NationStates Jolt Archive

Norway: The Country of Peace Meets the Religion of Peace

Norwegian police have discovered that a large number of Pakistani taxi drivers, many of whom have already been charged with tax evasion in one of the worst cases of welfare fraud in the nation’s history, have close contact with Pakistani gangs and operate as couriers of arms and drugs. In the city of Oslo it is documented that criminal Pakistani gangs also have close ties to Jihadist groups at home and abroad. This despite the fact that Norway, a nation of peace and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, should presumably get along just fine with Islam, which is, as we all know, a religion of peace.

Minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen from the Labour Party has called for increased immigration from Pakistan because this would be good for the economy. The majority of Muslims voted for the Labour Party in the 2005 elections, which the left-wing coalition won by a very slim margin. Eighty-three percent of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as all over Western Europe. Kristin Halvorsen, the leader of the Socialist Left Party, began her election campaign in 2005 in the Pakistani countryside, praising all the “blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country.” She is now Norway’s Minister of Finance.

In 2007, Minister of Justice Knut Storberget said that the Norwegian Constitution Day, May 17th, is for “everybody,” and that it’s appropriate to demonstrate this by displaying a multitude of flags and cultures. It is now permitted to celebrate it by waving the flag of the United Nations. The editor of a Multicultural newspaper has suggested that the Norwegian national anthem should be translated to Urdu because this would be good for integration. Norwegians are supposed to celebrate their independence by singing their national anthem in Urdu, by wearing the national costume of Ghana and by waving the flag of the UN, an organization that is actively trying to curtail their freedoms and subvert their independence. This would be the equivalent of Americans celebrating the Fourth of July by waving the UN flag and by singing the Star-Spangled Banner in Arabic.

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre from the Labour Party participated in a conference with participants from dozens of countries and media outlets on how to “report diversity” in a non-offensive manner, with Arab News from Saudi Arabia as a moderator. The Cartoon Jihad the year before had prompted Indonesia and Norway to join forces and promote a Global Inter-Media Dialogue. In June 2007 this was held in Oslo.

The UN Special Envoy for monitoring of racism and xenophobia, Doudou Diène, started the conference by asking the press to actively help to create a Multicultural society. He expressed concern that democratic processes can lead to immigration-limiting political parties coming to power. He claimed that it marked a dangerous trend that still more intellectuals and academicians in the western world thinks that some cultures or religions are better than others, and stated that “The media must transform diversity, which is a fact of life, into pluralism, which is a set of values.” Getting diversity accepted is the role of the education system, and acceptance is the role of the law, Doudou Diène said. “Promoting and defending diversity is the task of the media.” Societies must recognize, accept and then defend and promote diversity, which always seems to mean sharia. Mr. Diène represents Senegal, a predominantly Muslim country which is a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the United Nations.

According to journalist Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, this conference is yet another sign that Europe is moving in the direction of totalitarianism. Anfindsen thinks “there are already clear signs that large portions of mainstream media in Norway have been working according to UN instructions” long before his conference. In Britain, leading figures of the BBC have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. They don’t even need the UN to tell them that. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept, devotes much space to the bias of European media, and justifiably so. Norwegian PM from the Labor Party Jens Stoltenberg has stated that journalistic diversity is too important to be left up to the marketplace.

One Muslim in Norway stated that: “I worked in a Pakistani shop, but all of the work there is ‘unofficial.’ Neither the boss nor I pay taxes to Norwegian authorities. In addition to this, I receive 100% disability benefits and welfare. I have to be cunning to make as much money as possible, since this is my only objective with being in Norway.” Undoubtedly, many Muslims view welfare money from the infidels as Jizya, the poll-tax non-Muslims according to the Koran are supposed to pay to Muslims as tribute and a sign of their inferior status and submission to Islamic rule. According to Statistics Norway, immigrants generally have a three times higher unemployment rate than native Norwegians. It should be noted that non-Muslim Asians are much more successful, which means that the unemployment rate among Muslims is even higher than 300 % that of the natives. The number of Muslims in Norway has quadrupled over the past 15 years. The number of immigrants in Oslo increased by 40 percent in just five years, from 2002 to 2007. With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a few decades.

The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City, and it is well documented that certain immigrant groups are grossly overrepresented on the statistics. Two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, has said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.” The number of rapes has continued to rise year by year, as it has in neighboring Sweden, but according to Trond Giske, Minister of Culture and Church Affairs from the Labour Party, 2008 will be an official Diversity Year (which it also will be throughout the EU), dedicated to celebrating Multiculturalism and “cultural diversity” in all sectors of society, so hopefully this will change.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project sponsored by the Norwegian state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He lives, according to himself, in a boring, monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity. Zorica Mitic, a Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration. Mr. Eriksen, a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, responded by chastising her for her “lack of visions.”

A shoot-out between two Pakistani gangs one crowded Sunday evening at Oslo’s popular waterfront complex Aker Brygge left two men wounded. Newspaper VG reported that a policeman had to run for his life from an angry crowd of Pakistanis. The plainclothes policeman was hit in the face and told to leave the Furuset shopping center. He was told that it was none of his business being in this area, and that a gang of young men had basically defined Furuset as their turf and didn’t accept “intruders.” Norwegian authorities have thus already lost control over significant chunks of their own capital city. Peaceful rallies denouncing Islamic terrorism or supporting Israel have repeatedly been physically attacked by groups of Muslim immigrants. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, describes how there are now more direct flights from Norway to Pakistan than from Norway to the USA.

Thorbjørn Jagland is a former Prime Minister of Norway from the Labour Party, currently President of the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament. In April 2006, Jagland wrote an essay warning against the dangers of Islamophobia. According to him, paraphrasing the Communist Manifesto, a specter is haunting Europe—the spectre of Islamophobia. He fears that this could give rise to a new form of Fascism. Curiously, at almost the same time as Mr. Jagland warned against rising “Islamophobia,” an article in Aftenposten newspaper warned that “youths” are in the process of destroying Norway’s capital city, Oslo. Young girls are raped, schoolchildren are threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The police warned against “an alarming rise in street violence” in urban areas across the country.

The response of the authorities has been to increase crackdowns on “racism” by the natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament—with the support of 85% of MPs—passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway. A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn’t do. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the EU.

There was absolutely no public debate about this law, which was passed in relative silence before the national elections that year. I was the first one to criticize it at my blog. The only journalist to criticize it was an American ex-pat, Bruce Bawer, and Hans Rustad at Document.no, the country’s largest independent weblog. Not a single Norwegian journalist criticized the proposed law, and most barely mentioned it at all before it was passed.

The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud Beate Gangås, a white, lesbian feminist, before the municipal elections in 2007 warned all political parties against making “discriminatory” remarks about immigration policies, but also called for actively reducing the number of white, heterosexual men in politics. There was little real debate about immigration in the heavily left-leaning media that year, but an all the more passionate with hunt looking for racists, and by that I mean whites only. The left-wing coalition government, after a meeting with immigrant organizations, announced that racists, apparently meaning white natives only, should be “smoked out” of all public sector jobs.

Following the release of a UN population report which indicated a global population increase of several billion people over the coming decades, Marie Simonsen, the political editor of Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This would mean virtually certain annihilation for a tiny, wealthy and naive Scandinavian nation. Ms. Simonsen thus endorsed the gradual enslavement and eventual eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her own tolerance. Not a single word of protest was voiced by any other journalist to this statement. Human rights was a concept originally intended to ensure liberty. Now it’s used to eradicate an entire people, or a large number of peoples across Europe, in the name of tolerance and diversity, and the natives are specifically banned from protesting against this.
The fucking world is going mad. Thank God there are still a significant amount of Norwegians that see through this cloud of bullshit. They are actually LETTING themselves be destroyed.:confused:

By the way, did I forget to mention that the number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City!
Who do you think is doing this? It's not Norwegian on Norwegian crime....

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3545&cid=3&sid=102

The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City, and

O NOES!11!!!TEH DARKIEZ"!111!!!1 Part XIV. For fucks sake......

1) COMPARED WITH USA
For example, did you know that living in the US (where only a tiny minority follow the teachings of Islam) you are 80% MORE likely to get raped than someone living in Norway?* Sounds like a lot, doesn't it?
Given this, what form of cultural and religious self defence would commentators like to prescribe for women living in the US?
2) SEXUAL OFFENCES IN NORWAY IN 2004
One argument commonly posted on the web to smear Norway's muslims with the label of 'rapists' is based on the following misrepresentation of the facts - the allegation that NON-WESTERN IMMIGRANTS (synonymous with Muslims, since they comprise the majority of this group) are responsible for 65% of rapes.
Let's check the maths.
(Statistic Norway 2004)
All Sexual offences in Norway = 571 in 2004
By Norwegians 511 (89%)
By Western Immigrants 27 (5%)
By NON-WESTERN IMMIGRANTS 33 (6%)
Those who wish to smear muslims quote 65% of rapes. The official 2004 statistics indicate 6% of sexual offences by NON-WESTERN IMMIGRANTS... or 33 sex crimes in total across the whole country.
Does that sound like an epidemic?
When you find out the real numbers, the lies, damn lies and distortion created by misquoted percentages becomes clear. What may have started its life, in fact, as an honest calculation of 6.5%, has been misread/ misprinted as 65% and grabbed as proof of a muslim rape epidemic by European anti-muslim propagandists. Its repetition ad nauseum across the net reinforces the perception that it must be accurate, when readily available government records prove it to be a classic example of 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.

http://www.ablemesh.co.uk/thoughtsmuslimsnotrapists.html

By the way, did I forget to mention that the number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City!
Who do you think is doing this? It's not Norwegian on Norwegian crime....
So that makes it, what, 1/10% of the population?
In spite of what the few million Law and Order spin-offs circulating around would have one think, New York is one of the safest big cities in the US. Wake me when Oslo manages to beat out one of the big boys, like Nashville or Detroit.

*sets up tent and video camera. Opens beer. Waits for Gravlen to come online*

This should be...interesting.

Hurrah! Another reason for picking on Norway. :D *Picks on Norway*

By Norwegians 511 (89%)

Is that ethnic Norwegians, or just anyone, who happens to be a citizen of Norway?

I don't know how they do statistics in Norway, but around here it's illegal to make crime statistics based on ethnicity, because they might encourage racism. So when statistics are made in Finland, anyone with citizenship is officially Finnish, regarless of their ethnicity, religion, or how long they've been here. Anyone without citizenship is classified as "of foreign background". I'd assume that it's not much different in Norway.

I'm not going to get into this debate. Just pointing out that your statistics are not exactly accurate either.

Norway? Country of Peace? What are you talking about?

Do you know what they did at the end of Hamlet?!

[/irreverence]

Isn´t Hamlet in Denmark?:confused:

Aaaaand...by post two, this garbage is destroyed!

*sets up tent and video camera. Opens beer. Waits for Gravlen to come online*

This should be...interesting.

Oh we can't trust what he says. He works for the government, and clearly they've all been brainwashed and subverted by TEH EBIL MOZLEMS1!111!!11!!11!12!!!11

can we hate someone else now please

I hear those Amazon tribes are up to no good! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm)

Is that ethnic Norwegians, or just anyone, who happens to be a citizen of Norway?

I don't know how they do statistics in Norway, but around here it's illegal to make crime statistics based on ethnicity, because they might encourage racism. So when statistics are made in Finland, anyone with citizenship is officially Finnish, regarless of their ethnicity, religion, or how long they've been here. Anyone without citizenship is classified as "of foreign background". I'd assume that it's not much different in Norway.

I'm not going to get into this debate. Just pointing out that your statistics are not exactly accurate either.
Exactly, and you should get into this debate. Sweden also does not make statistics based on ethnicity because it "might encourage racism" and I'm sure Norway does too. Thus, like you said, it TOTALLY throws out any arguement one can use with the Norwegian government statistics.
O NOES!11!!!TEH DARKIEZ"!111!!!1 Part XIV. For fucks sake......



http://www.ablemesh.co.uk/thoughtsmuslimsnotrapists.html
Saying "oh no, the darkies" does not, in fact, add anything to the debate...in fact it makes you seem more immature and unwilling to debate. The problem with those "statistics" is clearly shown above by our Finnish poster, China Phenomenon. What he is talking about happens in Sweden aswell (Fass even posted on it, clearly showing how superior that kind of statistical polling was:rolleyes:) and I'm sure Norway uses it also. This is clearly a problem because "Norwegian" in this sense does not mean ethnic Norwegian, but rather Islamic immigrant with citizenship, in which case it voids the statistics which would then NOT show anything over the rate of immigrant crimes/rapes.

can we hate someone else now please

I hear those Amazon tribes are up to no good! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm)

We best wipe them out now before they start raping all our pure white women.

*sets up tent and video camera. Opens beer. Waits for Gravlen to come online*

This should be...interesting.
I am eagerly awaiting Gravy's response. He's a lawyer, too, so he should have access to a lot of information that can confirm or deny Atlantian Island's claims.

In any case I just want to see TAL pounded back into the ground. Maybe he'll finally start to listen and change his bigoted ways.

Wait a second...TAL, why're you just presuming that Norway uses statistics in the same way and therefore dismissing the evidence completely out of hand? Wouldn't it make more sense to investigate and find out if Norway actually does it that way rather than just making assumptions?

...

Oh, wait, this is you we're talking to...nevermind...that'd be far too much to ask.

