rutte]RTLnieuws.nl[/url] [url=http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24499131/__Syrisch_paspoort__Rutte___.html]Telegraaf.nl[/url] [url=http://revu.nl/nieuws/nieuwe-revu-koopt-een-syrisch-paspoort-en-we-zijn-niet-de-enigen/]Original piece by New Revu[/url] [url=http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/36281/Vluchtelingenstroom-West-Europa/article/detail/4143323/2015/09/16/Journalist-regelt-Syrisch-paspoort-voor-premier-Rutte.dhtml]Ad.nl[/url] [url=http://www.metronieuws.nl/binnenland/2015/09/mark-rutte-heeft-een-syrisch-paspoort]Metronieuws.nl[/url] And there's also video footage of Geert Wilders who shows the fake passport with the Prime Ministers face on it in the Parlament.

Yeah. I believe in taking in refugees and I think my country should do more of that, but there's nothing wrong with putting them through a rigorous process. In fact, it would probably be good for them as they could be kept safe from having the radicals that they're running from follow them.

Did he actually try to pass the border with it? The problem isn't in fake passports being made(because you can't do anything about that), it's in them not being detected.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49138617]Did he actually try to pass the border with it? The problem isn't in fake passports being made(because you can't do anything about that), it's in them not being detected.[/QUOTE] This is covered in the full article. He showed it to authorities in Greece, and they were unable to detect anything wrong with it. They would've allowed the carrier into the Schengen-area where they would've been free to travel within Europe from there on.

RT aren't big on fact checking and the source was the guys twitter, I found this a few days ago through an independent article.

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;49138633]RT aren't big on fact checking and the source was the guys twitter, I found this a few days ago through an independent article.[/QUOTE] The reason I made this post is because it's ONLY on RT as an international source. The source isn't the guys twitter alone. Mark Doornbosch is a well-renowned journalist in the Netherlands, that works for the New Revu, a well-known magazine. He brought up the story about false-passports many times, but was ignored, so he chose to put the face of the Prime Minister who kept publicly assuring fake passports didn't exist on it. Here are some Dutch sources: [url=http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/journalist-koopt-syrisch-paspoort-voor-mark-rutte]RTLnieuws.nl[/url] [url=http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24499131/__Syrisch_paspoort__Rutte___.html]Telegraaf.nl[/url] [url=http://revu.nl/nieuws/nieuwe-revu-koopt-een-syrisch-paspoort-en-we-zijn-niet-de-enigen/]Original piece by New Revu[/url] [url=http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/36281/Vluchtelingenstroom-West-Europa/article/detail/4143323/2015/09/16/Journalist-regelt-Syrisch-paspoort-voor-premier-Rutte.dhtml]Ad.nl[/url] [url=http://www.metronieuws.nl/binnenland/2015/09/mark-rutte-heeft-een-syrisch-paspoort]Metronieuws.nl[/url] And there's also video footage of Geert Wilders who shows the fake passport with the Prime Ministers face on it in the Parlament.

[QUOTE=Rumbler;49138192][QUOTE]Both were under the [OP edit: RIDICULOUS] fake name of Malek Ramadan[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] How is that name ridiculous ? From the top of my head I can cite a known person whose actual name is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan]Tariq Ramadan[/url]. Unless you meant something else.

[QUOTE=Nabile13;49138820]How is that name ridiculous ? From the top of my head I can cite a known person whose actual name is [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan]Tariq Ramadan[/url]. Unless you meant something else.[/QUOTE] I based that off of the journalist himself who said that he thought up of one of the most commonly known muslim ritual and used it as a name without even checking if it even was a name. Turns out it is a name yes. I'm not OP editing to show my own opinion on the name Ramadan, just that the journalist said so and that it wasn't mentioned in this article.

