The Black Flag rises.

We have yet to learn that 'tribalism' isn't the be-all and end-all of our existence. Not allowing integration (or to be more precise) allowing it to coalesce within it's own entity has been this country's worst failing in the last century, with the result we have created (unwittingly) a 'them' and 'us' situation. With the result that whenever one individual from one 'tribe' does something wrong it creates it's own backlash of anger from within it's own tribe and also from within all others. It's divisive - not to mention highly destructive. Enoch Powell was right when he said 'there will be blood on the streets'. Not because the immigrants were here but because we made no logical decisions at the time to ensure proper integration - and what is even more galling - we still don't.
Evolution - your final remarks require an 'action' on the part of all concerned or a diktat enforced to make it so. Spineless, self-serving politicians are not the right people for such rationals and logic.
So sad -.

Seems you are thinking of evolution in terms of the evolution of human societies, rather than evolution in terms of why giraffes have long necks.

Everyone who gives it a thought would have to agree our politicians have made a complete botch of integration of immigrant societies, it seems it hasn't even been considered, probably because the financial costs of doing it properly would be massive.

The costs will be massive now. Not so back in the 1950's/60's had the governments of the time been at least half as savy as the immigrants coming in. It is true to say that racialism in those days was quite prevalent in some places, especially against blacks,Jews,Irish, tinkers and gypsies. And it wasn't uncommon to see notices quite openly displayed in certain quarters telling them so (although the Jewish question was kept under wraps because of the war). However - doing absolutely nothing wasn't the answer. Integration in the schools was normal due to the small numbers coming in but it soon became apparent (around the mid 60's), as number increased, that ghetto's were being formed, as the 'races' tended to cling together with the inevitable result that their offspring all tended to gravitate to the nearest school making the 'school' become 'segregated' by default. It was then (around the time of Enoch Powell's speech - Rivers of Blood) that proper effort could and should have been made to 'unpick' the problem and, if necessary, by 'pressure', physically integrated the populations. Yes there would have been problems - but not to the extent doing nothing has produced.

I'm not a great lover of 'manipulation by force. But it could have been done quite gently and with the acquiescence of both the indigenous and immigrant populations at a time when the problem was less an explosive issue.

None of this is with hindsight. We discussed exactly these problems at the time in the family and outside but alas - as usual - nothing was done.  And so we have today what we have today.

All things considered, a much lower rate of immigration would have been easier to cope with. High population densities don't always equate with economic sucess and social stability.

Socially yes. Economically no. There has always to be a pool of labour (i.e. unemployment) from which to draw that labour. I have been (believe it or not) in a time of 'full' employment - that's to say the figures were below 250,000 - 1961 - 65. There was a building boom at the time. You wouldn't believe the wages I had to pay at that time (in relation to today) just in order to keep people and get the work done. It inevitably put prices up. So much so that inflation by the end of the decade was 9% and rising. The result of that was a crash of the industry which meant a crash of the property market and a total collapse into another recession. Fortunately it only lasted three years but the aftermath led ultimately to Thatchers rise - and need I say more.There wasn't a leveling out until the Major government of the 90's.
I can't agree that immigration is a bad thing but would agree that there has to be a sensible limit. As things are around the world at the moment we will become over inundated by those attempting to get in as well as those allowed under the current legislation ergo - there has to be some limits put on it and soon. I don't think we have a government which doesn't realise that. The problem there is getting around or having changed the EU rulings. Which doesn't mean to say we should all swing further right or to the left to accomplish it. Those sorts of swings produce even more problems and not nice ones let me add. Softly softly catchee monkey. You have been warned.

Ever since the days of Thatcher there has been a sufficient pool of labour, (unemployed). Thoroughly unemployed, tragically unemployed, inter-generationally unemployed. We don't really need to import a supply of unemployed.

Does the media tell a true story though? Are we missing something. Real people want to go to Syria, and to take the children, do they know something we don't? From the media it appears that the attraction must be the opportunity to behead people, stone them to death, fling them from high buildings or shoot them, hardly seems like a family day out, is there more to it?

Yes. A Messianic belief in a form of 'living' that is pure and simple. Only the pure and simple can exist therein - with 'simple' being the operative word. Intelligence brings its own degrading/debauched lifestyles. Thus we dispel with any intelligence, especially in females' and rule through purity of soul and mind. But first you have to remove all the 'infidels' - and that takes time.
Simples really.

Sort of like the killing fields of Cambodia? Islamic state territory does seem to be getting a bit like that, with huge piles of skulls building up.

Exactly like the 'Killing fields'. The only difference being (and there actually isn't one) is that the excuse on the one hand was political dogma and in this case religious dogma. Both the same end both the same thing - an excuse for power over the populations - quickly followed by wealth from confiscated property etc etc etc. More fools the idiots that are taken in by it for they shall be killed either by their masters or the so perceived enemy. A little intelligence (like ignorance) is a dangerous thing. But they would engender such by design.

Islamic state is well embedded, reports of them losing territory may be wishful thinking.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-threatening-iraqi-city-ramadi-140131180.html#AuoQ79U
Is it a foreign war in a faraway country that we needn't think about?

We can think about it all we want. Changes nothing. We can't do anything positive about it. Whatever we do will be seen as interference and used against us. Damned if we do damned if we don't.