Exactly, and you should get into this debate. Sweden also does not make statistics based on ethnicity because it "might encourage racism" and I'm sure Norway does too. Thus, like you said, it TOTALLY throws out any arguement one can use with the Norwegian government statistics.

Saying "oh no, the darkies" does not, in fact, add anything to the debate...in fact it makes you seem more immature and unwilling to debate. The problem with those "statistics" is clearly shown above by our Finnish poster, China Phenomenon. What he is talking about happens in Sweden aswell (Fass even posted on it, clearly showing how superior that kind of statistical polling was:rolleyes:) and I'm sure Norway uses it also. This is clearly a problem because "Norwegian" in this sense does not mean ethnic Norwegian, but rather Islamic immigrant with citizenship, in which case it voids the statistics which would then NOT show anything over the rate of immigrant crimes/rapes.

What is your basis for believing that the Norwegian government doesn't have/make statistics based on ethnicity? Other than just wanting to ignore statistics that contradict yours, of course.

Aaaaand...by post two, this garbage is destroyed!
Actually, no. Read what China Phenomenon and I said.

And to everyone else....why is everyone only picking on one part of the article, there are clearly other troubling issues that I pointed out in italics:

"Minister Bjarne Håkon Hanssen from the Labour Party has called for increased immigration from Pakistan because this would be good for the economy. The majority of Muslims voted for the Labour Party in the 2005 elections, which the left-wing coalition won by a very slim margin. Eighty-three percent of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as all over Western Europe. Kristin Halvorsen, the leader of the Socialist Left Party, began her election campaign in 2005 in the Pakistani countryside, praising all the “blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country.” She is now Norway’s Minister of Finance."
83% of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as al over Western Europe? Perhaps that is because they are leeching off the Welfare state, something that Leftists are ok with and Rightists find appaling? Not only are these hordes of Islamic immigrants threatening the peaceful stability of these countries, but they are also making them even more socialist than before.

"The editor of a Multicultural newspaper has suggested that the Norwegian national anthem should be translated to Urdu because this would be good for integration"
Oh yes, fantastic. And while we're at it why don't we just throw out everything that might be Norwegian and replace it for everything non-Norwegian. That's the way to a great future for Norway!

"The UN Special Envoy for monitoring of racism and xenophobia, Doudou Diène, started the conference by asking the press to actively help to create a Multicultural society. He expressed concern that democratic processes can lead to immigration-limiting political parties coming to power."
Well, why don't we just abolish democracy? Hmm? Perhaps next to go will be the other idealogies of the enlightenment like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and such? Don't want to a petty little thing like democracy to get in the way of the all-powerful, always-right idea of Multiculturalism, right Doudou Diene?
"Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, has said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."
No. Norwegian women could walk around naked if they wanted to and it would always be the Muslims fault he he raped her. Do you understand how low you are stooping!? You are defending the rapist and arguing against the victim of rape in the defense and upholding of Multiculturalism!? Have you gone mad?
"Zorica Mitic, a Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration. Mr. Eriksen, a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, responded by chastising her for her “lack of visions."
Yes, what would Mitic know? He's just a first hand survivor of the multi-ethnic multicultural tensions that turned the Balkans into a war zone. After all, that experience means NOTHING when compared to Eriksen's experiences as a "career multiculturalist" (read: Brainwashes people and is the enemy), whatever the fuck that means.
"Norwegian authorities have thus already lost control over significant chunks of their own capital city. Peaceful rallies denouncing Islamic terrorism or supporting Israel have repeatedly been physically attacked by groups of Muslim immigrants."
Yeah. Let's get rid of Democracy and freedom of speech because they get in the way of Multiculturalism. After all, if the Islamic immigrants do not wish us to be able to denounce Islamic terrorism or support the state of Israel, what right do we have to be able to?

OK lemme see if I understand this.

claim: rapes are higher in Oslo because of high muslim population!!!

counterclaim: Crime statistics show the vast majority of crimes in Oslo are caused by Norweigans

response: Sweden does not list ethnicity in crime reports, it only breaks down by citizens and non citizens, so since sweden doesn't list ethnicities, neither does norway and we can't believe those reports!

riiiight. Of course, it kinda doesn't matter since, as is already pointed out, the crime statistics, even if not taking into account ethnicity do take into account citizenship. How many of those pakistani cab drivers you're all up in arms about are naturalized norweigan citizens? Not very many, I'm willing to bet.

Wait a second...TAL, why're you just presuming that Norway uses statistics in the same way and therefore dismissing the evidence completely out of hand? Wouldn't it make more sense to investigate and find out if Norway actually does it that way rather than just making assumptions?

Because I learned that it does...so that's what I'm going on. However, to be fair to the arguemnt I am looking up information on it to show NSG. Unfortunatly so far all I've found is in Norwegian, but worry not, I'm in contact with some Norwegian buddies who will supply me with what I need.

OK lemme see if I understand this.

claim: rapes are higher in Oslo because of high muslim population!!!

counterclaim: Crime statistics show the vast majority of crimes in Oslo are caused by Norweigans

response: Sweden does not list ethnicity in crime reports, it only breaks down by citizens and non citizens, so since sweden doesn't list ethnicities, neither does norway and we can't believe those reports!

riiiight. Of course, it kinda doesn't matter since, as is already pointed out, the crime statistics, even if not taking into account ethnicity do take into account citizenship. How many of those pakistani cab drivers you're all up in arms about are naturalized norweigan citizens? Not very many, I'm willing to bet.

It's not simply that it's a Swedish thing..it's a Scandinavian thing. It's not like saying Argentina has policy A so that means New Zealand must have it...Norway and Sweden share many things.....however, like I said I am looking for something in English that will prove it to NSG.

And...just becomming a citizen doesn't change anything. There still exists the criminal, racial, linguistic and social problems.... I have a problem whether they are citizens or not. It's the quantity I have a problem with.

83% of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as al over Western Europe? Perhaps that is because they are leeching off the Welfare state, something that Leftists are ok with and Rightists find appaling? Not only are these hordes of Islamic immigrants threatening the peaceful stability of these countries, but they are also making them even more socialist than before.
This amuses me, because later in this very post, you complain about Norwegians throwing out democracy. You like democracy, just not when muslims are using it, yeah?


Oh yes, fantastic. And while we're at it why don't we just throw out everything that might be Norwegian and replace it for everything non-Norwegian. That's the way to a great future for Norway!
Celebrating other cultures for one day =/= throwing away everything that's Norwegian.


Well, why don't we just abolish democracy? Hmm? Perhaps next to go will be the other idealogies of the enlightenment like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and such? Don't want to a petty little thing like democracy to get in the way of the all-powerful, always-right idea of Multiculturalism, right Doudou Diene?
Heres that part about how much you love democracy and freedom. Except when muslims have it.

No. Norwegian women could walk around naked if they wanted to and it would always be the Muslims fault he he raped her. Do you understand how low you are stooping!? You are defending the rapist and arguing against the victim of rape in the defense and upholding of Multiculturalism!? Have you gone mad?
Yeah, that guy is some manner of idiot.

Yes, what would Mitic know? He's just a first hand survivor of the multi-ethnic multicultural tensions that turned the Balkans into a war zone. After all, that experience means NOTHING when compared to Eriksen's experiences as a "career multiculturalist" (read: Brainwashes people and is the enemy), whatever the fuck that means.
Apparently it means whatever you want it to mean.

Yeah. Let's get rid of Democracy and freedom of speech because they get in the way of Multiculturalism. After all, if the Islamic immigrants do not wish us to be able to denounce Islamic terrorism or support the state of Israel, what right do we have to be able to?

Defending democracy and complaining about people voting in one post. Do you read this as you type it, or do you have a sort of stream of consciousness thing going on, where you object to everything related to Muslims in any way you can?

And...just becomming a citizen doesn't change anything. There still exists the criminal, racial, linguistic and social problems.... I have a problem whether they are citizens or not. It's the quantity I have a problem with.

That's very nice, but that's not what I asked you. Shocking that you'd dodge the question like that.....real shocking.

Don't worry, I'll spell it out for you, nice and simple like. Since the majority of crime in Norway, the vast majority, is committed by Norweigan citizens and you want to create the inference that most of those committing crimes are muslims, and, specifically, muslim immigrants, you have to show that the majority of those muslim immigrants committing crimes are citizens. Otherwise, if the bulk of the muslim immigrants are not citizens, then they're not the ones carrying out all the crimes, since the vast bulk of crimes are cause by, wait for it....norweigan citizens.

Who do you think is doing this? It's not Norwegian on Norwegian crime....


Prove it.

The article was written by an idiot.

Examples: "the unemployment rate among Muslims is even higher than 300 % that of the natives" (because, of course, natives can't follow Islam); "native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a few decades" (apparently, 'native' no longer means 'born in'... so the children of immigrants will never be natives. Makes me wonder who this clown thinks lives in Norway, now).

That's just off the top of my head.

There is no reason to suspect that you are right... that "It's not Norwegian on Norwegian crime". After all... the article says two-thirds of those CHARGED are non-Western immigrants, but says nothing about how many of those charges are actually connected to genuine crimes... or how many turn out to be 'real' in terms of picking up the actual guilty party.

Also - I'm a little confused that you seem to be arguing crime stats will be useless because they don't show ethnic origins... when the article YOU posted cites ethnic-based-crime-stats. Seems to me, that makes the statistical value of the piece about the same as the rest... i.e. not worth pissing on.

We best wipe them out now before they start raping all our pure white women.

Theres "pure" white women in Dublin? Holy jaysus....

Theres "pure" white women in Dublin? Holy jaysus....

Hey! Where all the white girls at? /Blazing saddles

Theres "pure" white women in Dublin? Holy jaysus....

Can't really say. When you're brown, everything above the Mediterranean is white by comparison.

This is nothing more than one of Fjordman's blogs. Unsupported racist bullshit. As usual.

Blah blah blah. "Islam isn't a religion of peace, it's a barbaric bloodthirsty cabal!"

Blah blah blah. "Immigration is an invasion!"

Blah blah blah. "Muslims are rapists!"

Blah blah blah. "Europe's European-ness is being assaulted by the penis of Islam!"

Blah blah blah.

Same bigoted fear- and hate-mongering trash, not worth wiping my ass with.

83% of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as al over Western Europe? Perhaps that is because they are leeching off the Welfare state, something that Leftists are ok with and Rightists find appaling? Not only are these hordes of Islamic immigrants threatening the peaceful stability of these countries, but they are also making them even more socialist than before.
Nice one. Making Muslims also The Reds, for double the fun!
Oh yes, fantastic. And while we're at it why don't we just throw out everything that might be Norwegian and replace it for everything non-Norwegian. That's the way to a great future for Norway!
It's not throwing away that which is Norwegian. Quite the opposite. It's spreading it to another group, and making Norwegian values more accessible until the immigrants then learn Norwegian.
Well, why don't we just abolish democracy? Hmm? Perhaps next to go will be the other idealogies of the enlightenment like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and such? Don't want to a petty little thing like democracy to get in the way of the all-powerful, always-right idea of Multiculturalism, right Doudou Diene?
Excuse me?

You were just complaining about Muslims voting for left-wing parties a bit earlier.

Should it just be that only white, ethnic Norwegians get to vote, then, and that they can vote for whatever extremists they like?

Nice.
No. Norwegian women could walk around naked if they wanted to and it would always be the Muslims fault he he raped her. Do you understand how low you are stooping!? You are defending the rapist and arguing against the victim of rape in the defense and upholding of Multiculturalism!? Have you gone mad?
That's one person's view. And it's quite understandable, if completely wrong.
Yes, what would Mitic know? He's just a first hand survivor of the multi-ethnic multicultural tensions that turned the Balkans into a war zone. After all, that experience means NOTHING when compared to Eriksen's experiences as a "career multiculturalist" (read: Brainwashes people and is the enemy), whatever the fuck that means.
Right. I see.

So Mitic, a man prejudiced by his experiences that were actually based on a huge amount of scapegoating to cover up that the former Yugoslavia was only a vaguely functioning state due to the authoritarian actions of Tito, and crumbled both economically and socially after he lost power, has the exact same overall perspective as a trained expert on the matter?

Yeah. Nice one right there.
Yeah. Let's get rid of Democracy and freedom of speech because they get in the way of Multiculturalism. After all, if the Islamic immigrants do not wish us to be able to denounce Islamic terrorism or support the state of Israel, what right do we have to be able to?
Interesting.

Anyone got any really concrete evidence that Muslims in Norway are ganging up and stopping the Norwegian government support Israel?

No?

Oh... what a fucking surprise, a bullshit post, which pointed out a certain section of an article which TAI got completely caned over, which is going to lead to him getting battered in this argument again.

Looks like the islamofascists are going social-democrat, boys. Not to mention, they suffer two thirds of all rape accusations when the actual crimes are committed mostly by ethnic Norwegians, and they're ruining Nordic culture by bringing in all those damn foreign influences. Baaaaa.

And...just becomming a citizen doesn't change anything. There still exists the criminal, racial, linguistic and social problems.... I have a problem whether they are citizens or not. It's the quantity I have a problem with.
As in, they're ragheads, eh?

You're a disgrace, and even more so for coming from a Western country where you might actually have enough of an education to see the fallicies in your own arguement.

Can't really say. When you're brown, everything above the Mediterranean is white by comparison.

O the white thing is true (literally)..once you scrape the layers of false tan off. Its the "pure" bit I'm a bit taken aback by......

Norway was a nice country. That is before Grønlandet exploded into a Riyad(et).

