Immigration

  • Thread starter KSaiyu
  • 1,702 comments
  • 70,273 views
Did you even watch the video? They did NOTHING to provoke them.
And like I said, of course there's nothing in the video!

They're a film crew with an obvious agenda - they want to depict Sweden as having been crippled by its liberal immigration policy, with the upstanding population living in abject fear of the violent thugs who have made their way to Sweden. Everything that they do is premeditated with that outcome in mind.

They're the ones who have complete control over all of the footage. Ergo, they are only going to release the footage that shows what they want us to see. They're not going to show themselves setting the attack up.
 
:lol:

Are you for real? Did you even watch the video? They did NOTHING to provoke them.

You are seriously losing touch with reality.

Was Sjunneson at the filming? If so then I wouldn't be surprised if it kicked off. The opening story he gives is false, by the way. I certainly wouldn't give any credence to his claims that one of the camera crew was run over etc. etc., his agenda is as poisonous as that of the people he fears.

EDIT: Sjunneson was at the filming. Surprise surprise.
 
And if they were just asking questions, you might have a point. I'm not blaming the victim, because the camera crew are not victims - they deliberately set a situation up to get themselves attacks.

No.

Going in to a public space, and asking random people, who also occupy that public space, questions about topical events in that community is not, in any way, shape, or form, a provocation for violence.

You are being deliberately obtuse and you know it.

An example of how your argument would go if applied to a different situation that resulted in violence, but using your line of logic that somehow, an innocent act is the justification for violence:

Jeremy Clarkson should still be working for the BBC because he was justified in punching Oisin Tymon. Why? Mr. Tymon provoked the attack by not providing him with a hot meal; which was his contractually obligated duty as a producer. Therefore, he unnecessarily angered Mr. Clarkson. Had he provided a hot meal, Mr. Clarkson would not have punched him and the entire situation would have been avoided.

That's the line of logic you are using. Seriously.
 
Going in to a public space, and asking random people, who also occupy that public space, questions about topical events in that community is not, in any way, shape, or form, a provocation for violence.

Absolutely right.

This isn't quite a random event though - this is a piece parading the same right-wing journo who organised the Pride marches to antagonise Muslims, who calls Muslims "satanists" and "paedophiles". The piece aimed to incite trouble and trouble was incited. Repeatedly pointing the camera at people who say "don't film me" (as they did) is another good way. Desired result achieved, I think.
 
And like I said, of course there's nothing in the video!

They're a film crew with an obvious agenda - they want to depict Sweden as having been crippled by its liberal immigration policy, with the upstanding population living in abject fear of the violent thugs who have made their way to Sweden. Everything that they do is premeditated with that outcome in mind.

They're the ones who have complete control over all of the footage. Ergo, they are only going to release the footage that shows what they want us to see. They're not going to show themselves setting the attack up.
Of course there's nothing in the video is proof that there is something in the video. This is so irrational there is no rational way to respond. The sad part, although not surprising really, is that you believe anything a film crew could say or do will naturally result in violence. Your opinion of the inhabitants of that area of the city is also very low, you're basically saying they are savages, completely unable to control their emotions and taking offense at every little slight. They can't help themselves right? It's all our fault too isn't it?
 
Apart from standing Sjusseman there, obviously. Nothing about that could possibly incite any kind of trouble :rolleyes:
You're right, there isn't anything about a reporter standing there that would be grounds to incite anyone to threaten to run them over with a car, throw objects at them, or take a swing at them.
 
Apart from standing Sjusseman there, obviously. Nothing about that could possibly incite any kind of trouble :rolleyes:

It went fine when they were interviewing those others earlier on. And then a bunch of morons show up. But it's obvious that that was provoking, because god forbid that someone makes a documentary about what's going on.
 
And again, I've lost count of how many times I've asked this, how does anything the news crew did, if anything, justify violence?

How does anything the man on the street did, if anything, justify being provoked into committing an act of violence? What you fail to recognise is that the attack would not have happened if the film crew hadn't provoked him, so how is the man wholly responsible for what happened?
Are you ever going to answer his question?
 
