Immigration

[squadops]

It is still a right for the "anti-muslim" to walk where he chooses. right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

It is still a right for the "anti-muslim" to walk where he chooses. right?

Absolutely.

Perhaps America doesn't have the same situation as Britain where, every single weekend, people of opposing beliefs are cordoned into separate areas by police because of the risk of trouble between them... but regardless of peoples' rights to free movement there will always be people who oppose their views. That can spill over into violence.

In the case of the Sweden video the hate preacher was taking a risk by going into the area he'd described as being "all rapist and paedophiles" and the "news" team who took him there knew it.

 

[squadops]

It is not the same here, and I defo do not condone aggravating things for no good reason other than a t.v. profit. If we are speaking of the Sweden deal, I will stick by the news casters.

 

[LeMansAid]

I see one side here acting with willful ignorance in regards to being suspicious about 60 minutes' approach, and the other side drawing conclusions based on mere suspicions. As is too often the case, the voice of reason was lost amid the slinging match.......

You can believe that the 60 minutes crew may not have been operating completely innocently and in good faith without condoning a violent response to a TV crew.

Fair to be suspicious, unfair to conclude.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

60 Minutes is seemingly being held up as the last bastion of journalistic ethics and editorial wisdom.

Our "60 Minutes" was originally based on the American version, but any resemblance between the two was eradicated a long time ago. It's got more in common with The Daily Mail than anything else.

In the Sweden discussion a video was posted where they took a very well-known anti-Muslim activist to a dense Muslim area and were then seemingly surprised when trouble arose.

Which is exactly what they wanted: to push an agenda that liberal immigration policies have opened borders to thuggish Arabs that threaten to undermine Western values and progress.

So the father was in the wrong and guilty of kidnapping?

His version of events is that his wife wanted to move to Australia because she no longer felt safe in the region, and that when he was unable to leave because of the family business, she planned to take the children out of the country when he found out about it and tried to stop her. She is arguing that he abducted them, but from the sounds of things, she was planning her own abduction.

If we are speaking of the Sweden deal, I will stick by the news casters.

Uh, what?

I defo do not condone aggravating things for no good reason other than a t.v. profit.

So on one hand, you stick by the newscasters, but on the other, you don't condone what they did? How does that work?

 

[squadops]

I do not care about 'his version' I care about facts.

I don't think the news casters in Sweden did anything wrong.

I don't condone sensationalism 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I do not care about 'his version' I care about facts.

Okay, the facts are that a news crew working for a programme known for its sensationalism appear to have paid people to kidnap a pair of children off the street in broad daylight in a foreign country for the sake of a story.

Furthermore, your comment about not caring about "his version" and only caring about facts immediately makes the assumption that "his version" is not supported by any evidence - even though he is the only one who has actually supported his position with anything solid; the only thing that the childrens' mother has to support her position is a camera crew chasing a story and her claim of being the victim.

I don't condone sensationalism

Except that this crew works for a programme known for its sensationalism. You say that you don't condone sensationalism, but by saying that you don't think the crew in Sweden did anything wrong, you do condone sensationalism.

 

[squadops]

Let us drop Sweden then, show me the facts of the other case ok?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I already have - like the reports from the Lebanese authorities that the film crew paid for the abduction.

 

[squadops]

You have not said if the mother had a right or not?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A right to what? To orchestrate the kidnapping of her children?

All of the evidence that has been provided so far has come from the father. What is there to support the mother's story? She's distraught, and a television crew thought that there was a story in her distress and reunification with her children. She hasn't provided any evidence of her claim that they were taken out of the country against her wishes.

 

[mister dog]

So, everyone seems to have overlooked the Italian Journalists being assaulted in Molenbeek?:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/immigration.328725/page-37#post-11316714

We can hammer on about the rep of those 60 minutes people (although in no single way does it justify them being attacked), but here's a clear example of another camera crew being attacked in a migrant neighborhood.

Shouldn't we delve int who they are too, and try to find a justification for them being assaulted?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

although in no single way does it justify them being attacked

If only we could observe your high moral standards.