Uni was warning of that in time and was accused of racism.

Now she has the right to cynically say: "you got what you asked for. Now wrap in a chador."

Looks like the islamofascists are going social-democrat, boys. Not to mention, they suffer two thirds of all rape accusations when the actual crimes are committed mostly by ethnic Norwegians, and they're ruining Nordic culture by bringing in all those damn foreign influences. Baaaaa.

Do we have a culture? :D

Do we have a culture? :D

Drinking Mead and raiding coastal villages?

If any of this is true, then it is the Norwegians own damn fault, for keeping to vote on the people that have created this mess.

Drinking Mead and raiding coastal villages?

Sadly enough, we have stopped doing that. Sounds like fun, though. :D

Sadly enough, we have stopped doing that. Sounds like fun, though. :D
Restart it, it was amusing, and made my hometown of York (then Jorvik) what it is today.

Also, I totally wouldn't mind if you stopped taking a break from owning Finland. Otherwise Estonia is going to stake their claim, and that's a lot of tax revenues going to waste.

Restart it, it was amusing, and made my hometown of York (then Jorvik) what it is today.

Also, I totally wouldn't mind if you stopped taking a break from owning Finland. Otherwise Estonia is going to stake their claim, and that's a lot of tax revenues going to waste.

What about claiming parts of Germany, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Norway and the US? And whole Russia of course, for taking it from us. :D

What about claiming parts of Germany, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Norway and the US? And whole Russia of course, for taking it from us. :D

You can't do that. Its irrational territory grabbing...

Unless you have a holy book that says its yours, then some bunch with a veto will help you.

You can't do that. Its irrational territory grabbing...

Unless you have a holy book that says its yours, then some bunch with a veto will help you.

Well, the Israeli did it, as you mentioned, and we owned that territory less than 400 years ago. And a holy book shouldn´t take more than a month to write up. The first step against world domination is taken... *Insert evil laughter here*

pwned
If you don’t wanrt to see the score, look away now...

Fact and Reason: 27
Atlantian Islands: 0


*psst* Atlantian, how’s about instead of trawling the dregs of the blogosphere for some paper-thin opinion piece vaguely supporting the idea that brown people suck, you take a restock of your views?

Yes, we all know that you’re not too fond of those pesky Muslims. But if the best you can do is every few days bring up an op-ed piece from unsavoury source that is ripped apart within seconds of you posting it, can you not see you might be on the wrong track?

Seriously, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen you win an argument on this subject. Does that not tell you something?

What about claiming parts of Germany, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Norway and the US? And whole Russia of course, for taking it from us. :D
Nah, just Finland would be fine to be honest. Can't let them get too settled, or they'll become too boring.

If any of this is true, then it is the Norwegians own damn fault, for keeping to vote on the people that have created this mess.

I've noticed that, in much of Western Europe, political correctness is a much more powerful force than in the US. The academic, media and political elite have decided on certain policies, such as allowing large numbers of immigrants from incompatible cultures and religions. At the same time, they have created a social setting where criticising multiculturalism and immigration immediately labels one as a racist and, in some cases, leads to criminal charges.

So, a lot of these policies go unchallenged, especially in places like Scandinavia, where there is a culture of politeness and consensus.

It's hard to figure out just what the benefits are to Norway or Sweden of immigration from the Muslim world.

I'd be curious if someone actually living in Scandinavia could describe any positive aspects of this immigration.

Hmm....it seems I've found something that both supports and attacks my position:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1097512.ece

"Bondevik is wrong here. The brochure says that very many immigrants are law-abiding citizens that do a fantastic job for Norway. But unfortunately there are all too many who are not law-abiding. Statistics show that clearly that criminality is growing among immigrants," Hagen told Dagsavisen.

The Fr.P stance is likely based on the last figures from Statistics Norway (SSB) that calculate crime rates and ethnicity from 2002. The rate of non-Western immigrants convicted of crimes then was 30 per 1000, compared to 14 Norwegians per thousand."

Though I could have sworn that don't do crime rates and ethnicity reports in Norway, it could be that they don't do it anymore seeing as this is from 2002. Which is unfortunate because while it is "only" 30 per 1000 here compared to 14 per thousand...now a days the number would be much higher but I can only find articles and documents on that in Norwegian.

Anyway, the rest of the article is still there and holds many arguements...only one person has adressed that and used my dislike of socialism to somehow equal me being ok with the destruction of the democratic system.:rolleyes:

Also, to those that asked me when I will "give in" to leftism or whatever....the answer is never. While there are many on here who are too brainwashed that I will never convince, there are others who agree with me, both her but much more in the real world. So I will be here.

I've noticed that, in much of Western Europe, political correctness is a much more powerful force than in the US. The academic, media and political elite have decided on certain policies, such as allowing large numbers of immigrants from incompatible cultures and religions. At the same time, they have created a social setting where criticising multiculturalism and immigration immediately labels one as a racist and, in some cases, leads to criminal charges.

So, a lot of these policies go unchallenged, especially in places like Scandinavia, where there is a culture of politeness and consensus.

It's hard to figure out just what the benefits are to Norway or Sweden of immigration from the Muslim world.

I'd be curious if someone actually living in Scandinavia could describe any positive aspects of this immigration.
Well there was one Finn who commented earlier.....however I'd like to see a Norwegian come on. While it is unfortunate many are brainwashed with this multicutluralism garbage, it is good news that the political party that is aware to the issues of multiculturalism, crime and immigration is the second largest in Norway...which means people are slowly starting to realize their problems.

Oh my! Norway is under siege! Or it's a xenophobic rant! Good heavens, I don't know what I should think!

Shall we look closer?
Norway: The Country of Peace Meets the Religion of Peace
Who calls Islam "religion of peace" anyways? No muslims I know of. And regardless, it's not, so stop the sarcasm.

It's a religion of law not of peace. But nevermind that now... Let's look at the beast...

The article!
Norwegian police have discovered that a large number of Pakistani taxi drivers, many of whom have already been charged with tax evasion in one of the worst cases of welfare fraud in the nation’s history, have close contact with Pakistani gangs and operate as couriers of arms and drugs. In the city of Oslo it is documented that criminal Pakistani gangs also have close ties to Jihadist groups at home and abroad. This despite the fact that Norway, a nation of peace and home to the Nobel Peace Prize, should presumably get along just fine with Islam, which is, as we all know, a religion of peace.
Hmm... Not bothered to link to these "close ties" I see. I mean that's not at all an important aspect.

The majority of Muslims voted for the Labour Party in the 2005 elections, which the left-wing coalition won by a very slim margin.Eighty-three percent of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as all over Western Europe. Kristin Halvorsen, the leader of the Socialist Left Party, began her election campaign in 2005 in the Pakistani countryside, praising all the “blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country.” She is now Norway’s Minister of Finance.
...so?

The editor of a Multicultural newspaper has suggested that the Norwegian national anthem should be translated to Urdu because this would be good for integration.
Wouldn't it? They wish to sing the national anthem in the language their young children can understand.

Let me repeat the important part here: They wish to sing the national anthem.
Not only hum along, but sing it, in words they and their children can understand.

I don't see the problem.

Norwegians are supposed to celebrate their independence by singing their national anthem in Urdu, by wearing the national costume of Ghana
Again, what's the problem with this? The national costume of Norway doesn't exist. At least, it's not uniform and differs from region to region.

and by waving the flag of the UN, an organization that is actively trying to curtail their freedoms and subvert their independence.
http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif

Societies must recognize, accept and then defend and promote diversity, which always seems to mean sharia.
Wowza, that's a leap! How did he reach that conclusion?

According to journalist Ole Jørgen Anfindsen, this conference is yet another sign that Europe is moving in the direction of totalitarianism.
:D Funny guy that.

Anfindsen thinks “there are already clear signs that large portions of mainstream media in Norway have been working according to UN instructions” long before his conference.
Yet none are pointed out or linked to.

In Britain, leading figures of the BBC have proudly announced that they actively promote Multiculturalism. They don’t even need the UN to tell them that. Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept, devotes much space to the bias of European media, and justifiably so.
Bias... Not backed up.
And this is only a problem if multiculturalism in and by itself is a problem. Is it? I can't see it.

Norwegian PM from the Labor Party Jens Stoltenberg has stated that journalistic diversity is too important to be left up to the marketplace.
A quote you'd like to know the context of, yet no link or explanation is found.

One Muslim in Norway stated that:
Then it must be the norm! :rolleyes:

I had to forget my Allah before I left for work... ... ...I could hardly sleep if I found Allah in my breath. Why? “I worked in a Pakistani shop, but all of the work there is ‘unofficial.’ Neither the boss nor I pay taxes to Norwegian authorities. In addition to this, I receive 100% disability benefits and welfare. I have to be cunning to make as much money as possible, since this is my only objective with being in Norway.” Allah, on the other hand, is always against money made by trickery, and states that such income isn't allowed at all for muslims.
He forgot the bolded parts...
Gee. Sounds like a representative muslim, doesn't he.

According to Statistics Norway, immigrants generally have a three times higher unemployment rate than native Norwegians. It should be noted that non-Muslim Asians are much more successful, which means that the unemployment rate among Muslims is even higher than 300 % that of the natives.
And these numbers come from...?

It's not from SSB, because they don't keep track of religious beliefs because (no, not that they might encourage racism, but) such factors are deemed irrelevant. And with good reason.

The number of Muslims in Norway has quadrupled over the past 15 years. The number of immigrants in Oslo increased by 40 percent in just five years, from 2002 to 2007. With current trends remaining unchanged, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a few decades.
Possibly. Unsubstanciated theory though.

The number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City
It is? Funny, you'd expect him to back up such a claim. Too bad it only goes to "HTTP Error 404".

and it is well documented that certain immigrant groups are grossly overrepresented on the statistics.
This is true.

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study.
I love how he links to a Fjordman blog to prove his point :D

And how he ignores that charged doesn't equal convicted. And he's also ignoring all the other things about that one article from 2001 (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece) which we have been over and over and over here on NSG! I don't feel like going into it again, but talk about oversimplifying...

Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, has said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
What she says is, to some degree, bullshit. But then again, what would one expect from such an avid advocate against a multicultural society? Yes, that's right. She's apparently against it, and she tried to make a point with her statement.

In all fairness, she did say that it was never acceptable with rape, and that she wouldn't blame norwegian women for rape - but just barely.

The number of rapes has continued to rise year by year, as it has in neighboring Sweden, but according to Trond Giske, Minister of Culture and Church Affairs from the Labour Party, 2008 will be an official Diversity Year (which it also will be throughout the EU), dedicated to celebrating Multiculturalism and “cultural diversity” in all sectors of society, so hopefully this will change.
No credible links between number of rapes and "cultural diversity" is shown thus far, especially not religion.

Note that of the 1057 people charged for sex crimes in 2005, 989 were Europans - and of these 944 were Norwegian citizens. (Source) (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2007-08-13-20-en.html)
(Note also that Somalians were overrepresented with six nationals charged.)

Thomas Hylland Eriksen,
Who? :confused:

professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, heads a multi-million project sponsored by the Norwegian state trying to envision how the new Multicultural society will work. He lives, according to himself, in a boring, monocultural part of the city, insulated from the effects of cultural diversity. Zorica Mitic, a Serbian doctor from the former Yugoslavia where a Multicultural society recently collapsed in a horrific civil war, warned against the effects of unchecked mass immigration.
Opinion Vs. Opinion. I like that.

Mr. Eriksen, a career Multiculturalist and intellectual celebrity in his country, responded by chastising her for her “lack of visions.”
What is a career Multiculturalist?

Peaceful rallies denouncing Islamic terrorism or supporting Israel have repeatedly been physically attacked by groups of Muslim immigrants.
Really? So repeatedly that there surely would have been some stories to link to? This is major news, so come on!

Bruce Bawer, author of the book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, describes how there are now more direct flights from Norway to Pakistan than from Norway to the USA.

Relevance?

Curiously, at almost the same time as Mr. Jagland warned against rising “Islamophobia,” an article in Aftenposten newspaper warned that “youths” are in the process of destroying Norway’s capital city, Oslo. Young girls are raped, schoolchildren are threatened with death, robbed and assaulted. The police warned against “an alarming rise in street violence” in urban areas across the country.
Relevance?

Youths are not my default muslims nor young non-western immigrants nor anything else of the sort. Apples and oranges there, mate.

The response of the authorities has been to increase crackdowns on “racism” by the natives. In 2005 the Norwegian parliament—with the support of 85% of MPs—passed a new Discrimination Act, prepared by then Minister of Integration from the Conservative Party, Erna Solberg, who had earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway. A spokesman for the right-wing Progress Party, Per Sandberg, feared that the law would jeopardize the rights of law-abiding citizens. Reverse burden of proof is combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn’t do. If a Muslim immigrant claims that a native has somehow discriminated against him or made a discriminatory remark, the native non-Muslim has to mount proof of his own innocence. I have later discovered that similar laws have been passed across much of Western Europe, encouraged by the EU.
*Yawns* No surprise, really.

And he's not accurate. It's not "Reversed burden of proof", it's "divided burden of proof." In short, it means that the plaintiff first have to prove that there is "reason to believe" that discrimination has occurred. If he manages to do this, the defendant has to prove that it didn't happen to not be convicted. A 50% probability is enough, and ordinary rulec of evidence and such are still in play. Basically, it means that the risk of doubt is moved onto the defendant if the plaintiff can provide the initial proof. Now, this might be a quick explanation, but it's not unheard of. And it doesn't apply to criminal matters.