This lot will ultimately come down to Iran and Saudi-Arabia. They must patch up their differences for the good of the Arab world. There will be no peace or reconciliations until they can define set borders for Shiite and Sunni areas or living and influence. Given that they can then remove the canker in their midst together. Iraq. Syria. Jordan. Libya. Lebanon etc etc etc will fall into line to protect sovereignty once this has happened. US and I mean WE have no say in the matter and should help only in a humanitarian way as best as we are able.

We, that is the Bush Administration, started the rot by invading Iraq when it wasn't politically expedient to do so. Ill thought out. Ill managed. There could have been better ways as was discussed at the time. But - genie bottle -bottle genie.   And now look at it all.

Ultimately perhaps, but, a lot of other countries involved. The invasion of Iraq by USA was not very clever, to put it mildly. The underlying dynamic of extreme Islam versus everyone else now released in horrific form.

A conflict of ideas and of religion, spread from the middle east around much of the world, Indonesia, Africa, into Europe. Civilisation was based on people of different faiths living co-operatively amongst each other, replaced by a policy of extermination under Islamic state and it's allies, Boko Harum etc.

Media coverage is now being given to the targeted slaughter of other faiths unacceptable by I.S.

Looks like the world will be forced to react in some way in the near future, perhaps it should be to take positive action to accept more victims of Islamic extremism as refugees into Europe. It's a big project and would have to be done carefully, but what is the alternative?

Eradicate political and religious extremism which results in extreme violence wherever and whenever it rears its unacceptable, cankerous head. And that means everywhere in every country. We don't allow violent extremism here, no matter what the religion or politics. All other countries, that have their populations and structures at heart and who want a peaceful co-existence, must do likewise. Help should be given to those governments whose hearts and minds are in the right place in order that they are not overrun by the fanatics. With the right will (and that should be automatic to any population educated enough to understand the 'bully' syndrome) extremism will be neutered sufficiently to keep it under proper control (as it has been for the last 2,000 years). It's not rocket science - it is however expensive and must be properly funded.

Extremism and the killing it leads to is certainly the problem, containing and limiting it seems to be all that can be done. When extremist armies have financial support and technical knowhow, containing them can, apparently be almost impossible. Potential extremists should not be allowed to train within Europe or USA as pilots, or take university courses directly relevant to biological and chemical weapons, as this just stacks up deeper problems for the future. International legal action against funding for terrorism would be good, but that doesn't seem to happen for some reason.

And that is because certain political factions (for factions read governing bodies) can use extremist factions for purposes useful to them (or so they imagine). They can often be mistaken in their machinations which can lead to the extremists getting the whip-hand (as in NSDP/NSDAP in Germany in the 1920's) which then become something more than a 'faction' with all the horrific results such extremism can germinate (or should that be Germanate).  - - -Well it is Sunday - - -?

There will be millions of refugees arriving in europe this year. Probably most will be genuine refugees, but we can reasonably expect the 'black flag' to appear in europe at some point, unless there is a change of events.

It's already here. You just can't see it.

It would seem so, with Amazon selling Islamic State magazine in europe and elsewhere.

Amazon are a global corporation whose only objective is to make money. Morality doesn't enter into it. As long as it cannot be construed as incitement to murder or  rabble-rousing it isn't illegal for it to be sold or broadcast in this country.

There is certainly a huge mish-mash of conflicting information available these days, with new interpretations and information coming to light about recent and less recent wars and events. Even so, what's happening now is difficult to read as anything else than rather threatening to europe. Perhaps it will sway the way the UK votes in the in-out referendum.

If the only way that some perceive we can stop illegal/legal immigration is to remove ourselves from the EU legislation by self removal of our membership of that organisation then I haven't a doubt many will go down that road. However - building/creating walls has two consequences. One it keeps people out. The other it imprisons people in. If I have learned one thing from history its that building walls doesn't work. We are country with a vast naval history, of exploration, conquest, empire building and looking outwards   - - NOT inwards. Our problems can always be solved - out there -. NOT - in here.

The world 'out there' sounds a lot more threatening these days, with so many weapons and so much violence. Yes, we need to be connected to the world, but, for a peaceful life, more aware of security.

You can skip this advert in 5 - 4 - 3 - seconds.  

Our security will come via - 1) economic power. 2) technological prowess and 3) strong liberal government.

We have a relative system here of freedom and fair play. It will only be if either of those attributes are threatened will we react - devastatingly. It will behoove any group or individual who doesn't recognise that fact.

We shall have to wait and see.

Yes we are waiting and seeing. I haven't bothered following detail of the news, due to having windows 8 on this computer, but as well as instability in ukraine, there are developments to the north of there, and to the north of afghanistan, groups of fighters with allegiance or common cause with I.S. starting organised campaigns to similarly take power by force. Put that together with what's going on in parts of africa and it looks like trouble brewing over quite a large geographical area. Bit more wait and see now.

We are no longer the world's policeman. That falls to the USA from mid 1950s onwards. They are making just as much a hash of it as did we in our time. By now 'all' has moved on and the policing of the world's hot-spots are down to the neighbouring nations who's work it will be to pacify the rebellions therein from whichever direction. Only when our interests are being severely compromised will we get involved. None of the present hot-spots are of our concern. None warrant our interference. Unbeknown to the general public (who have little to no interest anyway) we are 'involved' in each and every one to the point of safeguarding the 'long reach'. And in that we always will be. Vigilance never truly sleeps in a nation that cares.