Islam - What's your view on it?

[Carbonox]

Are you absolutely sure that your knowledge of the world is from proper-actual-books and not a pile of old Eagle comics?

Never read them before.

 

[Scaff]

Are you trying to say that (some of) the 20% lied about supporting terrorists? If they did, that's pretty sick 🤬, playing with serious national threats.

Again you complain about thought police on one hand, but then demand it on the other hand.

You don't get it both ways.

Western agenda against Islam? I don't buy into that, but if your example person's got a problem with it, there are plenty of peaceful means for making her life better. Voting "yes" in a terrorism sympathizing survey helps no one's cause.

You are unaware of the far right and its rise then? I find that odd given that the majority of your tropes seem to be a direct cut and paste from them.

I beg to differ. However, like with the other explanations I've seen regarding Sweden's increasing rape cases, I've noticed that the person interviewed is always putting blame on anything but 3rd world immigrants. Then again, ideology is always more important than facts...

You can beg to differ all you like, Sweden changed how it reports and records sexual crimes, that is a fact.

A much shorter timespan than with natural immigration.

Natural immigration?

What exact is that?

Oh and specifics please, what time period are we talking about? As I find it rather interesting that you seem to be unable to answer the question.

I've read about it. Forgotten the details right now, but right now I see that Swedish politicans are trying to act as saviors of the whole world... Someone should tell them that dragging a 5-digit number of "refugees" into the country yearly doesn't even solve problems effectively, when aforementioned broken 3rd world cultures are brought in too.

Nope. Try again.

I meant that when Muslims attack cops in large numbers, they choose to flee. I don't think they have much of a problem arresting solitary criminals.

So not what you first claimed and not what your video link claimed then. Oh and again when police are outnumbered this tends to happen regardless of the situation or country.

As for the riots, those are just another example of how much those minorities like to victimize themselves. One extremely hostile lunatic tries to attack cops, gets rightfully put down as there are no other options available that would ensure the cops' well-being, and later the whole neighborhood goes up in flames thanks to people who are completely incapable of seeing fault in themselves, but instead assign blame to the "racist, Islamophobic" society around them.

It would seem that the 'extremely hostile lunatic' account is open to question, also of interest is the nationality of the man shot.
http://www.thelocal.se/20130528/48196

But that's OK, blame it on the Muslim's is an easy out; rather than looking into what could well have been a situation that may have been badly handled by the police and resulted in an esculation on both sides.

The racist, Islamophobic society that gives them welfare money like no one else...

Citation required. Can you show he the Swedish government website page that details this welfare money 'that no one else gets'?

I've seen the same claim made of the UK, Canada, the US and Australia to date and funnily enough not a single one of them have been genuine. So you have to excuse my skepticism.

 

[Carbonox]

Again you complain about thought police on one hand, but then demand it on the other hand.

You don't get it both ways.

Either thought police works both ways or it doesn't exist at all. Right now, left wing opinions aren't silenced no matter how radical they are, but even well presented right wing views are seen as hate speech. It's hypocrisy.

You are unaware of the far right and its rise then? I find that odd given that the majority of your tropes seem to be a direct cut and paste from them.

BNP and Britain First are rising? That's news to me. As for Finland or Sweden, neither seems to have any far-right parties in the parliament at all. If you're talking about grassroots level rising rather than specifically political parties, I don't see a particularly high problem with far right groups at the moment. Far left keeps on going with their political violence (google the AFA organization in Sweden).

You can beg to differ all you like, Sweden changed how it reports and records sexual crimes, that is a fact.

True, that's what it did.

Natural immigration?

What exact is that?

Oh and specifics please, what time period are we talking about? As I find it rather interesting that you seem to be unable to answer the question.

People moving from one country to another in search of a job, generally in small numbers, not because the other country has more attractive welfare systems. Unnatural immigration is what Sweden's keeping up - taking in huge numbers of "refugees" from the most backwards possible areas on the planet. "Boat refugees" heading towards Europe and Australia also fall into the unnatural category. I'd find it astonishing if even 10% of the people on those boats intend to work for even a day in case they reach their destination.

Nope. Try again.

Sure, it was workforce at first. Later on, things changed to a worse direction.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Contemporary_immigration

Labour makes up only 21%? Makes sense considering how messed up the immigration politics are.

So not what you first claimed and not what your video link claimed then. Oh and again when police are outnumbered this tends to happen regardless of the situation or country.