There was absolutely no public debate about this law, which was passed in relative silence before the national elections that year. I was the first one to criticize it at my blog. The only journalist to criticize it was an American ex-pat, Bruce Bawer, and Hans Rustad at Document.no, the country’s largest independent weblog. Not a single Norwegian journalist criticized the proposed law, and most barely mentioned it at all before it was passed.
The reason for which is that this isn't something surprisingly new, something completely out of the blue. The "Equal rights act" as amended by law 2002-06-14 no. 21 (into force on 1. july 2002, and to follow up EU Council Directive 97/80/EC of december 15th 1997, on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex) included such a rule with regards to gender discrimination in the work force - and in 2005 in was expanded to apply to every aspect of the Norwegian society. So it's only natural to expand it to also include discrimination based on ethnisity, race, colour, creed etc. is it not?

In short, there was no reason for outcry, and no real opposition (Except from the Progress Party) - rather, the political parties and the people by and large agreed with this, it was no nefarious plot to slip legislation under the radar, as implied here.

The Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud Beate Gangås, a white, lesbian feminist,
Relevance?

before the municipal elections in 2007 warned all political parties against making “discriminatory” remarks about immigration policies, but also called for actively reducing the number of white, heterosexual men in politics.(Between the ages of 40 and 50) - left out
Because white heterosexual males between the ages of 40 and 50 are overrepresented in local politics, and she wanted younger males, women, immigrants, people with disabilities, homosexuals... Yes? She feels that a male ration of 64% in local governments is too much. That's her opinion.

There was little real debate about immigration in the heavily left-leaning media that year,
*Sigh*

How is the media left leaning? Oh, right. No examples or definition...

but an all the more passionate with hunt looking for racists, and by that I mean whites only. The left-wing coalition government, after a meeting with immigrant organizations, announced that racists, apparently meaning white natives only, should be “smoked out” of all public sector jobs.
...after a summer where the dominant news story was how an ambulance left a seriously injured man laying bleeding in a park in the middle of the day, after the ambulance workers uttered racial slurs. Of course the politicians will say that the racist will be smoked out. And rightly so. If you can't do your job because you have to deal with a black man, you shouldn't have that job.
Marie Simonsen, the political editor of Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet
Again without a definition or explanation.

wrote that it should be considered a universal human right for people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to.
Which is her opinion.
This would mean virtually certain annihilation for a tiny, wealthy and naive Scandinavian nation. Ms. Simonsen thus endorsed the gradual enslavement and eventual eradication of her own people, no doubt congratulating herself for her own tolerance.
Which is unfounded bullshit.

Not a single word of protest was voiced by any other journalist to this statement.
Lé shock! :eek:

Human rights was a concept originally intended to ensure liberty. Now it’s used to eradicate an entire people, or a large number of peoples across Europe, in the name of tolerance and diversity, and the natives are specifically banned from protesting against this.
*Sigh*

Not at all, but what more can I say? It's just a rant, without any basis at all.



The fucking world is going mad. Thank God there are still a significant amount of Norwegians that see through this cloud of bullshit.
Indeed.

Oh, you meant the author? Then you'll have to revise your statement to "Norwegian". Singular. And you'd be wrong.


Who do you think is doing this? It's not Norwegian on Norwegian crime....
See above. It is.

Fjordman is a noted Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites.
Yay! Wouldn't you know it! It's Fjordman! Long gone, and not missed. I should have known from the start shouldn't I. Would have saved me some time and energy. ;)

He's up to his old tricks I see...

Well there was one Finn who commented earlier.....however I'd like to see a Norwegian come on. While it is unfortunate many are brainwashed with this multicutluralism garbage, it is good news that the political party that is aware to the issues of multiculturalism, crime and immigration is the second largest in Norway...which means people are slowly starting to realize their problems.

Multiculturalism is generally poison for a society in the long term. A society can be multi-racial or multiethnic, so long as there is a shared general culture. But multiculturalism leads to balkanization.

Scandinavia, especially, seems like a place that really isn't suited to large numbers of immigrants from incompatible cultures and religions. Why anyone thought that Pakistanis would be able to fit in in Malmo or Copenhagen, I'll never know.

You Europeans are in for some social strife, maybe even civil war, if you don't come to terms with the failure of your immigration policies.

Though, I hear it's changing in some places, at least- Denmark has supposedly slashed its immigrant quotas.

The academic, media and political elite have decided on certain policies, such as allowing large numbers of immigrants from incompatible cultures and religions.
Academia and the fourth estate don’t decide who can travel in and out of a country. Thankfully.

I shudder to think of the Daily Mail‘s immigration policy.

At the same time, they have created a social setting where criticising multiculturalism and immigration immediately labels one as a racist and, in some cases, leads to criminal charges.
Any actual cases of people being charged for criticising immigration?

I think it’s fair to say that it’s hard to be, as a principle, against immigration and the idea of multiple cultures in society without being, at the very least, a bit xenophobic. What rational reason is there to be inherently against the free movement of peoples or variety of culture?

Yes, one can rationally be against certain outcomes of immigration or ‘multiculturalism’ (which is a stupid term btw. What nation doesn’t contain multiple cultures?), but to be against immigration for immigration’s sake seems a tad foolish. I’ve yet to hear an argument against immigration or multiculturalism as principles that isn’t a little xenophobic (or outright racist).

Talking of which:

It’s hard to figure out just what the benefits are to Norway or Sweden of immigration from the Muslim world.
On the contrary, it’s hard to figure out just why immigration from the Muslim world would be, as you are implying, inherently negative. Is it the ‘Muslim’ aspect, or the ‘immigration’ aspect you find troubling?

Would immigration from different countries be more acceptable?

You Europeans are in for some social strife, maybe even civil war, if you don't come to terms with the failure of your immigration policies.
Civil war? With who exactly?

A minority ethnic group that is already disparate and holding widely different political, religious an social views?

Methinks not.

Also, to those that asked me when I will “give in” to leftism or whatever....the answer is never. While there are many on here who are too brainwashed that I will never convince, there are others who agree with me, both her but much more in the real world. So I will be here.
I never asked you to ‘give in to leftism’ (whatever ‘leftism’ is...). I asked you to reconsider your view that immigration, in particular immigration from largely Muslim countries, was inherently wrong; considering the fact that you cannot hold a single anti-immigration argument together in the light of facts. Immigration is not a partisan issue; one can support immigration from either side of the economic spectrum.

You have yet to hold together a single argument that supports your view that immigration is A Bad Thing. Once again, is this not an indicator that your view is wrong?

I've noticed that, in much of Western Europe, political correctness is a much more powerful force than in the US. The academic, media and political elite have decided on certain policies, such as allowing large numbers of immigrants from incompatible cultures and religions. At the same time, they have created a social setting where criticising multiculturalism and immigration immediately labels one as a racist and, in some cases, leads to criminal charges.


Indeed. I think I read an article about that somewhere. The subject was the differences between American and Western-European politics. In Western-Europe, the intelectuall elites from our universities have a huge influence in deciding the policies. Most of these intelectuall elites belong to the radical left.
Of course, you have such nutjobs in USA as well, but you don't allow them the same level of influence on the politics of the nation.

In Western-Europe, the intelectuall elites from our universities have a huge influence in deciding the policies. Most of these intelectuall elites belong to the radical left.
Erm, not really.

The people who get into power are those who are good economists and who have made friends with the people at the top of the parties. Usually, that doesn't make them particularly left-wing.

If the radical left really had so much power in France, why do Lutte Ouvrier never win anything?
Of course, you have such nutjobs in USA as well, but you don't allow them the same level of influence on the politics of the nation.
The left wing lose in the US because most people are really Republicans, and the Democrats are a 'united front' of a very few real socialists, those slightly to the left of the Republicans and simply random people who exploit the dislike of the Republicans to get into power themselves, which is why they can never make their bloody minds up about anything.

In Western-Europe, the intelectuall elites from our universities have a huge influence in deciding the policies. Most of these intelectuall elites belong to the radical left.
As I queried New Potomac, is this really the case?

I don’t see how academia heavily influences policy decisions in any way. True, academic papers, etc., may highlight certain areas of policy that parties sometimes pick up on, but how many European political parties determine their policies because of academia?

As to the subject of radical academia, perhaps in some parts of the French education system this is true, the remnants of the militant Marxist scholars of the 1960-70s, but on a whole I’d say the opposite is true: academic institutions and their staff are generally conservative.

If the left-libertarian academia is so powerful and all-pervasive, why aren't there any left-libertarian governments in power in Europe?

Praise to Allah!

I hadn't seen a "Muslims are evil" thread for a few days so I feared the end must be near, but all is well!

Academia and the fourth estate don’t decide who can travel in and out of a country. Thankfully.

Of course not, but academia and the media are incredibly influential when it comes to framing what is acceptable discourse in a society. And when academics and journalists are overwhelmingly far-left liberals, how do you think they'll frame the debate?


Any actual cases of people being charged for criticising immigration?

Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci

I think it’s fair to say that it’s hard to be, as a principle, against immigration and the idea of multiple cultures in society without being, at the very least, a bit xenophobic. What rational reason is there to be inherently against the free movement of peoples or variety of culture?

It's perfectly rational to want to preserve one's own culture by restricting immigration from people belonging to incompatible cultures.

And a variety of cultures in a society leads to balkanization and a watering down of a country's native culture. Why should a people have to accept the presence of immigrants who do not share their culture and values? Is there something inherently wrong with Norwegians wanting to maintain their own culture and way of life?

On the contrary, it’s hard to figure out just why immigration from the Muslim world would be, as you are implying, inherently negative. Is it the ‘Muslim’ aspect, or the ‘immigration’ aspect you find troubling?

The Muslim aspect. Muslim immigrants are the only immigrant group in the West linked to terrorism, for example.

Would immigration from different countries be more acceptable?

Sure. Poles seem to be a pretty good immigrant group in th UK and Ireland. Mexicans, Koreans and Chinese are pretty good immigrant groups in the US.

Civil war? With who exactly?

The recent riots in France among Muslim youths are a pretty good indication of things to come.

The Muslim aspect. Muslim immigrants are the only immigrant group in the West linked to terrorism, for example. .

The Irish? The Kurdish communists? Blah blah blah? What about Basques in France supporting ETA in Spain?


The recent riots in France among Muslim youths are a pretty good indication of things to come.

You mean dissaffected urban youth might riot? SURELY NOT!!11!!!!!

You are aware that France doesn't "do" multiculturalism, aren't you?

Praise to Allah!

I hadn’t seen a “Muslims are evil” thread for a few days so I feared the end must be near, but all is well!
We can always count on Fjordman, via Global Politician, Jihad Watch, Gates of Vienna et al, via Atlantian Islands to spout some nonsense about Eurabia...

Oh my! Norway is under siege! Or it's a xenophobic rant! Good heavens, I don't know what I should think!

Shall we look closer?
(Snipped for length, despite its quality)
He's up to his old tricks I see...

Thats comprehensive pwnage there. Course he'll trot the same shite out in a few weeks again......

O NOES!11!!!TEH DARKIEZ"!111!!!1 Part XIV. For fucks sake......

-snip destruction of AI's dearly held beliefs-

http://www.ablemesh.co.uk/thoughtsmuslimsnotrapists.html
http://www.subway-sg.com/COOKIE.gif

*sets up tent and video camera. Opens beer. Waits for Gravlen to come online*

This should be...interesting.
Hope I haven't disapointed.

I don't know how they do statistics in Norway, but around here it's illegal to make crime statistics based on ethnicity, because they might encourage racism.
Not (only) because it might encourage racism, but also because it's pointless.
Oh we can't trust what he says. He works for the government, and clearly they've all been brainwashed and subverted by TEH EBIL MOZLEMS1!111!!11!!11!12!!!11
This is true.

...though you know what I do with any criminal immigrants I stumble upon, don't you? ;)

Saying "oh no, the darkies" does not, in fact, add anything to the debate...in fact it makes you seem more immature and unwilling to debate.
Does the snide "religion of peace" remark bring anything to the debate, you feel?

This is clearly a problem because "Norwegian" in this sense does not mean ethnic Norwegian, but rather Islamic immigrant with citizenship, in which case it voids the statistics which would then NOT show anything over the rate of immigrant crimes/rapes.
Why is it a problem? When someone has got a norwegian citizenship, ahould he not be treated as a Norwegian?

83% of Muslims voted for Leftist parties, just as al over Western Europe? Perhaps that is because they are leeching off the Welfare state, something that Leftists are ok with and Rightists find appaling?
Perhaps not. Though feel free to provide some evidence to back up your fancy theories.

Not only are these hordes of Islamic immigrants threatening the peaceful stability of these countries, but they are also making them even more socialist than before.
Those damn islamofascist socialists, eh? :eek:


Oh yes, fantastic. And while we're at it why don't we just throw out everything that might be Norwegian and replace it for everything non-Norwegian. That's the way to a great future for Norway!
Wanting to take part in the singing of the national anthem is throwing out everything Norwegian? How... odd.


No. Norwegian women could walk around naked if they wanted to and it would always be the Muslims fault he he raped her. Do you understand how low you are stooping!? You are defending the rapist and arguing against the victim of rape in the defense and upholding of Multiculturalism!? Have you gone mad?
Yes, she has. But not really. She's just arguing against multiculturalism.

And see my mitigating points in my post above.