Courtesy of a friend on FB, a poem by Brian Bilston

Refugees

They have no need of our help
So do not tell me
These haggard faces could belong to you or me
Should life have dealt a different hand
We need to see them for who they really are
Chancers and scroungers
Layabouts and loungers
With bombs up their sleeves
Cut-throats and thieves
They are not
Welcome here
We should make them
Go back to where they came from
They cannot
Share our food
Share our homes
Share our countries
Instead let us
Build a wall to keep them out
It is not okay to say
These are people just like us
A place should only belong to those who are born there
Do not be so stupid to think that
The world can be looked at another way

Now read it from bottom to top
 
Courtesy of a friend on FB, a poem by Brian Bilston

Refugees

They have no need of our help
So do not tell me
These haggard faces could belong to you or me
Should life have dealt a different hand
We need to see them for who they really are
Chancers and scroungers
Layabouts and loungers
With bombs up their sleeves
Cut-throats and thieves
They are not
Welcome here
We should make them
Go back to where they came from
They cannot
Share our food
Share our homes
Share our countries
Instead let us
Build a wall to keep them out
It is not okay to say
These are people just like us
A place should only belong to those who are born there
Do not be so stupid to think that
The world can be looked at another way

Now read it from bottom to top

That's... that's... wow.
 
Goes to show how vicious left wingers can be in their thought process without even realizing it of themselves. It's all solidarity, tolerance and pacifism until someone with right wing sympathies challenges them. Then, all of a sudden violence is justified on someone because of his/her opinion.

Hypocrisy at its finest.
 
I do not see the viciousness in that poem, I do however know what you speak of. There is a reason that I am a true conservative, no hypocrisy there.

Most people do not know what it means to simply be nice, we get to caught up in all the hoopla feeding us 👍
 
I do not see the viciousness in that poem, I do however know what you speak of. There is a reason that I am a true conservative, no hypocrisy there.

Most people do not know what it means to simply be nice, we get to caught up in all the hoopla feeding us 👍
Not talking about the poem, but that these thugs using violence on a camera crew is justified all of a sudden.
 
Going in to a public space, and asking random people, who also occupy that public space, questions about topical events in that community is not, in any way, shape, or form, a provocation for violence.
Again, you're only going by what you can see in the video.

Do you remember the Rodney King riots? Things got out of hand when the charges against the arresting officers were dropped. And they were dropped because the jury saw evidence that the public did not when the public believed that they had. Key to the case was a video shot by a member of the public at the time of the arrest showing the officers subduing King. That video was released to the media who broadcast an edited version - they cut several seconds from the beginning because the quality wasn't great. The edited video supported the claim of police brutality, but the jury saw the entire video, and the several seconds that had been cut by the media supported the officers' story of how King's arrest went down.

Taken at face value, the video from Sweden shows an unprovoked attack on a camera crew. But in the context of story they were running and their history of a repeated disregard for journalistic ethics, it takes on a very different story. It's hard for me to sympathise with the "victims" when I know that they went looking for a fight, did everything in their power to start one, and then manipulated events after the fact to misrepresent what happened. It's the same tactics that they use down here - a couple of months ago, a Melbourne teenager was raped and murdered in a random attack. When the man responsible was arrested and faced court, it was "60 Minutes" who were baiting and provoking his family and supporters on the steps outside the courthouse, trying to get them to swing a punch.
 
Quick offtopic question.

How can a murderous rapist have "supporters"? Who were those people, and what kinda accident caused them to suffer collective brain damage?
 
How can a murderous rapist have "supporters"? Who were those people, and what kinda accident caused them to suffer collective brain damage?
Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until such time as their guilt is proven. When the suspect confessed, he confessed that his crime was completely random. Do you think that his friends and family would simply accept the accusation without a shred of evidence presented in support of it considering that nobody had any reason to believe that he was capable of committing the crime until such time as he did?
 
Germany's Minister of internal affairs Thomas de Maizière has stated that migrants either learn German and integrate or have their green card taken away and be kicked out of Germany.

And instead of being labelled as racist or bigot by his fellow politicians, they support this idea. 3 years to learn and integrate or gtfo.
 
Good for him, there needs to be more of that. I'd assume he's not wanting to strip them of their culture or religion either.
 
Good for him, there needs to be more of that. I'd assume he's not wanting to strip them of their culture or religion either.

If a German politician demands something like that he'll will be seen as a far right extremist.

Dunno why that is, might have something to do with the past.
 
Policy of "Christians are the only ones worrh saving" takes significant (and well-deserved) criticism:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...-syrian-refugees-says-refugee-council/7289918

Don't expect any change any time soon - an octopus has more backbone than the immigration minister; he's only in the position because all he has to do is repeat the party line ad nauseum and he won't screw it up the way he did the health portfolio.
 
8 christians from Iraq housed in my home city decided to return to Iraq ... yeah sure, poor refugees running from oppression
 
Back