I propose an experiment: we force you to flee your home, separate you from your family, drop you in a foreign country with no knowledge of the language or culture, generally apply as much stress as possible, and then arrange for you to meet with someone whose sole intent is to do and say whatever it takes to provoke you into lashing out against them so that they can film it and then claim that you are an uncultured, parasitic thug whose very presence threatens to undermine everything that they represent.

I reckon you'd last about fifteen minutes.

 

[novcze]

bwahaha they were droped in a foreign country ... probably abducted by aliens


this belief about immigrants not being able to control what they do (sorry... is happening to them) is hilarious

 

[FoRiZon]

bwahaha they were droped in a foreign country ... probably abducted by aliens


this belief about immigrants not being able to control what they do (sorry... is happening to them) is hilarious

Your persistent generalization is even more hillarious.

 

[mister dog]

If only we could observe your high moral standards.

I propose an experiment: we force you to flee your home, separate you from your family, drop you in a foreign country with no knowledge of the language or culture, generally apply as much stress as possible, and then arrange for you to meet with someone whose sole intent is to do and say whatever it takes to provoke you into lashing out against them so that they can film it and then claim that you are an uncultured, parasitic thug whose very presence threatens to undermine everything that they represent.

I reckon you'd last about fifteen minutes.

Is this the genuine background of those thugs or are you just making assumptions again?
Because whilst i hear your sad violin playing in the background trying to excuse the situation, there is still no justification to attack someone. Care to comment on the Molenbeek video or are you just going to conveniently overlook it? Did those Molenbeek youths flee a war? Did they just drop them there without knowledge of the language? Are they separated from their families? No. Yet they display the exact same behavior.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So, everyone seems to have overlooked the Italian Journalists being assaulted in Molenbeek?:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/immigration.328725/page-37#post-11316714

We can hammer on about the rep of those 60 minutes people (although in no single way does it justify them being attacked), but here's a clear example of another camera crew being attacked in a migrant neighborhood.

Shouldn't we delve int who they are too, and try to find a justification for them being assaulted?

The question isn't whether anybody was justified in becoming physically violent - they weren't. The original discussion was about whether or not 60 Minutes may have sought to provoke tension by filming Sjunneson in the area they did.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is this the genuine background of those thugs or are you just making assumptions again?

I have no idea. I doubt "60 Minutes" bothered to check, either. With Sjunneson in two, the first vaguely Arab-looking man would have been everything that they needed to know.

The original discussion was about whether or not 60 Minutes may have sought to provoke tension by filming Sjunneson in the area they did.

What do you mean "may have"? It's entirely consistent with their way of operating. People only see a news crew getting assaulted in the street, but if you saw their particular brand of "reporting", it's very difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[squadops]

Even if they sought to provoke, it is within their right to do so without being maimed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

No, it's not. Nobody has the right to denigrate and vilify somebody like that.

 

[squadops]

You do it on this board from time to time 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Disagreeing with you doesn't make it vilification.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You do it on this board from time to time 👍

High five.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hardly worth saluting, since by his own logic, vilification is apparently acceptable behaviour. And nor should he be commenting on it, since apparently somebody being vilified is expected to stand there and take it without doing or saying anything.

 

[squadops]

You are sour.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Not at all. Your entire thesis is based on nothing more than my consistently disagreeing with you.

 

[squadops]

I do not mind you disagreeing with me at all, I am a a disagreeable guy I know, I still think that you are ripe. If we are to keep it on topic...

I am an compassionate conservative and I have enough care for all, I like a few rules but I do not pound on anyone.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I am an compassionate conservative and I have enough care for all,

Enough to sympathise with the plight of the victims, but apparently not enough to do anything about it.

 

[squadops]

I do what I can.

 

[LeMansAid]

Your entire thesis is based on nothing more than my consistently disagreeing with you.

I think that you might be the only one reading it like that.

I think that @squadops is more likely referring to things like your penchant for malicious knee-jerk categorisations of people. For example, you've tarred me as racist, and deemed that I'm happy for my government to commit human rights violations, previously. I'm not the person your arguments often so desperately need me to be.

I think that the way you treat others suggests that you bought a kind of social attitude package deal, and that you expect others won't look at issues using their very own thought processes, with a fresh start for each issue that comes their way either. I think that you expect that people will be as much a caricature as you are, holding them close if they agree with you and writing them off entirely if they don't.

Guess what? Some people are more complex.