Yes, what would Mitic know? He's just a first hand survivor of the multi-ethnic multicultural tensions that turned the Balkans into a war zone. After all, that experience means NOTHING when compared to Eriksen's experiences as a "career multiculturalist" (read: Brainwashes people and is the enemy), whatever the fuck that means.
"Career multiculturalist" is just a Fjordman term, and means as little as your definition here, i.e. nothing.

Yeah. Let's get rid of Democracy and freedom of speech because they get in the way of Multiculturalism. After all, if the Islamic immigrants do not wish us to be able to denounce Islamic terrorism or support the state of Israel, what right do we have to be able to?
When has it ever happened in Norway that people have not been able to denounce Islamic terrorism or show support to the state of Israel? Please show me.

Because I learned that it does...so that's what I'm going on. However, to be fair to the arguemnt I am looking up information on it to show NSG. Unfortunatly so far all I've found is in Norwegian, but worry not, I'm in contact with some Norwegian buddies who will supply me with what I need.
Just post it here. I'm sure someone will understand (or Babel-fish) it.

This amuses me, because later in this very post, you complain about Norwegians throwing out democracy. You like democracy, just not when muslims are using it, yeah?
Apparently so.


Yeah, that guy is some manner of idiot.
Woman ;)



Don't worry, I'll spell it out for you, nice and simple like. Since the majority of crime in Norway, the vast majority, is committed by Norweigan citizens and you want to create the inference that most of those committing crimes are muslims, and, specifically, muslim immigrants, you have to show that the majority of those muslim immigrants committing crimes are citizens. Otherwise, if the bulk of the muslim immigrants are not citizens, then they're not the ones carrying out all the crimes, since the vast bulk of crimes are cause by, wait for it....norweigan citizens.
This is also correct. (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2007-08-13-20-en.html)
The article was written by an idiot.
This is nothing more than one of Fjordman's blogs. Unsupported racist bullshit. As usual.
Too true, too true... Both posts.

Anyone got any really concrete evidence that Muslims in Norway are ganging up and stopping the Norwegian government support Israel?
I also would like to see that.

I've noticed that, in much of Western Europe, political correctness is...
First off:

Define "Political correctness" please.

Though I could have sworn that don't do crime rates and ethnicity reports in Norway, it could be that they don't do it anymore seeing as this is from 2002. Which is unfortunate because while it is "only" 30 per 1000 here compared to 14 per thousand...now a days the number would be much higher but I can only find articles and documents on that in Norwegian.

They made one report concerning immigrants in 2000, and another in 2004. But they've done reports on citizenship for a long time.

The Irish? The Kurdish communists? Blah blah blah? What about Basques in France supporting ETA in Spain?

None of those are immigrant groups. Those are all internal problems in the respective countries, but they have nothing to do with immigration.

You mean dissaffected urban youth might riot? SURELY NOT!!11!!!!!

Sure. I'm pointing out that if European countries continue their immigration policies, there's more of that in their future.

Norway: The Country of Peace Meets the Religion of Peace


The fucking world is going mad. Thank God there are still a significant amount of Norwegians that see through this cloud of bullshit. They are actually LETTING themselves be destroyed.:confused:

By the way, did I forget to mention that the number of rapes in the Norwegian capital is six times as high per capita as in New York City!
Who do you think is doing this? It's not Norwegian on Norwegian crime....

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=3545&cid=3&sid=102



So when people who are/were or who's parents are/were Christian or whose grandparents are/were Christian in the US, when these people rape, murder, or (do the far, far, far, far, far less crime of) deal drugs,
we should ban Christianity in the US.

Thats comprehensive pwnage there. Course he'll trot the same shite out in a few weeks again......
Thanks. When it's a Fjordman blog it's really not that hard.

And of course he will ;)
None of those are immigrant groups. Those are all internal problems in the respective countries, but they have nothing to do with immigration.
You mean that kurds don't emigrate?

What about the tamil people then?


Sure. I'm pointing out that if European countries continue their immigration policies, there's more of that in their future.
Pray tell, how similar are the Austrian, Norwegian, Polish, Estonian, Swiss, French and Portugeese immigration policies these days?

None of those are immigrant groups. Those are all internal problems in the respective countries, but they have nothing to do with immigration.
Right, right.

So if I, as a white male, with plenty of generations' worth of British lineage, convert to Islam and start supporting baddies, that's OK, because I'm not an immigrant, right?

Because then it would just be an internal problem, right?
Sure. I'm pointing out that if European countries continue their immigration policies, there's more of that in their future.
Erm, no, if the police stir up the kind of resentment within the poor immigrant communities which were set up to be exploited and nothing more in the 1950s in France, then there will be riots.

This is no surprise. At all.

People completely betrayed lash out at authority figures when they lead to the deaths of fellow people in the same boat. Quelle surprise.

First off:

Define "Political correctness" please.

Adherence to a political or cultural orthodoxy, with resulting punishment or ostracism for anyone who does not toe the party line.

As an example, try being a pro-American member of a major academic institution in the US, Canada, or Europe, and see how you are treated.

In Europe, it seems politically incorrect to oppose multiculturalism and the massive changes brought upon European societies as a result of immigration.

Right, right.

So if I, as a white male, with plenty of generations' worth of British lineage, convert to Islam and start supporting baddies, that's OK, because I'm not an immigrant, right?

Because then it would just be an internal problem, right?

I never said that Kurd, IRA or Basque terrorism was okay. Just that it was different from the problem posed by terrorism caused by Muslim immigrants. You can eliminate terrorism caused by immigrant groups by cutting off such immigration, or going further and deporting such immigrants.

Homegrown terrorism is tougher to deal with.

a nation of peace and home to the Nobel Peace Prize

Which idiot got his Scandinavian countries mixed up?

:rolleyes:

Adherence to a political or cultural orthodoxy, with resulting punishment or ostracism for anyone who does not toe the party line.

As an example, try being a pro-American member of a major academic institution in the US, Canada, or Europe, and see how you are treated.

In Europe, it seems politically incorrect to oppose multiculturalism and the massive changes brought upon European societies as a result of immigration.

First of all, the term pro-American is extremely vague. And you're saying that academics in the US hate their country?

Of course not, but academia and the media are incredibly influential when it comes to framing what is acceptable discourse in a society. And when academics and journalists are overwhelmingly far-left liberals, how do you think they’ll frame the debate?
You’ve yet to show how academia or the fourth estate are left-libertarian. To halt some confusion, I’m talking about the European conception of left-libertarian, not the American idea that left = Hilary Clinton.

To take the UK as an example, none of the major newspapers, news stations or magazines are part of the ‘far left. Most are central-right-authoritarian, with the Guardian and sometimes the Independent representing the central-left-libertarian. Certainly not ‘far left’.

If academia and the fourth estate are so influential, and so left-libertarian, then why aren’t there any left-libertarian governments in power in Europe?

Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriana_Fallaci
‘Fraid not. Fallaci has never been charged for criticising immigration, but for ‘defaming Islam’. Quite different.

As a side note, I don’t support folks being prosecuted for free speech, even if that speech is vile nonsense. But you claimed people were being prosecuted for speaking out against immigration.

It’s perfectly rational to want to preserve one’s own culture by restricting immigration from people belonging to incompatible cultures.
No, no it’s not.

Namely, because it’s irrational to think of any nation-state as having it’s one true culture due to the *gasp* immigration that’s been taken place in the Western world (and elsewhere) for the past few hundred years.

What’s my ‘true culture’?

Glaswegian? But I’ve only lived in Glasgow for three years. So is my ‘true’ culture from where I was born? But I moved away from there when I was three, and the place I was born is very different to the place I grew up, and in turn very different from Glasgow.

Scottish? But my father was born in South Africa, and I don’t share a passion for many things inherently Scottish. I like Japanese stuff a lot. Maybe I’m Japanese by culture.

Or I was really into punk as a teenager. Maybe my ‘true’ culture is punk? Cultures and sub-cultures. Oh the fun we can have!

Moreover, it’s pretty weird and irrational to think that a certain group of humans are inherently incapable from living with another set of humans. Taking Muslims as an example, I live happily with several Muslim families in my tenement and street, shop often at an Asian cash-and-carry (2 litres of milk for 75p!), and have a number of Asian and Muslim friends. No race war has thus far occurred.

And a variety of cultures in a society leads to balkanization and a watering down of a country’s native culture.
‘Balkanization’? You mean the process by which a series of dictators are removed from power, allowing a number of different ethnic and religious groups to live happily alongside one another, after years of repression and torture by said dictators, yes?

The Muslim aspect. Muslim immigrants are the only immigrant group in the West linked to terrorism, for example. Poles seem to be a pretty good immigrant group in th UK and Ireland. Mexicans, Koreans and Chinese are pretty good immigrant groups in the US.
Oh, so it is just bold-faced racism then.

“I don’t want Muslims here because some Muslims are terrorists.”

The recent riots in France among Muslim youths are a pretty good indication of things to come.
That’ll be the (largely) Muslim youth who were separated into ghettos by governmental policies designed to keep different cultures apart?

Yeah, that’s what I’m arguing against.

You mean that kurds don't emigrate?

The post I responded to talked about Kurdish communist terrorists, which as far as I know is an internal problem in Turkey (and Syria, maybe?)

What about the tamil people then?

What about them? Isn't that an ongoing insurgency in Sri Lanka? What does that have to do with this discussion?


Pray tell, how similar are the Austrian, Norwegian, Polish, Estonian, Swiss, French and Portugeese immigration policies these days?

Probably quite different- but which of those countries have the highest rates of Muslim immigration, and which have the biggest problems with immigrants? I bet the answer will be the same (France and Norway)

And you're saying that academics in the US hate their country?

Generally, yes.

Generally, yes.

And what makes you think so? Do you have any proof?

haha dagbladet leftist??

don't make me laugh, ops, too late

I am norwegian.

haha dagbladet leftist??

don't make me laugh, ops, too late

I am norwegian.

Anything to the left of Jerry Falwell is leftist as far as the resident Sad Sack of NS known as Atlantic Islands is concerned.

As for the rest of his rant, the poor thing has been humiliated quite a lot, but I just want to add that claiming that "they're voting to left wing parties" should be taken as cause for alarm just shows how much poor Atlantic Islands values democracy: Plenty, as long as it only agrees with him and only elects people he sees fit, do do what he thinks is right, regardless of the maj... wait, that's not democracy, now, is it?

Poor Sad Sack.

Oh my! Norway is under siege! Or it's a xenophobic rant! Good heavens, I don't know what I should think!

Shall we look closer?

Who calls Islam "religion of peace" anyways? No muslims I know of. And regardless, it's not, so stop the sarcasm.

It's a religion of law not of peace. But nevermind that now... Let's look at the beast...

The article!

Hmm... Not bothered to link to these "close ties" I see. I mean that's not at all an important aspect.


...so?


Wouldn't it? They wish to sing the national anthem in the language their young children can understand.

Let me repeat the important part here: They wish to sing the national anthem.
Not only hum along, but sing it, in words they and their children can understand.

I don't see the problem.

Again, what's the problem with this? The national costume of Norway doesn't exist. At least, it's not uniform and differs from region to region.

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/lolani.gif


Wowza, that's a leap! How did he reach that conclusion?


:D Funny guy that.


Yet none are pointed out or linked to.


Bias... Not backed up.
And this is only a problem if multiculturalism in and by itself is a problem. Is it? I can't see it.

A quote you'd like to know the context of, yet no link or explanation is found.

Then it must be the norm! :rolleyes:

He forgot the bolded parts...
Gee. Sounds like a representative muslim, doesn't he.


And these numbers come from...?

It's not from SSB, because they don't keep track of religious beliefs because (no, not that they might encourage racism, but) such factors are deemed irrelevant. And with good reason.


Possibly. Unsubstanciated theory though.

It is? Funny, you'd expect him to back up such a claim. Too bad it only goes to "HTTP Error 404".

This is true.

I love how he links to a Fjordman blog to prove his point :D

And how he ignores that charged doesn't equal convicted. And he's also ignoring all the other things about that one article from 2001 (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece) which we have been over and over and over here on NSG! I don't feel like going into it again, but talk about oversimplifying...

What she says is, to some degree, bullshit. But then again, what would one expect from such an avid advocate against a multicultural society? Yes, that's right. She's apparently against it, and she tried to make a point with her statement.

In all fairness, she did say that it was never acceptable with rape, and that she wouldn't blame norwegian women for rape - but just barely.

No credible links between number of rapes and "cultural diversity" is shown thus far, especially not religion.

Note that of the 1057 people charged for sex crimes in 2005, 989 were Europans - and of these 944 were Norwegian citizens. (Source) (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2007-08-13-20-en.html)
(Note also that Somalians were overrepresented with six nationals charged.)


Who? :confused:


Opinion Vs. Opinion. I like that.

What is a career Multiculturalist?


Really? So repeatedly that there surely would have been some stories to link to? This is major news, so come on!


Relevance?


Relevance?

Youths are not my default muslims nor young non-western immigrants nor anything else of the sort. Apples and oranges there, mate.

*Yawns* No surprise, really.

And he's not accurate. It's not "Reversed burden of proof", it's "divided burden of proof." In short, it means that the plaintiff first have to prove that there is "reason to believe" that discrimination has occurred. If he manages to do this, the defendant has to prove that it didn't happen to not be convicted. A 50% probability is enough, and ordinary rulec of evidence and such are still in play. Basically, it means that the risk of doubt is moved onto the defendant if the plaintiff can provide the initial proof. Now, this might be a quick explanation, but it's not unheard of. And it doesn't apply to criminal matters.