Look, I already said I don't wish to assign blame to outnumbered cops. However, I can't help but do so because, with them apparently being politically affiliated, they still go after thought criminals that think maybe there's a problem with the groups the cops are forced to flee from. If I was a cop whose car was constantly bombared by rocks in a Muslim neighborhood, I would see no point in deciding to apprehend a blogger who thinks Muslim immigration has failed, when I could call in reinforcements to take down the pathetic street gangs who think they're tough, messing with the authorities.

It would seem that the 'extremely hostile lunatic' account is open to question, also of interest is the nationality of the man shot.
http://www.thelocal.se/20130528/48196

But that's OK, blame it on the Muslim's is an easy out; rather than looking into what could well have been a situation that may have been badly handled by the police and resulted in an esculation on both sides.

Badly handled? What's the best solution when a guy charges at you with a knife? Peaceful negotiation?

If the shooting had happened in a predominantly Swedish neighborhood, would there have been riots? Husby is a name I quickly recognize as one of the crappiest suburbs and one that I almost expect to catch fire in these situations, thanks to the large 3rd world foreigner population, just like Rinkeby and Tensta.

Citation required. Can you show he the Swedish government website page that details this welfare money 'that no one else gets'?

I've seen the same claim made of the UK, Canada, the US and Australia to date and funnily enough not a single one of them have been genuine. So you have to excuse my skepticism.

I didn't say that. I meant that in the context "the state gives them more money than any other state". Scandinavian welfare is pretty well known to be one of the, if not the most charitable in the world. Why else would we get all the 3rd world immigration? It's rather cold and depressing up here for most of the year, but for certain people, free money is just too attractive to resist.

 

[Scaff]

Either thought police works both ways or it doesn't exist at all. Right now, left wing opinions aren't silenced no matter how radical they are, but even well presented right wing views are seen as hate speech. It's hypocrisy.

And yet you are calling for a crack down on the 'thoughts' you don't like without a recipocation on the 'thoughts' you do like.

Odd that.

BNP and Britain First are rising? That's news to me. As for Finland or Sweden, neither seems to have any far-right parties in the parliament at all. If you're talking about grassroots level rising rather than specifically political parties, I don't see a particularly high problem with far right groups at the moment. Far left keeps on going with their political violence (google the AFA organization in Sweden).

The BNP have fallen apart of late, but Britain First is most definitely growing its base. Partly because a good chuck of what was the BNP and EDF are now Britain First.

As for Finland and Sweden, plenty would class True Finns and Sweden Democrats as exactly that.

We then have NF in France, the Northern League in Italy, etc.

True, that's what it did.

Then why say it didn't? Maybe your ideology was getting in the way of fact.

People moving from one country to another in search of a job, generally in small numbers, not because the other country has more attractive welfare systems. Unnatural immigration is what Sweden's keeping up - taking in huge numbers of "refugees" from the most backwards possible areas on the planet. "Boat refugees" heading towards Europe and Australia also fall into the unnatural category. I'd find it astonishing if even 10% of the people on those boats intend to work for even a day in case they reach their destination.

First off a 'refugees' or 'Asylum' seekers would be covered under UN law and Sweden can't refuse them.

However you have not yet shown a breakdown of the jobs Muslim immigrants take, the country they come from , the time period this occurred over (despite this being you original claim). Rather you now seem to simply be going on a general anti-immigration rant.

Now can you please put some detail to you original claim.

Sure, it was workforce at first. Later on, things changed to a worse direction.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#Contemporary_immigration

Labour makes up only 21%? Makes sense considering how messed up the immigration politics are.

Nope - that's the numbers not the why.

I'm quite amazed that given how hot you are on this you have no idea why Sweden first put in place an open policy on immigration. That I would have thought would be basic background knowledge.

Oh and I do like the use of data in a quote-mined manner as well, infering that the 89% was simply people after benefits. The actual breakdown being:

1. Labour migrants (21%)
2. Family reunification (20%)
3. Immigrating under the EU/EES rules of free movement (18%)
4. Students (14%)
5. Refugees (12%)

So the biggest percentage are definitely coming for work, 20% are the family of those already here (some of whom may or may not work), 18% don't have to tell you (but again it would be absurd to think none are working), 14% are students and 12% are actual refugees.

So of that breakdown the only thing we can say with 100% certainty is that 12% are definitely not coming to work or study.