Issue as I see it is that organised gangs of criminals are involved in forging and distributing these passports. If ISIS do indeed own the syrian passport producing place then they are selling the passports for 800 dollars a pop. Its an industry we need to shut down. We (as in the people against terrorists) need to either reduce the supply or the demand. Reduce supply by targeting the gangs directly through raids. I won't go into reducing demand. [sp]Ok i will. People buy syrian passports because a syrian refugee fleeing ISIS is getting more sympathy and acceptance than an afghan refugee (economic migrant to those who are into that kind of daily mail narrative shift) fleeing the taliban. If we stop is arbitary distinction then refugees will hopefully feel less need for syrian passports so might stop buying them. The principle is pushed by people hoping that by saying "syrians only" they would get less refugees over all. This is provably false and has resulted in a boom in the fake passport and people smuggling trade. I know europe can only support so many migrants/refugees. Jobs and housing are scarce for everyone. Some say let us sort ourselves out first then let them in, some say let them in and we'll sort ourselves out together, some say keep them out entirely. Pros and cons to all arguments. Just wanted to get that out so we can avoid discussing it here and stay on the issue at hand, that is organised criminals profiting from the crisis. [/sp] This also needs to include a campaign against the people trafficking industry. Again organised criminals with no regard for human lives (africans are locked in the holds of smuggling ships while the arabs are free to walk the deck). Same thing supply and demand. We can't really fix the demand for their services without fixing all of africa and asia. So fix the supply, shut down criminals or provide an alternative which won't result in money going to the bad guys. I guess its another controversial post, more than happy to accept criticism for why this might be wrong or alternative solutions etc.

Not the reply you want to hear, but not letting refugees in will instantly remove the market for syrian passports.

[QUOTE=shittyphil;49143929]Not the reply you want to hear, but not letting refugees in will instantly remove the market for syrian passports.[/QUOTE] it also would breed resentment

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49144138]it also would breed resentment[/QUOTE] Who cares. That's of the same mindset as "that's what ISIS wants". Governments shouldn't be making decisions based on anything beyond what is best for their country and their people. Stopping the flow of refugees until a better screening process, and a feasible long-term plan for handling the massive influx of people from a vastly different cultural background, is arguably what is best for the people and nations of Europe, and even the refugees in the long run. The approach of accept the refugees and sort out how to actually deal with the issues associated with doing so later is not a sound approach.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49144138]it also would breed resentment[/QUOTE] Refuge is a privilege,not a right

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49144138]it also would breed resentment[/QUOTE] Why? For not letting a tidal wave of migrants into the country? Think of the positions reversed and thousands upon thousands of agnostic/christian migrants with few skills and a low net worth trying to get into Syria or, for example, Saudi Arabia. There would be a fucking outroar by the citizens of the country and the same shit would be happening... except they wouldn't be letting people in on religious grounds and because their culture is far more conservative than ours. It isn't our fault if they resent us for us saying 'sorry but we don't think you'll fit in here, we don't have the economic capacity to support you all (and so won't accept you all because its unfair to those still trying to get in) and are worried about the social effects' because they'd be saying the exact same thing in our situation.

[QUOTE=shittyphil;49143929]Not the reply you want to hear, but not letting refugees in will instantly remove the market for syrian passports.[/QUOTE] That's so ridiculous as to be shameful. "If we don't allow people in to our brave, pure nations via this one specific route that requires much more than just false credentials, then the market for false credentials will cease to exist." What?

:speechless:

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49145224]That's so ridiculous as to be shameful. "If we don't allow people in to our brave, pure nations via this one specific route that requires much more than just false credentials, then the market for false credentials will cease to exist." What?[/QUOTE] We have no obligation to these "refugees". They were safe in the first country they reached, right now they're purely economic migrants, bringing with them a real risk of radicalization, incompatible cultures, and terrorism.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49145224]That's so ridiculous as to be shameful. "If we don't allow people in to our brave, pure nations via this one specific route that requires much more than just false credentials, then the market for false credentials will cease to exist." What?[/QUOTE] Surely you can't be missing the point that much.