The reason for which is that this isn't something surprisingly new, something completely out of the blue. The "Equal rights act" as amended by law 2002-06-14 no. 21 (into force on 1. july 2002, and to follow up EU Council Directive 97/80/EC of december 15th 1997, on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex) included such a rule with regards to gender discrimination in the work force - and in 2005 in was expanded to apply to every aspect of the Norwegian society. So it's only natural to expand it to also include discrimination based on ethnisity, race, colour, creed etc. is it not?

In short, there was no reason for outcry, and no real opposition (Except from the Progress Party) - rather, the political parties and the people by and large agreed with this, it was no nefarious plot to slip legislation under the radar, as implied here.

Relevance?


Because white heterosexual males between the ages of 40 and 50 are overrepresented in local politics, and she wanted younger males, women, immigrants, people with disabilities, homosexuals... Yes? She feels that a male ration of 64% in local governments is too much. That's her opinion.

*Sigh*

How is the media left leaning? Oh, right. No examples or definition...

...after a summer where the dominant news story was how an ambulance left a seriously injured man laying bleeding in a park in the middle of the day, after the ambulance workers uttered racial slurs. Of course the politicians will say that the racist will be smoked out. And rightly so. If you can't do your job because you have to deal with a black man, you shouldn't have that job.

Again without a definition or explanation.


Which is her opinion.

Which is unfounded bullshit.

Lé shock! :eek:

*Sigh*

Not at all, but what more can I say? It's just a rant, without any basis at all.



Indeed.

Oh, you meant the author? Then you'll have to revise your statement to "Norwegian". Singular. And you'd be wrong.


See above. It is.


Yay! Wouldn't you know it! It's Fjordman! Long gone, and not missed. I should have known from the start shouldn't I. Would have saved me some time and energy. ;)

He's up to his old tricks I see...

Demolished, and owned. Far better than I could have done with Joel, Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot.

By the way, TAI, just come out and say you hate brown people.

Multiculturalism is generally poison for a society in the long term. A society can be multi-racial or multiethnic, so long as there is a shared general culture. But multiculturalism leads to balkanization.

Scandinavia, especially, seems like a place that really isn't suited to large numbers of immigrants from incompatible cultures and religions. Why anyone thought that Pakistanis would be able to fit in in Malmo or Copenhagen, I'll never know.

You Europeans are in for some social strife, maybe even civil war, if you don't come to terms with the failure of your immigration policies.


The problem with your assertion here, is the well known liberal bias of reality.

Europe IS multicultural. The 'culture' of Europe is multi-culture. Except for pockets of brief insanity, the history of Europe is multi-culture.

I'd argue it's been a strength, rather than a weakness.

I am eagerly awaiting Gravy's response. He's a lawyer, too, so he should have access to a lot of information that can confirm or deny Atlantian Island's claims.

In any case I just want to see TAL pounded back into the ground. Maybe he'll finally start to listen and change his bigoted ways.

This has always concerned me. Both the ever amusing Greater Trostia, and Gravelen, claim to be Lawyers, yet every lawyer I have ever met has been a successful professional with a plethora of better things to do than NSG. In light of this, how good can they actually be?

Indeed, why would being a lawyer immediatly see more information being available upon any subject?

Oh, and, as ever, TAL is right. Islam is a cancer within the west; as, for that matter, are most non-skilled, mass populations of migrants.

Sure. I'm pointing out that if European countries continue their immigration policies, there's more of that in their future.

And if they change their immigration policies... the same. Rioting is pretty much what happens when you ghetto-ise or otherwise silence or contain oppressed groups.

Nothing implicitly to do with race.. religion... sexual orientation... or nation of origin.

Islam is a cancer within the west; as, for that matter, are most non-skilled, mass populations of migrants.
I can't help but note the complete lack of evidence. So far, whenever an attempt at such evidence is made, it turns out worthless.

Not that that has ever stopped anyone from repeating your stale one-liners. Because ultimately no one becomes "anti-immigrant" or "anti-Islam" or "anti-foreigner" because of convincing arguments. It's an entirely irrational thing, and those who are affected end up grasping for evidence afterwards.

And if they change their immigration policies... the same. Rioting is pretty much what happens when you ghetto-ise or otherwise silence or contain oppressed groups.

Nothing implicitly to do with race.. religion... sexual orientation... or nation of origin.

So, in essence, the fact massed ethnic populations remain un-integrated has nothing to do with them? They have made every conceivable effort, as they should do given the west has been decent enough to accept them, to integrate fully into their host society?

If there are riots following a cessation of immigration, good. It might compel more of the bastards to leave.

This has always concerned me. Both the ever amusing Greater Trostia, and Gravelen, claim to be Lawyers, yet every lawyer I have ever met has been a successful professional with a plethora of better things to do than NSG. In light of this, how good can they actually be?


Wow. You're right!

All lawyers must spend all their time in special lawyer bubbles that prevent them from unwinding, encountering the series of tubes, or engaging in non-strictly-lawyer-ordained pursuits.

It is so clear now, I wonder how I missed it!


Indeed, why would being a lawyer immediatly see more information being available upon any subject?


They wouldn't, necessarily. But - they would probably have an advantage when it comes to things like sourcing and citation, in comparison to a lot of people.

TAI, for example, who seems incapable of providing sources, and who actively attacks the points made in the few of his own sources he does provide.

Career scientists would probably have the same advantage a lawyer would, although might not be as well read on issues impinging on law. (Worth remembering, most nations have their national law affected to some extent by international law).


Oh, and, as ever, TAL is right. Islam is a cancer within the west; as, for that matter, are most non-skilled, mass populations of migrants.

I assume this is sarcasm.

I can't help but note the complete lack of evidence. So far, whenever an attempt at such evidence is made, it turns out worthless.

Not that that has ever stopped anyone from repeating your stale one-liners. Because ultimately no one becomes "anti-immigrant" or "anti-Islam" or "anti-foreigner" because of convincing arguments. It's an entirely irrational thing, and those who are affected end up grasping for evidence afterwards.

What has mass immigration brought the west? It might have been prudent when there was a genuine necessity for workers, in which case the ecnomic benefits accruing prevailed over the undoubted social tensions created by mass immigration. However, this is no longer the case; mass Islamic immigration has done little more than disaffect a generation of white lower class youthes, create yet more ghettoes, yet more pressure upon public services and welfare, and yet more problems for a society the majority of whom, in truth, do not welcome mass migration.

We all have better things to do than NSG, you know. This is reaching somewhat.

No its not. I have fuck all better to do right now, what with everyone having already buggered off to uni.

A successful professional should have something better to do, however. Every half decent lawyer I've met would be trolleyed on whisky by now.

This has always concerned me. Both the ever amusing Greater Trostia, and Gravelen, claim to be Lawyers, yet every lawyer I have ever met has been a successful professional with a plethora of better things to do than NSG. In light of this, how good can they actually be?

We all have better things to do than NSG, you know. This is reaching somewhat.

So, in essence, the fact massed ethnic populations remain un-integrated has nothing to do with them? They have made every conceivable effort, as they should do given the west has been decent enough to accept them, to integrate fully into their host society?

If there are riots following a cessation of immigration, good. It might compel more of the bastards to leave.

I have no idea what you think you're trying to convey.


I think it might have something to do with the French riots. A situation where a population (that happens to be immigrant, but it could just as easily have been a matter of sexuality, sex, or skin colour) was basically deprived of access to amenities and opportunites, causing them to mass in the available (read: cheap) spaces (read: ghettoes), where their problems were exacerbated, until some of the fiesty youths made the point in fire.

So - those who were separated from the rest of the population... are choosing to remain un-integrated?

By the same token, if someone holds your head under water, are you 'choosing' to remain 'un-breathing'?

This has always concerned me. Both the ever amusing Greater Trostia, and Gravelen, claim to be Lawyers, yet every lawyer I have ever met has been a successful professional with a plethora of better things to do than NSG. In light of this, how good can they actually be?

*ceases to exist*

Wow. You're right!

All lawyers must spend all their time in special lawyer bubbles that prevent them from unwinding, encountering the series of tubes, or engaging in non-strictly-lawyer-ordained pursuits.

It is so clear now, I wonder how I missed it!



They wouldn't, necessarily. But - they would probably have an advantage when it comes to things like sourcing and citation, in comparison to a lot of people.

TAI, for example, who seems incapable of providing sources, and who actively attacks the points made in the few of his own sources he does provide.

Career scientists would probably have the same advantage a lawyer would, although might not be as well read on issues impinging on law. (Worth remembering, most nations have their national law affected to some extent by international law).



I assume this is sarcasm.

Not at all. And yes, a successful professional should have something better to do than post on NSG; gentleman's clubs exist for a reason after all.

Anything to the left of Jerry Falwell is leftist as far as the resident Sad Sack of NS known as Atlantic Islands is concerned.

As for the rest of his rant, the poor thing has been humiliated quite a lot, but I just want to add that claiming that "they're voting to left wing parties" should be taken as cause for alarm just shows how much poor Atlantic Islands values democracy: Plenty, as long as it only agrees with him and only elects people he sees fit, do do what he thinks is right, regardless of the maj... wait, that's not democracy, now, is it?

Poor Sad Sack.

Well, considering this is the same Atlantean Islands who always has wet dreams about the "glory days" of Chile when Augusto Pinochet was in charge ordering socialists imprisoned, raped, tortured and murdered for the sake of capitalism, it's safe to say he doesn't really value democracy at all.

Not at all. And yes, a successful professional should have something better to do than post on NSG; gentleman's clubs exist for a reason after all.

What, like Blue Velvet?

No its not. I have fuck all better to do right now, what with everyone having already buggered off to uni.

A successful professional should have something better to do, however. Every half decent lawyer I've met would be trolleyed on whisky by now.

The problem could be that the lawyers you know are 'half-decent', by your own admission...

I wonder why someone needs 'something better' than a debate forum... or what that 'something better' would be?

Seems to me, that would be something that varied from person to person.

Not at all. And yes, a successful professional should have something better to do than post on NSG; gentleman's clubs exist for a reason after all.

I'm probably the closest I've ever been to putting someone on my ignore list.

Not because you're offensive, mean, or insulting. Nothing like that.

Just because I'm beginning to find your posts so pointless, it feels like I'm wasting eye-juice.

What has mass immigration brought the west?
Who cares? I'm not "the west", you're not "the west", I don't think there's anyone who is "the west". Except Kanye West, maybe, if you were up for cheap puns.

What you have to do is provide a clear case for why an immigrant (not a "mass immigrant", there is no such thing) should be prevented from being able to cross the line that happens to be accepted as a border. The default stance has to be that he will not be prevented from doing so, because he is physically able to do it and if it wasn't for the border, no one would even think about inhibiting his movement.

And unless you can make a sound argument for why that marginal immigrant should not be allowed to move freely, one that is not based on "his existence offends me" because that's not something we can let a state legislate on, you've got no case whatsoever.

This has always concerned me. Both the ever amusing Greater Trostia, and Gravelen, claim to be Lawyers, yet every lawyer I have ever met has been a successful professional with a plethora of better things to do than NSG. In light of this, how good can they actually be?

Indeed, why would being a lawyer immediatly see more information being available upon any subject?

Oh, and, as ever, TAL is right. Islam is a cancer within the west; as, for that matter, are most non-skilled, mass populations of migrants.

You're forgetting Neo Art.

And you're right in that they wouldn't necessarily. I was, however, referring to the knowledge of Gravlen on whether or not crime statistics would show race among other things, which is something he would know for a fact since it's extremely relevant to his occupation.

And I would call irrationality in the face of evidence and holding faith over reason as the cancer, not specifically Islam or anything else. That includes your bigotry, Chris, as we have discussed before.

I found this thread highly amusing. It recieves the coveted Jocabia award. I giggled. I guffawed. I even snorted once. Eye juice. Heh.

Does anyone else find it funny that European white supremecists are crying about cultural imperialism. I suppose imperialism is only okay if done using guns and the uncanny ability to be so dirty that everyone who comes in contact with you dies. If they're so superior, why are they in danger? Or was that argument only good when Europe was subjugating the world?

And of course these same people who are freaking out about cultural purity and incompatible cultures are at the front of the line for getting the US out of Iraq, right? Cuz their beliefs aren't racist, they're just looking out for native cultures, right? Hehe. I'm sure that will be TAI's next thread.

Meanwhile, why is it that this imperialism is happening but no evidence exists for it? I mean, I've seen lots of blogs get linked, but where is the, you know, non-laughable evidence?

None of those are immigrant groups. Those are all internal problems in the respective countries, but they have nothing to do with immigration. .

So Kurds in Britain fundraising for the PPK or whatever are an "internal problem" but muslim jihadis aren't an internal problem becuase they're immigrants and are to blame for molesting white wimminz etc? Irish in britain and America fundraising for the RA are both internal problems.......but if they suddenly become muslim, are they then "real" immigrants?


Sure. I'm pointing out that if European countries continue their immigration policies, there's more of that in their future.

I can think of a number of riots in France, and they had SFA to do with immigrants...........



As an example, try being a pro-American member of a major academic institution in the US, Canada, or Europe, and see how you are treated.
.