Look, I already said I don't wish to assign blame to outnumbered cops. However, I can't help but do so because, with them apparently being politically affiliated, they still go after thought criminals that think maybe there's a problem with the groups the cops are forced to flee from. If I was a cop whose car was constantly bombared by rocks in a Muslim neighborhood, I would see no point in deciding to apprehend a blogger who thinks Muslim immigration has failed, when I could call in reinforcements to take down the pathetic street gangs who think they're tough, messing with the authorities.

So did they not arrest anyone from these incidents at all? No one what so ever?

Badly handled? What's the best solution when a guy charges at you with a knife? Peaceful negotiation?

Has the legal case on this been resolved? If it has then please provide a link, as I was only able to find that it was still on-going.

If the shooting had happened in a predominantly Swedish neighborhood, would there have been riots? Husby is a name I quickly recognize as one of the crappiest suburbs and one that I almost expect to catch fire in these situations, thanks to the large 3rd world foreigner population, just like Rinkeby and Tensta.

Which has what to do with Islam causing the riot?

Keep in mind that's why you brought this into the discussion.

I didn't say that. I meant that in the context "the state gives them more money than any other state". Scandinavian welfare is pretty well known to be one of the, if not the most charitable in the world. Why else would we get all the 3rd world immigration? It's rather cold and depressing up here for most of the year, but for certain people, free money is just too attractive to resist.

All the 3rd world immigration?

Your not even the highest in Europe (you get third place).
http://www.timesofmalta.com/article...per-capita-rate-of-asylum-applications.305663

You would have a far easier time making a point if you didn't keep coming up with things that are blatantly untrue and dismissed with around five seconds of Google.

However you still have not explained why this is caused by Muslims or even been able to outline the timeline for Muslim migration to Sweden (except an unsupported claim of 0 to 3.5 really fast) or even explain why Sweden got into this situation with immigration in the first place!

So far, as supporting your position goes, you have not really managed a lot (well aside from Muslims = Bad for some reason I can't really explain but its happening OK, oh look out Immigrants).

Support your point with well sourced facts and use data correctly and include all of it rather than cherry pick.

 

[Carbonox]

As for Finland and Sweden, plenty would class True Finns and Sweden Democrats as exactly that.

We then have NF in France, the Northern League in Italy, etc.

For the rest, I should be back later. However, I honestly had a laugh at this. Nationalist party = automatically far right?

Let me point you out to Golden Dawn in Greece. That's far right. Not saying they do exclusively bad things, but violence has been involved around them. Then we have the other parties that have made the mistake of trying to censor them...

I've never seen the True Finns, Sweden Democrats, Front National, UKIP, or Geert Wilders' party use violence to make a point, nor have I seen them calling for unjustified deportation of people.

First off a 'refugees' or 'Asylum' seekers would be covered under UN law and Sweden can't refuse them.

Bad laws are meant to be changed then. How can a country with billions of debt (like Finland) be expected to accept refugees without complaining?

 

[TenEightyOne]

For the rest, I should be back later. However, I honestly had a laugh at this. Nationalist party = automatically far right?

He didn't say that.

I hadn't heard of the Sweden Democrats so, as Scaff suggested to your good self earlier, I spent 5 mins on Google. They do appear to be considered "far right" by politicians and observers, so I think that's established. As for "unjustified deportation of people", that's a flexible argument, right?

Wiki

BBC

 

[Carbonox]

He didn't say that.

I hadn't heard of the Sweden Democrats so, as Scaff suggested to your good self earlier, I spent 5 mins on Google. They do appear to be considered "far right" by politicians and observers, so I think that's established. As for "unjustified deportation of people", that's a flexible argument, right?

Wiki

BBC

Having read up a lot of news from my dear neighboring country and ice hockey rival, I have found out that SD doesn't even notably differ from the leading Social Democrat party (in order not to confuse the two, the latter is abbreviated as just "S" in general) except for their immigration policy, and their somewhat larger affiliation with Christianity. Note that while there is opposition to gay marriage, they also believe that sexual minorities would be much worse off if Sweden were to become more Islamized.

Deportation should be made more possible to give foreigners a clear message, though. They should be expected to adhere to the country's laws - that's the least they can do to show gratefulness for the country that accepted them in - or risk being returned to the state they came from.

Oh, and despite being a far right party with a strong opposition to immigration...