[QUOTE=Hyperbole;49145883]We have no obligation to these "refugees". They were safe in the first country they reached, right now they're purely economic migrants, bringing with them a real risk of radicalization, incompatible cultures, and terrorism.[/QUOTE] In slavic countries they throw supplies away to protest and demand they be sent to Germany. Immigrants sent to South America are demanding they be sent back to Lebanon because the jobs they have don't pay enough. Its solely economic. They want to get to Germany and the rest of western Europe.

[QUOTE=Hyperbole;49145883]We have no obligation to these "refugees". They were safe in the first country they reached, right now they're purely economic migrants, bringing with them a real risk of radicalization, incompatible cultures, and terrorism.[/QUOTE] In fact, these immigrants will cause a massive blowback to our economy. Research showed that IF, and that's a [i][b]big fucking IFF[/b][/i] these immigrants will keep working a full time job until they can retire, they will still cost the government about 20.000 euros per person. And that's WHEN they pay taxes all these years. Those are a lot of if's. Especially considering the fucking mental amounts of foreign people enjoying welfare. [editline]20th November 2015[/editline] Not to mention that this is exactly the fucking reason they are coming here, there is not a single fucking excuse to come seek refuge here when you've already had to travel through MULTIPLE safe country's where you can take refuge. But no they had to pick the country with the most benefits. These people are supposed to be happy that they are given food, water and shelter. This isn't a fucking make-a-wish foundation.

[QUOTE=Strontboer;49151281]In fact, these immigrants will cause a massive blowback to our economy. Research showed that IF, and that's a [i][b]big fucking IFF[/b][/i] these immigrants will keep working a full time job until they can retire, they will still cost the government about 20.000 euros per person. And that's WHEN they pay taxes all these years. Those are a lot of if's. Especially considering the fucking mental amounts of foreign people enjoying welfare. [/QUOTE] I'm sceptical. Source? What makes an immigrant so much more expensive than a person born in the country? The studies I've seen all say immigrants (admittedly this was on European migrants so it will be skewed in favour of immigrants still it wouldn't push it into defecit.) are beneficial to the economy, buying products, getting jobs and starting new companies. Also since lots of them are already at legal working age you don't have the costs of 16-18 years of education + healthcare. More on that [quote=study in 2013]Migrants coming to the UK since the year 2000 have been less likely to receive benefits or use social housing than people already living in the country, according to a study that argues the new arrivals have made a net contribution of £25bn to public finances.[/quote] [quote=study between 2001-2011]People from European Economic Area countries have been the most likely to make a positive contribution, paying about 34% more in taxes than they received in benefits over the 10 years from 2001 to 2011, according to the findings from University College London's migration research unit. [b]Other immigrants paid about 2% more than they received.[/b][/quote] 2% isn't great I suppose but it is contributing more than they take and is therefore helping the collective 'us'. knowledge nugget - my grandma and grandad emigrated to england after ww2. Neither could speak english or had any kind of qualifications when they first arrived and the polish community was widely hated and ostracised. They started a business employing 3 other people. Of their kids my 2 uncles went on to found a major speaker company together and my mum was an IT manager. I know objectively its dismiss-able as a one off but it shows what "migrants" can achieve.

[QUOTE=Tarver;49145206]Refuge is a privilege,not a right[/QUOTE] I dont agree. We have an obligation to at least ensure the safety of our fellow men when they ask for it. Im not saying we should just open up all borders. But we cannot ignore people in need either.