A place on a few "think tanks", being talked up way beyond your qualifications or intellectual capacity, being given far too many guest slots on 'Faux', far far too much credibility and a seat on the special minibus? The Dershowitz treatment, I suppose you mean....

http://www.subway-sg.com/COOKIE.gif


My belly and I thank you.

What has mass immigration brought the west?

Lots of people, probably.

*sigh* Baby steps....

What a socialistic shithole norway is...i live there, i should know.
All the major newspapers and tv channels are controlled by former members of the AKP-ML movement from the eighties (documented) and that really shows through on what news they broadcast. They are basically turning younger generations into brainwashed minions.


Also, theres alot of rape-cases and loads of drug abuse and beggars.

Best country in the world? I say not.

*reads OP*

If it was a choice between that Scandinavian version of "Escape from New York" and Nazism, I'd vote for Hitler.

*sigh*

I liked the Norwegians better when they were looting, pillaging and egging the homes of coastal villagers.

You can't do that. Its irrational territory grabbing...

Unless you have a holy book that says its yours, then some bunch with a veto will help you.

Well, technically, they have the Prose Edda.

What has mass immigration brought the west?
Mass immigration is the whole fucking history of 'The West'.

Get a grip, Chris.

Well, technically, they have the Prose Edda.

*Looks up from writing holy scripture* What! Is there already a we-have-this-book-so-we-can-take-whatever-we-want-book out there? I was writing a new one! :D

What has mass immigration brought the west?

Many people forget that it´s we in the west who has caused much of this "mass immigration" from the beginning. Take for example the mess the Americans has caused in Iraq, which has caused massive flow of refugees from Iraq to Europe. The Americans caused the mess, we north europeans have to clean it up. We in Sweden take 49% of the refugees from Iraq. Of 2-2,5 million refugees the USA has taken 133. If the Americans opened their borders a little we wouldn´t have this problem. They have more capacity than we have, much more, and they still doesn´t clean up their own mess.

Mass immigration is the whole fucking history of 'The West'.

Get a grip, Chris.

Since human life is believed to have come about in Africa, I think, then everyone who lives anywhere else is an immigrant, and may or may not be stealing the jobs of all the pure Africans.

[QUOTEThe problem with those "statistics" is clearly shown above by our Finnish poster, China Phenomenon. What he is talking about happens in Sweden aswell (Fass even posted on it, clearly showing how superior that kind of statistical polling was:rolleyes:) and I'm sure Norway uses it also. This is clearly a problem because "Norwegian" in this sense does not mean ethnic Norwegian, but rather Islamic immigrant with citizenship, in which case it voids the statistics which would then NOT show anything over the rate of immigrant crimes/rapes.[/QUOTE]

If then the figures include Islamic Immigrant with citizenship as 'Norwegian', then they cannot be used to support any argument about the ethnicity of anyone committing crimes. Are the figures for 'Norwegian' 90% ethnic Norwegian? 50% ethnic norwegian? If the data's not there, then you can't argue from it.

In my opinions immigrants help countries, they improve the economy by providing cheap labour, bumping up share prices on the stock market, or maybe in other ways like if they have a skill that the country needs like being a doctor or something. It's up to the government to then provide enough housing and education etc. the former of which also benefiting the economy.
Obviously people can bring up bad points about too many aswell though.

However, this is no longer the case; mass Islamic immigration has done little more than disaffect a generation of white lower class youthes, create yet more ghettoes, yet more pressure upon public services and welfare, and yet more problems for a society the majority of whom, in truth, do not welcome mass migration.

That really is the crux of the matter. In the minds of pro-immigrationists, the concerns of the silent majority with regards to the negative consequences of mass immigration are waved away as the racist rants of hicks. In Europe, especially, it seems like the media, academia and the political establishment believe, without any real evidence, that bringing in immigrants from non-compatible religions and cultures will somehow "improve" the host countries (of course, the somewhat racist assumption there is that German or British culture is somehow inferior to the culture of the immigrants).

I have seen surveys in the US and Western European countries where substantial majorities support drastically reducing the numbers of immigrants flowing into their countries. I wonder what the result would be in European countries if the political masters let their subjects actually vote directly on the issue of immigration? As we've seen with the EU Constitution, Europe's political class is hesitant to allow their people to vote directly on really important issues, because they might actually vote the "wrong" way.

Here in the US, we fortunately do not have a large Muslim immigrant population. But illegal immigration from Mexico is something 70%+ of the population wants to stop (by building a wall on the border, for example). But even our Republican President called opponents of his proposed amnesty plan "bigots."

That's basically the tone of the debate in the West- the media, academic, and political establishment has decided that essentially unlimited immigration is a good thing, and anyone who disagrees with this is labelled as a bigot.

Who cares?
What you have to do is provide a clear case for why an immigrant (not a "mass immigrant", there is no such thing) should be prevented from being able to cross the line that happens to be accepted as a border. The default stance has to be that he will not be prevented from doing so, because he is physically able to do it and if it wasn't for the border, no one would even think about inhibiting his movement.

Simple- if the population of the host country decides that it does not want immigrants from a certain country or region, or no immigrants at all, then their determination is final. No one has a "right" to immigrate to another country without the permission of that country.

Why should free immigration be the default stance? Why should the Japanese, for example, have to give a reason why they do not allow me to immigrate to their country? It's their frackin' country, they can keep out whoever they want, just like I can keep people out of my house for any or no reason.

Yeah, I like that. Liberals love democracy; until the people vote against their ideas.

We in Sweden take 49% of the refugees from Iraq. If the Americans opened their borders a little we wouldn´t have this problem.

Is it Iraqi law that you open up your borders? I don't want more muslims in my country or in Sweden.

That really is the crux of the matter. In the minds of pro-immigrationists, the concerns of the silent majority with regards to the negative consequences of mass immigration are waved away as the racist rants of hicks.
Pity that most of the people who speak against immigration seem to be racists and xenophobes. But I'm sure that's the fault of the liberal media, or some other nonsense like that. In Europe, especially, it seems like the media, academia and the political establishment believe, without any real evidence,
Aside from the fact that the whole western world came about because of immigration
that bringing in immigrants
I defy you to find me one European government that is bringing immigrants into their country. Not letting them in, actively bringing them in.
from non-compatible religions and cultures will somehow "improve" the host countries
Host countries that are full of the descendants of other immigrants.....
(of course, the somewhat racist assumption there is that German or British culture is somehow inferior to the culture of the immigrants).
Who exactly is making this assumption?

I have seen surveys in the US and Western European countries where substantial majorities support drastically reducing the numbers of immigrants flowing into their countries.
Link to them.
I wonder what the result would be in European countries if the political masters let their subjects actually vote directly on the issue of immigration?
Because that's not how governments tend to work. The public don't vote directly on every issue. If they don't like what the government is doing about immirgration them I'm sure your silent majority will simply elect a governemt that will do what they like about immigration. Assuming said majority actually exists.
Here in the US, we fortunately do not have a large Muslim immigrant population.
Are you calling Muslim culture inferior to American culture?
But illegal immigration
Which is not the same issue as immigration at all
from Mexico is something 70%+ of the population
Where did you get this number from?
wants to stop (by building a wall on the border, for example).
A terrible idea, by the way.

That's basically the tone of the debate in the West- the media, academic, and political establishment has decided that essentially unlimited immigration is a good thing, and anyone who disagrees with this is labelled as a bigot.

I haven't seen anything of the sort. I've heard a few people like yourself ranting about how immigration will destroy us all, but that's pretty much it.

Simple- if the population of the host country decides that it does not want immigrants from a certain country or region, or no immigrants at all, then their determination is final.
How many European countries have made such a determination?

Yeah, I like that. Liberals love democracy; until the people vote against their ideas.

Wuh? Where did this come from?

Is it Iraqi law that you open up your borders? I don't want more muslims in my country or in Sweden.

You've got to be kidding. We created this refugee problem and we should at least own up to our responsibility and take up those we've displaced. There are people we've put in danger just by the fact that they've helped us and we're not taking them in. That's fucking irresponsible. And as far as 'more Muslims,' read the First Amendment-God, Allah, Pasta-doesn't fucking matter to entry. Thats the principle we're founded on, so what are you trying to protect with this nonsense?

Wuh? Where did this come from?

Liberals love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as cutting off immigration.

Liberals love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as cutting off immigration.

What a remarkably limited view of things. Look up things like minority rights and tyranny of the majority. I don't know, do a lot of looking up...this is so far afield it's hard to figure out where to start.

Is it Iraqi law that you open up your borders? I don't want more muslims in my country or in Sweden.

I assume your an American, which may be right or wrong. If you are an American, I must say that your country need to take some responsibility for that mess you made down there. But most American politicians (and quite a bit of the people) seem to believe that the world is their private playground. And it isn´t Iraqi law that is keeping our borders open, it´s Swedish law. Muslims are not worse than christians, it is just that the countrys they grew up in is poorer and often have dictators, which in many cases have been supported by the USA under the cold war. In the "west", muslims is often segregated from the community for different reasons. That encourages religious fundamentalism. Digging your own grave, you could say.

Liberals love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as cutting off immigration.

Because when the majority disagrees with you then you should just shut up and never try to change their minds.

Edit: Hey, wait, the majority disagrees with you here, why don't you try that and see how long it takes for us to come around to your viewpoint eh?

Pity that most of the people who speak against immigration seem to be racists and xenophobes. But I'm sure that's the fault of the liberal media, or some other nonsense like that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about-guilt by association. Sure, there are racists and xenophobes who oppose immigration, but where's your evidence that "most" people who speak against immigration fall into these categories?

Aside from the fact that the whole western world came about because of immigration

So did every other society in the world, except for maybe people who live in the Olduvai Gorge. So what? Just because we've had immigration in the past, does that mean we have to allow it forever?

I defy you to find me one European government that is bringing immigrants into their country. Not letting them in, actively bringing them in.

You're splitting hairs, and you know it. Please.


Because that's not how governments tend to work. The public don't vote directly on every issue. If they don't like what the government is doing about immirgration them I'm sure your silent majority will simply elect a governemt that will do what they like about immigration. Assuming said majority actually exists.

You think it doesn't? What country do you live in that you can honestly say that population supports mass immigration?

Are you calling Muslim culture inferior to American culture?

Absolutely. Look at the results- would you rather live in Nevada or Saudi Arabia? Virginia or Bangladesh?

It's very strange- people in the West seem less and less willing to actually state that their cultures and societies are, at the end of the day, worth defending or supporting. Cultural relativism is one of the worst results of liberal dogma.

Yeah, I like that. Liberals love democracy; until the people vote against their ideas.

We love democracy, not tyranny by majority.

And who here has acted as if their voting for left-wing candidates is a cause for CONCERN about immigrants?

Absolutely. Look at the results- would you rather live in Nevada or Saudi Arabia? Virginia or Bangladesh?

I'd rather live in Turkey, where they accept Evolution, than Kansas, where they don't.

Now tell me all about your dreams of cultural superiority.

Yes. The idea of democracy is "majority rules", not "majority is wrong because they don't disagree with us, let's ignore them until they do, then we'll call it democracy".

Which is why no government aside from Switzerland (and that should tell you something) is a direct democracy.

What a remarkably limited view of things. Look up things like minority rights and tyranny of the majority.

Except that immigrants aren't a minority, not until they enter. Immigration can be cut off because potential immigrants don't exist in the destination country; not tyranny of the majority.

Because when the majority disagrees with you then you should just shut up and never try to change their minds.

Yes. The idea of democracy is "majority rules", not "majority is wrong because they don't disagree with us, let's ignore them until they do, then we'll call it democracy".

Edit: Hey, wait, the majority disagrees with you here, why don't you try that and see how long it takes for us to come around to your viewpoint eh?

Maybe on NS. NS is the Kampuchea of the Internet.

Apparently maintaining one's inherited culture is completely contingent upon whether or not a small minority of people around you share that culture. *sigh*

This argument against immigration is just asinine. Cultures are evolving and growing things. At its peak, Andalusian Spain was a better place to live than its European contemporaries, but that changed. When cultures mingle usually the hybridization makes the new national culture stronger, imo.

I'd rather live in Turkey, where they accept Evolution, than Kansas, where they don't.

Now tell me all about your dreams of cultural superiority.

Note that you picked Turkey, the most liberal of the Muslim-majority states.

Answer the question again, this time without Turkey.

Oh, and while you're on your Christian hate trip, I thought I'd take the time to remind you that the Catholic Church accepts evolution.

Liberals love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as cutting off immigration.

Conservatives love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as allowing abortion.

See, I can do it too!

Attempting to sway others to your beliefs -whether you happen to be in the majority OR minority at a given moment in time is not anti-democratic. Quite the opposite.

It is the epitome of what democracy is all about.

Yes. The idea of democracy is "majority rules", not "majority is wrong because they don't disagree with us, let's ignore them until they do, then we'll call it democracy".



Maybe on NS. NS is the Kampuchea of the Internet.

You right bastard, you just got this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC1qkLn6IRI) song stuck in my head!


Meanie!

Note that you picked Turkey, the most liberal of the Muslim-majority states.

Answer the question again, this time without Turkey.

Oh, and while you're on your Christian hate trip, I thought I'd take the time to remind you that the Catholic Church accepts evolution.

Did I say ZILCH about Christians? I said about Kansas questioning evolution, not Christians. But by all means, don't let facts go in the way of your knee-jerk.

Also:

Malaysia
Indonesia
Albania

Off the top of my head.

Adherence to a political or cultural orthodoxy, with resulting punishment or ostracism for anyone who does not toe the party line.
Wow, I'm impressed. That's actually the first time anyone has ever responded to the request for a definition, to my knowledge.