"According to Aftonbladet, 14% of SD members are of immigrant origin,[72][73] which corresponds to the proportion of foreign-born in Sweden.[74] For the 2010 election in the municipality of Södertälje (Stockholm County), SD was the only party with a majority of immigrants on its electoral list, mostly Assyrians from the Middle East.[75] Polling 7.31% (3,447 votes), SD's municipal list in Södertälje got 5 of the 65 municipal seats.[76] Nader Helawi and 4 other Swedes from immigrant origin will sit as municipal councilors.[77] "

 

[Scaff]

For the rest, I should be back later. However, I honestly had a laugh at this. Nationalist party = automatically far right?

Odd given that I didn't say that, however a strong correlation does exists between far right politics and Nationalism.

Let me point you out to Golden Dawn in Greece. That's far right. Not saying they do exclusively bad things, but violence has been involved around them. Then we have the other parties that have made the mistake of trying to censor them...

I've never seen the True Finns, Sweden Democrats, Front National, UKIP, or Geert Wilders' party use violence to make a point, nor have I seen them calling for unjustified deportation of people.

You don't need to use violence or call for the deportation of X to be considered far right, not quite sure how you managed to get that?

Bad laws are meant to be changed then. How can a country with billions of debt (like Finland) be expected to accept refugees without complaining?

Cool, so you are OK with people being returned to countries in which they will almost certainly be killed or suffer life threatening levels of persecution (you may want to actually read up on what makes a valid claim for Asylum before answering).

However in regard to debt and the overall budget of a country, now we are getting someplace. Give that why for immigration a go again, this time actually put some critical thought into it rather than noise from your favorite political sources.

 

[Carbonox]

Odd given that I didn't say that, however a strong correlation does exists between far right politics and Nationalism.


You don't need to use violence or call for the deportation of X to be considered far right, not quite sure how you managed to get that?

Read my post above. How can a party with such similar policies to social democrats suddenly become far right because they want to limit immigration a lot from the current level?

That's just my worldview - in my opinion it's rather hard to be far right, far left or far anything without being violent or advocating violence, whether it's against leftists, rightists or Kaffirs.

Cool, so you are OK with people being returned to countries in which they will almost certainly be killed or suffer life threatening levels of persecution (you may want to actually read up on what makes a valid claim for Asylum before answering).

However in regard to debt and the overall budget of a country, now we are getting someplace. Give that why for immigration a go again, this time actually put some critical thought into it rather than noise from your favorite political sources.

Why should refugees move halfway across the world up here when there are plenty of alternatives closer to them? For instance, Turkey is relatively safe (and Islamized enough to keep Muslim refugees happy), why is it not good enough?

Also, isn't the whole point of the refugee "business" to return refugees to their home countries once the coast is clear again? In Somalia things have calmed down now, but for some reason, young men (who I'm sure are in fit shape) don't seem too excited to return and help rebuild the state. The only Somali immigrant in Finland I know of who has expressed wishes to return is a female activist who would even like to run for president. Good luck for her, but shouldn't others follow this example at some point?

So... what about the debt? It's hard to find an European country not in debt at the moment, but apparently taking in refugees whose ability to work isn't guaranteed at all is still required...

 

[Furinkazen]

Why should refugees move halfway across the world up here when there are plenty of alternatives closer to them? For instance, Turkey is relatively safe (and Islamized enough to keep Muslim refugees happy), why is it not good enough?

No, considering the government is not supporting anti-ISIS action as of now whilst they are also attacking Kurdish sections inside the country...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rebel-positions-near-iraq-border-9793040.html

Also, isn't the whole point of the refugee "business" to return refugees to their home countries once the coast is clear again? In Somalia things have calmed down now, but for some reason, young men (who I'm sure are in fit shape) don't seem too excited to return and help rebuild the state. The only Somali immigrant in Finland I know of who has expressed wishes to return is a female activist who would even like to run for president. Good luck for her, but shouldn't others follow this example at some point?

What if you have found a perfectly acceptable new life and are settled into another country. Are you suggesting that once your country is safe you should be gone, that in effect it is a "loan" that is retracted when said country see's the original country as fine to live in again?

 

[Carbonox]

No, considering the government is not supporting anti-ISIS action as of now whilst they are also attacking Kurdish sections inside the country...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rebel-positions-near-iraq-border-9793040.html



What if you have found a perfectly acceptable new life and are settled into another country. Are you suggesting that once your country is safe you should be gone, that in effect it is a "loan" that is retracted when said country see's the original country as fine to live in again?

I said Turkey is safe, I didn't mention their policies at all. (Not that I'm surprised about them - never liked Erdogan, I think he's turning the country only further away from secularism) Even if we discarded Turkey, there are still habitable regions in the Muslim world, like Iran, who I think have no problem defending themselves from invaders.