[QUOTE=taipan;49151404]I dont agree. We have an obligation to at least ensure the safety of our fellow men when they ask for it. Im not saying we should just open up all borders. But we cannot ignore people in need either.[/QUOTE] Your statements are conflicting. If we shouldn't just open up the borders, how/why are we not going to ignore people in need? Because you can't exactly help refugees in need if your borders are closed or heavily regulated.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;49151459]Your statements are conflicting. If we shouldn't just open up the borders, how/why are we not going to ignore people in need? Because you can't exactly help refugees in need if your borders are closed or heavily regulated.[/QUOTE] I meant it as an extreme as in: we shouldn't mindlessly let everybody in without checking who they are and why they are here. The standardisation and severity of these checks is what is causing all the issues inside of the EU and some country's there atm. At one end you have safety, economic wellbeing and culture. on the other hand you have your obligations as a human being, righteousness and inter country relations. In the middle you get the current situation in Europe. [editline]20th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Teddybeer;49151517]. One refugee costs 25.000 a year, [/QUOTE] Keep in mind that they spend that 25.000 a year in the country where they got it. So in a sence they are just spreading tax payers money again over the country. Refugees are good for the local economy this way. I for one dont mind paying a bit more tax to help Syrian refugees this way. However, I do mind paying for economic refugees or refugees that pay us back by shitting up our country (criminality, being lazy, vandalizing etc) Thankfully this doesnt seem to happen all that much.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;49151517]Immigrants, sure. Refugees no. The difference is that one stays for many years to evenly cover the costs while the other [/QUOTE] Then let them get jobs and integrate. War in syria, iraq, afghanistan and parts of africa will go on for the next decade. Keeping them as refugee's then complaining they are refugees and not earning their keep is... genius! (if you were opposed to immigration anyway) You "risk" having them stay (the nerve! the horror!) once their country is ready to have them back but if they're contributing to growth then what's the issue? If they aren't contributing and are infact living off of benefits then, once their home is safe, give them a deadline to leave by; they can't disappear if they are apparently living off the state. On healthcare and education. It's in the nations interest to minimise poverty, have an educated populace and not have slums. Poverty = increase in crime. No education = no jobs so they cant contribute. Slums = crime. Its in our interest, as a nation, to keep people healthy and in working condition. As well as that forcing them to go private would be a debt trap for them, leading to poverty and crime, letting them go unhealthy would lead to disenfranchisment = crime + maybe easy targets for terror recruiters. Where does the money for this come from? Let them take jobs. Where do houses come from? well... [sp]on housing. unfortunately councils and the gov in general have been reluctant to build more houses. More houses means house prices go down so a buncha rich people lose their investments and risk pulling out. Building more houses doesn't require greenfield sites, developers want greenfield sites because houses in nicer areas sell for (rent for) more and are cheaper to develop on than brownfield sites. There are loads of empty buildings across the country. In stoke-on-trent you can buy a house for 7000 pounds, condition is that you need to live there for x years; again developers don't bother touching sub prime property because a) its less profit b) their other properties benefit from a deficit of housing. situation might be different in sweden for example, but the UK isn't short on houses. The gov + property developers are just greedy nobs. I realise this has been UK centric. Things might be different elsewhere, not 100% sure. Anticipated property and housing would be the next objection to pop up so figured I'd kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Expect people to call me naive from all this. Probably the exact people who are opposed to immigration anyway... probably the exact people who were opposed to immigration last year and the year before the year before that.[/sp] edit: realise it looks like i only replied to the first line, I think I covered most of the rest of the points just not too concisely or succinctly. edit: also I know you don't seem to be opposed to migrants. You seem to be advocating letting them take jobs and pay their keep. Commendable I say. Sort of sodcasting this to anyone reading this who is opposed to immigration outright.

[QUOTE=taipan;49151538]Keep in mind that they spend that 25.000 a year in the country where they got it. So in a sense they are just spreading tax payers money again over the country. Refugees are good for the local economy this way. I for one dont mind paying a bit more tax to help Syrian refugees this way. However, I do mind paying for economic refugees or refugees that pay us back by shitting up our country (criminality, being lazy, vandalizing etc) Thankfully this doesnt seem to happen all that much.[/QUOTE] So we take our limited government budget and we give it back to the free market that will then store their profits overseas. At least I doubt refugees will be buying most of their supplies from windmill shops. IMO refugees are a bad return on investment from an economic perspective which makes the primary reason to accept them humanitarian. As for studies that talked about european migrants that is completely different then the current situation. That's comparing people that have probably planned to move, may have learned a bit of the language, culturally similar, have a European education and arrive with money/plans among many other factors that I am forgetting. While refugees/economic migrants spend all their life savings to get here, don't speak the language, culture clash, ill fitting education, etc. Those statistics are completely worthless as a comparison point as its apples and oranges.