For your second paragraph - why does it need to be just one country declaring another one safe? I think for the sake of fairness, a few more should confirm the report. And if it does turn out to be safe, well, getting it rebuilt should be easy if enough of the refugees / asylum seekers that return to the area have learned important skills from the West?

 

[Furinkazen]

For your second paragraph - why does it need to be just one country declaring another one safe? I think for the sake of fairness, a few more should confirm the report. And if it does turn out to be safe, well, getting it rebuilt should be easy if enough of the refugees / asylum seekers that return to the area have learned important skills from the West?

Why should we "return" people who are settled here? That isn't politics, that is pure control and nothing else. People are not supposed to be herded around like cattle!

 

[Carbonox]

Why should we "return" people who are settled here? That isn't politics, that is pure control and nothing else. People are not supposed to be herded around like cattle!

If they can prove they're settled in, maybe then things are different... In general though, looking at the reports about rootless youth across Europe feeling bad about society around them and all that, would it help if they returned to the land of their home culture once the coast is clear?

Oh, and at the moment I'm very skeptical about a lot of the refugees... such as why so many of them are young men, even though I thought women and children were more at danger in the Islamic world in particular... Makes me think of the Winter War, where young men certainly weren't the largest refugee group, as the majority kinda, umm, stayed behind to protect Finland from the big Soviet bear, and actually succeeded...

 

[Scaff]

Read my post above. How can a party with such similar policies to social democrats suddenly become far right because they want to limit immigration a lot from the current level?

So they don't have policies that would effectively curb almost all immigration, pay people to leave the country, remove rights from the Sami, remove funding for anything that isn't 'Swedish' enough, introduce significantly more draconian laws (including force repatriation for some criminals), remove rights from homosexuals (under the farcical logic of 'you'd be worse off under Islam - odd given that Islam has no chance of running the country). Apart from all that, yep exactly the same.

You see its this poorly researched, inaccurate nonsense that I take issue with.

That's just my worldview - in my opinion it's rather hard to be far right, far left or far anything without being violent or advocating violence, whether it's against leftists, rightists or Kaffirs.

Why?

Why should refugees move halfway across the world up here when there are plenty of alternatives closer to them? For instance, Turkey is relatively safe (and Islamized enough to keep Muslim refugees happy), why is it not good enough?

Because under UN agreement every nation takes a share of refugees, and I can assure that that Turkey takes quite a few more than Sweden is right now.

Also, isn't the whole point of the refugee "business" to return refugees to their home countries once the coast is clear again? In Somalia things have calmed down now, but for some reason, young men (who I'm sure are in fit shape) don't seem too excited to return and help rebuild the state. The only Somali immigrant in Finland I know of who has expressed wishes to return is a female activist who would even like to run for president. Good luck for her, but shouldn't others follow this example at some point?

Somalia itself has settled into some form of normality only in the last 12 months and given its track record I know that if I was in that position I wouldn't be eager to return.

So... what about the debt? It's hard to find an European country not in debt at the moment, but apparently taking in refugees whose ability to work isn't guaranteed at all is still required...

I find it utterly amazing that someone who is so vocal about why Sweden opened itself up to immigration has no idea why it did it. Seriously, for the claims you are making its a major shortfall and to my mind shows how blinkered your out look is.

Now first off Asylum seekers and Refugees are not a part of this policy, as this falls under the UN convention on Refugees.

However lets take a look at Sweden's demographic makeup, Sweden has one of the oldest populations in the world, older people live longer, contribute little to the economy, but cost the state a great deal. Its sucks, but those are the facts. With a welfare system as broad as Sweden's is the cost of the oldest sections of society is huge.

Now combine that with one of the lowest birth rate in the world and you have a serious problem and 'time-bomb' in terms of your ability to raise taxes to pay for the care of the elderly.

Increasing the birthrate across Sweden would not solve the problem until these kids go out to work, and by then you now have an even larger elderly population, living longer (medicine doesn't stand still) and costing more.

A number of routes are open to you.

• You can slash the welfare state - something that will almost certainly not happen in Sweden, not to the degree needed.
• You can keep increasing taxes higher and higher
• You can look to selectively increase your population in the demographic you need. Young, healthy, single, working people. They pay one of the largest proportions of tax and use the least from the welfare state. Which is exactly what immigration is all about, and best of all many of these people go back home to retire, so you don't always get them when they get 'expensive'.

That's why Sweden opened itself up to immigration, as unless you were going to tear down your welfare system or magic people out of thin air you had little choice.

Now a valid discussion can be had about getting the balance right in many areas, but a blanket ban or even a massive crack down on immigration? Well you best be ready to get rid of that welfare state and/or raise taxes if that's the route you want to go down.

Any political party that says they will leave your welfare system intact, without raising taxes (or even with tax cuts) and can remove or massively crack down on immigration is going to find the books don't balance pretty damn quickly.

Now can you please answer the question about "A change from 0% to 3.5% in such a short timespan counts as mass in my book", and actually put some meat on that. As I have been asking for now and you have been avoiding.

 

[Carbonox]

@Scaff, hang on a moment. Don't you think that bringing in plenty of young immigrants to an aging country is kind of a, sort of a, well, population replacement policy? I agree that Swedish birthrates are low (well, it's not an opinion matter so it can't really be agreed or disagreed with, but oh well) but the solution of opening up to immigrants, especially from the 3rd world with vastly different (and sometimes incompatible) cultures doesn't sound appealing either. Japan's population is shrinking as well, but they haven't opened their borders up - they know that by dragging in folks from, for instance, Africa whose average birthrates are much higher, they would cause their populace and culture to slowly become replaced.

0% to 3.5% is a massive change, yes. One time there were no 3rd world immigrants - now they make up a majority in several neighborhoods in big towns, and are still growing.

By the way, why do you think Islam has no chance of gaining political power in Sweden?

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff, hang on a moment. Don't you think that bringing in plenty of young immigrants to an aging country is kind of a, sort of a, well, population replacement policy?

Unless they are killing of Swedes to make room then its supplementing the population not replacing it.

I agree that Swedish birthrates are low (well, it's not an opinion matter so it can't really be agreed or disagreed with, but oh well) but the solution of opening up to immigrants, especially from the 3rd world with vastly different (and sometimes incompatible) cultures doesn't sound appealing either.

European origin is still the largest group of immigrants to Sweden and you appear to have missed my comment "Now a valid discussion can be had about getting the balance right in many areas".

So its not especially from the developing world and nor are differing cultures always impossible to bring in. Take the first Iranian migration to Sweden (as a result of the Iran / Iraq war), the majority of them now describe themselves as secular. That would seem to indicate a far bit of Sweden rubbing off on them.

Japan's population is shrinking as well, but they haven't opened their borders up - they know that by dragging in folks from, for instance, Africa whose average birthrates are much higher, they would cause their populace and culture to slowly become replaced.

Oh dear. Japan does take a reasonable number of migrants from the South East Asia and Pacific rim, but also from Europe (a friend of mine has been there for twenty years).

However they do limit it more than most countries however they have and are opening that up, but they also have a much, much smaller welfare system that Sweden which they still can't fund, oh and the economy of the place is in the toilet. All of which pretty much backs up what I said.

0% to 3.5% is a massive change, yes. One time there were no 3rd world immigrants - now they make up a majority in several neighborhoods in big towns, and are still growing.

Still no breakdown I see. Provide it before making the '3rd world' quote again.

By the way, why do you think Islam has no chance of gaining political power in Sweden?

Really, you can get elected to run the country with 3.5% of the vote. Cool.

 

[Carbonox]

Unless they are killing of Swedes to make room then its supplementing the population not replacing it.


European origin is still the largest group of immigrants to Sweden and you appear to have missed my comment "Now a valid discussion can be had about getting the balance right in many areas".

So its not especially from the developing world and nor are differing cultures always impossible to bring in. Take the first Iranian migration to Sweden (as a result of the Iran / Iraq war), the majority of them now describe themselves as secular. That would seem to indicate a far bit of Sweden rubbing off on them.


Oh dear. Japan does take a reasonable number of migrants from the South East Asia and Pacific rim, but also from Europe (a friend of mine has been there for twenty years).

However they do limit it more than most countries however they have and are opening that up, but they also have a much, much smaller welfare system that Sweden which they still can't fund, oh and the economy of the place is in the toilet. All of which pretty much backs up what I said.



Still no breakdown I see. Provide it before making the '3rd world' quote again.



Really, you can get elected to run the country with 3.5% of the vote. Cool.

European origin immigrants also don't reproduce at the rate of the 3rd worlders, so the current trend may eventually change. 80,000 yearly refugees / asylum seekers doesn't exactly help either.

...And there we go then. With Japan's small welfare system, no wonder it doesn't attract 3rd world people... you know the kind who are so turned on by free money that they would take a dangerous boat trip just to gain access to it.

What breakdown?

And I was under the assumption you were taking future events into account. How can you be sure Islam is not the dominant religion / ideology in Sweden at some point?

 

[Scaff]

European origin immigrants also don't reproduce at the rate of the 3rd worlders, so the current trend may eventually change. 80,000 yearly refugees / asylum seekers doesn't exactly help either.

Neither do immigrants from developed countries past the first generation either, that however is a moot point.

It does help, certainly more than sticking with the status-quo and I never stated it was the ideal solution either. Which is why I outlined the options that are available and keep in mind this is simply the answer to a question about your own immigration policy that you were unable to answer.

Do you not ask yourself why, with all the anti-immigration information you clearly read, that you were not aware of this?

...And there we go then. With Japan's small welfare system, no wonder it doesn't attract 3rd world people... you know the kind who are so turned on by free money that they would take a dangerous boat trip just to gain access to it.

And they are changing it, and they do take refugees from developing nations (just not the same ones Europe does) and their economy has been screwed for longer and deeper than the current European issues.

Not sure how you missed those points, so I just though they might be worth repeating.

What breakdown?

You claimed that the 0% to 3.5% had been the result of a rapid mass migration, I've asked you to break that down. i.e. back it up with some actual data, how many moved, when, the place they came from, how they have integrated?

Again, as you are so passionate about Muslim immigration into Sweden you should have this information to had, with sourced references.

And I was under the assumption you were taking future events into account. How can you be sure Islam is not the dominant religion / ideology in Sweden at some point?

How far into the future so you want to go? As every crediable study (i.e. thsoe that don't cherry pick data) shows its certainly not going to happen by 2050, the year most claims make for European countries.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-will-britain-have-a-muslim-majority-by-2050/13690

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sweden's woes continue; now crafty Russian immigrants have set up an underwater home in Swedish waters.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Sweden's woes continue; now crafty Russian immigrants have set up an underwater home in Swedish waters.

Just Putin on a fishin' trip.

 

[GBO Possum]

Very sad news out of Canada in recent days. Two "converts to Islam" have gone on sprees of violence in Montreal and Ottawa. The word "radicalized" is often used in conjunction with these people.

What is it about Islam which spawns such frequent violence and how can it be halted, either from within or from outside. Clearly, bombs don't work. Equally clearly, the frequency of these events which are sourced from Islam is far greater than any other source.

So what's the cure? How can Islam be changed such that it inspires less violence?

PS. Before you apologists jump in and claim that I'm saying all Muslims are terrorists, just please re-read what I actually posted. It's about Islam (which is a bunch of ideas, not people) and the frequency with which it inspires its followers to commit violent acts. That frequency is not 100%. But clearly Islam is more effective at being associated with violent acts than any other bunch of ideas. How many times this year have you read about a radicalized atheist going on the rampage?

 

[Dotini]

Very sad news out of Canada in recent days. Two "converts to Islam" have gone on sprees of violence in Montreal and Ottawa. The word "radicalized" is often used in conjunction with these people.

What is it about Islam which spawns such frequent violence and how can it be halted, either from within or from outside. Clearly, bombs don't work. Equally clearly, the frequency of these events which are sourced from Islam is far greater than any other source.

So what's the cure? How can Islam be changed such that it inspires less violence?

PS. Before you apologists jump in and claim that I'm saying all Muslims are terrorists, just please re-read what I actually posted. It's about Islam (which is a bunch of ideas, not people) and the frequency with which it inspires its followers to commit violent acts. That frequency is not 100%. But clearly Islam is more effective at being associated with violent acts than any other bunch of ideas. How many times this year have you read about a radicalized atheist going on the rampage?

I'm not so sure the Canadian sprees don't say more about Canada and Canadians than it does about Islam.

It's said the radicalized converts to Islam in western countries are very impressed by the idea of a Caliphate and how successful ISIS has been in implementing the idea. This means the converts are un-attracted by their own western cultures and their systems of social order. So maybe the problem begins at home, and not far, far away.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm not so sure the Canadian sprees don't say more about Canada and Canadians than it does about Islam.

It's said the radicalized converts to Islam in western countries are very impressed by the idea of a Caliphate and how successful ISIS has been in implementing the idea. This means the converts are un-attracted by their own western cultures and their systems of social order. So maybe the problem begins at home, and not far, far away.

I said nothing about "far, far away" stuff. Islam is not something that's on the other side of the world. It's a bunch of ideas, ideas which travel without requiring a passport.

Are you saying that Canada and Canadians could avoid Islamic-based violence by voluntarily becoming a Caliphate? That the problem is Canada's, because of its western culture and social order?

Would this argument apply to all non-Muslim cultures? In your opinion.

In my opinion, this is a clear case of blaming the victim.

 

[Dotini]

I said nothing about "far, far away" stuff. Islam is not something that's on the other side of the world. It's a bunch of ideas, ideas which travel without requiring a passport.

Are you saying that Canada and Canadians could avoid Islamic-based violence by voluntarily becoming a Caliphate? That the problem is Canada's, because of its western culture and social order?

Would this argument apply to all non-Muslim cultures? In your opinion.

In my opinion, this is a clear case of blaming the victim.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm politely suggesting that you may be asking the wrong question.

Perhaps a good question would be to begin with the man alleged with the crime, and to examine his extreme disaffection with his social environment, its origins and development.

At this point, we know very little. It is said he was a very recent convert to Islam, but had longstanding mental or emotional issues. If these attributes are correct, he could have known but little about Islam. Let's say he was carried away by the fervency of his new-found belief, as many are about newly acquired beliefs in general.

He (and 90 others?) were on a special watch list, and his passport was revoked. That alone will have angered him.

BTW, Harper is now demanding, and will get, added surveillance, arrest and detention powers.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I find it ironic that an establishment that uses religion as its core, denounces anything Western, but yet at the same time uses Western media such as Twitter or Youtube to spread their agenda.

However it is disconcerting that ISIS use of social media is actually having an effect on people.

 

[Joel]

It's speculative info right now, but the killer's father was Libyan, and may have fought with pro-Gaddhafi forces in 2011. Canadian fighter jets and special forces were part of the mission in Libya, and this attack was deliberately targeted at a member of the Canadian Forces standing as an honour guard.

The last time Canada was faced with major domestic terrorism was with the FLQ. I think there's some parallels here with what @Dotini mentioned about people being unhappy with their social environment.

 

[Dotini]

It's speculative right now, but the killer's father was Libyan, and may have fought with pro-Gaddhafi forces in 2011. Canadian fighter jets and special forces were part of the mission in Libya, and this attack was deliberately targeted at a member of the Canadian Forces standing as an honour guard.

A great clue, if true. Blowback now looms as the major explanation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A great clue, if true. Blowback now looms as the major explanation.

He's from an Islaamic background (nothing to suggest any extremism) and has been described as "unstable" by friends. Insane extremism is still looming larger, I think, at the moment Islaam is a very visible cause that's riling some nutters who are unconnected to any concerted extremist organisation. They're just nutters

 

[GBO Possum]

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm politely suggesting that you may be asking the wrong question.

Perhaps a good question would be to begin with the man alleged with the crime, and to examine his extreme disaffection with his social environment, its origins and development.

At this point, we know very little. It is said he was a very recent convert to Islam, but had longstanding mental or emotional issues. If these attributes are correct, he could have known but little about Islam. Let's say he was carried away by the fervency of his new-found belief, as many are about newly acquired beliefs in general.

He (and 90 others?) were on a special watch list, and his passport was revoked. That alone will have angered him.

BTW, Harper is now demanding, and will get, added surveillance, arrest and detention powers.

The issue is not just this one isolated event on its own. It's the consistent spawning of radicals from the Islamic source.

Sure, you can defend one or two as disaffected or as mentally or emotionally disturbed. But there is a pattern here.

So I stand by my question which asks what can be changed about Islam to halt the spawning of violence. In Islamic countries there are disaffected non-Muslims who don't like living under Sharia law. How often do we hear about them going on weapons rampages and blowing themselves up?

The issue is Islam. It needs to be fixed. That requires answers.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So I stand by my question which asks what can be changed about Islam to halt the spawning of violence. In Islamic countries there are disaffected non-Muslims who don't like living under Sharia law. How often do we hear about them going on weapons rampages and blowing themselves up?

The issue is Islam. It needs to be fixed. That requires answers.

All the words I emboldened can be replaced with words from other religions or with words referring to humans, humanity and 'normal' society.

How often we hear about incidents is a function of the news companies and a different subject. To examine what makes somebody a violent, dangerous, fundamentalist extremist in the name of Isla'am is to examine the same in the name of any manifestation of physiological psychoses.

In fact you should include the GTA series on that list, that's another "well known murder trigger".