Now I can go back and look at your post...


In Europe, it seems politically incorrect to oppose multiculturalism and the massive changes brought upon European societies as a result of immigration.
You're wrong about that assumption.

Which idiot got his Scandinavian countries mixed up?

:rolleyes:
...eh, you, I'm afraid to say? Or do you mean that Norway can't be called a Country of peace while another Scandinavian country can?

The post I responded to talked about Kurdish communist terrorists, which as far as I know is an internal problem in Turkey (and Syria, maybe?)
Yet they're an immigrant group as well. Fanatical muslims and muslim terrorists are by and large an internal problem in their respective countries, just like the kurds are.
(Iraq is the clear exception)


What about them? Isn't that an ongoing insurgency in Sri Lanka? What does that have to do with this discussion?
Terrorist group, emigration potential, just like the muslim fundamentalist terrorists you're talking about.


Probably quite different- but which of those countries have the highest rates of Muslim immigration, and which have the biggest problems with immigrants? I bet the answer will be the same (France and Norway)
Good question - since none of the countries have an immigration policy based on religious beliefs.

And what are these "problems with immigrants" you're talking about?

I'd also like to add:

Svenska Dagbladet 1 October 2007
Proposal for supervising body in EU to check asylum practice Minister of Migration, Tobias Billström, wants to set up an EU body to monitor asylum practices in the member countries. The proposal will be sent to Brussels as a part of Sweden's comments on the proposal for creating a common asylum system. "On the paper, Europe has a common asylum system, but practices differ a lot between countries. This has been evident in relation to the refugee flow from Iraq where some countries have helped a lot while others have not done much", says Billström in an informal meeting for the EU Ministers of Migration in Lisbon.
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_17199064.asp


This has always concerned me. Both the ever amusing Greater Trostia, and Gravelen, claim to be Lawyers, yet every lawyer I have ever met has been a successful professional with a plethora of better things to do than NSG. In light of this, how good can they actually be?
Tell me, when have I presented such a claim on NSG? ;)

Indeed, why would being a lawyer immediatly see more information being available upon any subject?
Because current laws and the interpretation of them were a part of the debate/rant?

Used erroneously by Fjordman, might I add.

Oh, and, as ever, TAL is right. Islam is a cancer within the west; as, for that matter, are most non-skilled, mass populations of migrants.
*Yawns due to xenophobia*
A successful professional should have something better to do, however. Every half decent lawyer I've met would be trolleyed on whisky by now.
Sweeping generalizations and stereotyping does seem to be your forte, indeed.
Not at all. And yes, a successful professional should have something better to do than post on NSG; gentleman's clubs exist for a reason after all.
And you may or may not have noticed the decline in posts made by me on NSG since january 2007...
And you're right in that they wouldn't necessarily. I was, however, referring to the knowledge of Gravlen on whether or not crime statistics would show race among other things, which is something he would know for a fact since it's extremely relevant to his occupation.
Indeed. See the links I've provided. ;)
*reads OP*
That's your first mistake.

If it was a choice between that Scandinavian version of "Escape from New York" and Nazism, I'd vote for Hitler.

*sigh*

I liked the Norwegians better when they were looting, pillaging and egging the homes of coastal villagers.
How do you figure that? Have you seen the flaws in his arguments that has been brought to light during this thread?
If then the figures include Islamic Immigrant with citizenship as 'Norwegian', then they cannot be used to support any argument about the ethnicity of anyone committing crimes.
Exactly! You get a cookie too! :)

*Offers cookie*
Yeah, I like that. Liberals love democracy; until the people vote against their ideas.
Are you calling The Atlantian Islands a "Liberal"? :confused:

Conservatives love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as allowing abortion.

See, I can do it too!

Do what? If the majority are anti-abortion, then no abortion we shall have. Simple.

How do you figure that? Have you seen the flaws in his arguments that has been brought to light during this thread?

All I've seen is people pointing out that in a country where you're listed as either "Norwegian" or "Not Norwegian", most of the crime is committed by Norwegians. :rolleyes:

Are you calling The Atlantian Islands a "Liberal"? :confused:

No. The liberals are the people who reject the majority's wishes, such as cutting off immigration.

I'd rather live in Turkey, where they accept Evolution, than Kansas, where they don't.

Now tell me all about your dreams of cultural superiority.

Turkey is actually a country that has even fewer believers in evolution than the U.S. does...

Not to mention a typical Turk will also trot out such crap as "homosexuality is a choice" despite contradictory evidence and simple logic. How do I know this? I used to work with a Turk who said he was very typical of his country.

All I've seen is people pointing out that in a country where you're listed as either "Norwegian" or "Not Norwegian", most of the crime is committed by Norwegians. :rolleyes:
Ah, so you didn't read the thread. Here, read and be educated. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13105608&postcount=47)


No. The liberals are the people who reject the majority's wishes, such as cutting off immigration.
Appart from that being, well, completely wrong and unfounded, you may not have noticed that the poster I mentioned didn't promise to do much better - and he'll be the first to tell you that he ain't no liberal.

Come on. Pick a REAL Muslim country.

I did. You chose to ignore these VERY REAL Muslim countries just so you could pretend you had even a chance of winning any argument at all, let alone this one, against me.

Did I say ZILCH about Christians? I said about Kansas questioning evolution, not Christians. But by all means, don't let facts go in the way of your knee-jerk.

Also:

Malaysia
Indonesia
Albania

Off the top of my head.

Even WITHOUT Islam I wouldn't live in Indonesia. Malaysia also has a pretty bad record on the state-church front. Albania isn't too bad, but it's really flanked by Europeans, isn't it?

Come on. Pick a REAL Muslim country. Would you rather live in Kansas, where they reject evolution, or Iran, where they execute rape victims?

How do I know this? I used to work with a Turk who said he was very typical of his country.
Trust me - don't trust anecdotal evidence on such topics.

Turkey is actually a country that has even fewer believers in evolution than the U.S. does...

Not to mention a typical Turk will also trot out such crap as "homosexuality is a choice" despite contradictory evidence and simple logic. How do I know this? I used to work with a Turk who said he was very typical of his country.

They still won't try and force creationism in state schools, will they?

Also:

Malaysia
Indonesia
Albania

Off the top of my head.


Now, that's good funny. I have to wonder about the sanity of someone who would rather live in those three countries over Kansas.

I suppose you're right, they are great places to live- that's why tons of people from Wichita are moving to Kuala Lampur, Jakarata and Tirana :rolleyes:

I did. You chose to ignore these VERY REAL Muslim countries just so you could pretend you had even a chance of winning any argument at all, let alone this one, against me.

Come on. Malaysia is about 60%, and Albania has a strong European culture and has a lesser Muslim influence due to decades of socialism.

Besides, Malaysia is, as I mention, quite bad on the state-religion front, and Indonesia has some EXTREMELY radical provinces, and doesn't exactly go out of it's way to discourage radical Islam.

Yes. The idea of democracy is "majority rules", not "majority is wrong because they don't disagree with us, let's ignore them until they do, then we'll call it democracy".

.

And if it was just left like that, yes democracy would be a Tyranny by Majority. But that's why every democratic government has regulations and laws in place to prevent that sort of thing. Nothing is perfect in its purest form...usually in a pure, unaltered form, something is far less efficient or doesn't work as well as something that is refined would. This is true for so many things, from economic models to agriculture to even, yes, the cultures of countries.

I hear those Amazon tribes are up to no good! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027254.stm)

... started making trouble in my neighbourhood. I got in one little fight and...

Turkey is actually a country that has even fewer believers in evolution than the U.S. does...

Not to mention a typical Turk will also trot out such crap as "homosexuality is a choice" despite contradictory evidence and simple logic. How do I know this? I used to work with a Turk who said he was very typical of his country.

Turkey was a bad example anyway. It's sad when the Turks are more aware of radical Islam than the West; the Turkish military spends a good deal of it's time forcing the country to be secular and fighting off religion.

Even WITHOUT Islam I wouldn't live in Indonesia. Malaysia also has a pretty bad record on the state-church front. Albania isn't too bad, but it's really flanked by Europeans, isn't it?

Come on. Pick a REAL Muslim country. Would you rather live in Kansas, where they reject evolution, or Iran, where they execute rape victims?

So all REAL Muslim countries are the ones that support your point, unsurprisingly.

I can do that too. Would you rather live in a 'REAL' Muslim country like Iran, or a 'REAL' Christian country like Ethiopia? :rolleyes:

Trust me - don't trust anecdotal evidence on such topics.
True...he was very convincing though. I mean, the guy was a good guy...he just had some stupid ideas.

They still won't try and force creationism in state schools, will they?
I have no idea. The subject never came up.

So all REAL Muslim countries are the ones that support your point, unsurprisingly.

I can do that too. Would you rather live in a 'REAL' Muslim country like Iran, or a 'REAL' Christian country like Ethiopia? :rolleyes:

Well, perhaps you'd like to pick a core Muslim country, which is culturally Islamic as well as religiously.

Turkey was a bad example anyway. It's sad when the Turks are more aware of radical Islam than the West; the Turkish military spends a good deal of it's time forcing the country to be secular and fighting off religion.

It also spends a lot of its time oppressing Kurds, but hey, that's probably not a problem for you, Rusty.

Well, perhaps you'd like to pick a core Muslim country, which is culturally Islamic as well as religiously.

As long as you pick a core Christian country like Ethiopia, I'm fine with it.

You have no case.

It also spends a lot of its time oppressing Kurds, but hey, that's probably not a problem for you, Rusty.

No, not really. It's not my country, so it's not my problem.

As long as you pick a core Christian country like Ethiopia, I'm fine with it.

You have no case.

Ethiopia... is not a core Christian country. Where did you go to school?

So you get riled up about teh muslimz invading Norway why?...

Because my country will probably soon be in the same situation.

Now, to get back to the original post, let's take a look at something odd for NS - actual facts:

Latest Available stats:

Note: Both USDOJ and Norwegian latest reports are for 2005
Population figures taken via CIA World Factbook.

Norway
Rapes: (http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/tab/tab-148.html) 798
Population: 4,627,926
Rapes per capita: 0.00017243145201543844910225444399932e


United States:
Rapes (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf)69,370 (stat on pg 14)
Population: 301,139,947
Rapes per capita: 0.00023035801357831812330099134938082

So, an american is twice as likely to be raped than a Norwegian.

As to comparing Oslo to New York City, that is also rediculous. For starters, the greater Oslo area as defined in Norway contains about 1.1 million people. In other words, nearly 1 in 4 Norwegians live there, and this represents the bulk of the urban Norwegian area. Last I checked, New York was not representing the statistics of 25% of Americans. The border definitions of what constitutes "New York" are also so well defined to exclude the seedier satellite areas (say - New Jersey for example), while the area defined for Oslo would include such satellites. The skyrocketting cost of livings and urban redevelopment of New York has done a wonderfull job of pushing many of the worst areas (and associated crimes) outside the borders that it includes in its statistics as more affluent people have replaced middle- and lower- class residents in many areas.

As to the "Six Times More likely!" comment, latest stats from New York (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/nyregion/01crime.html?ex=1325307600&en=e98d744b2e47ccc8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) counted 1486 rapes in 2006, and a population of 8,213,839.

So, that implies 181 rapes per million people.

So, for Oslo (population 1.1 million) to have 6 times the rape rate, they would need a rape rate of 181*6, or 1086/million people.

Now, can someone explain to me how Oslo had over 1100 rapes in order to justify that claim when there were under 800 rapes in the whole country?

All I've seen is people pointing out that in a country where you're listed as either "Norwegian" or "Not Norwegian", most of the crime is committed by Norwegians. :rolleyes:


Wait, is this still going? Are we still saying that Norway doesn't keep statistics on immigration?

Because it seems like they do, here at Statistics Norway (http://www.ssb.no/innvandring_en/)

Norway's immigrant population consists of people from more than 200 different countries. They have come to Norway as refugees, labour immigrants or through family relations with other immigrants or Norwegians.


* The immigrant population is now 415 000. This group accounts for 8,9 per cent of Norway's population. Broken down by country, 54 000 are immigrants from other Nordic countries, 51 000 come from other countries in Western Europe and North America, 80 000 come from Eastern Europe, and 230 000 come from Turkey and countries in Asia, Africa and South America.

* The majority of first-generation immigrants are from Sweden, Poland and Denmark. 47 per cent of the immigrant population has Norwegian citizenship.

* The number of immigrants has increased in the last 50 years. The first immigrants to Norway came from Eastern Europe after the Second World War, followed by labour immigrants from Europe and the rest of the world. Since Norway introduced the ban on labour immigration in 1975, the number of refugees from non-western countries has increased. With the EU enlargement immigration from Poland has peaked over the last two years.

* The number of immigrants varies with the immigration policy pursued by the government, the needs of the labour market and global crises. Immigration increased during and after the Balkan wars of the 1990s. In recent years, the majority of new immigrants have come to Norway as a result of family reunions, to start a family with other immigrants or with Norwegians.

* Statistics Norway has published figures on immigrants since the Population Census of 1865. Back then 1.2 per cent of a total population of 1.7 million were born abroad; the majority in Sweden. In 1920, the immigrant population had increased to 2.8 per cent. During the interwar period there was little immigration, and by 1950 only 1.4 per cent of the population were born abroad.

No, not really. It's not my country, so it's not my problem.

So you get riled up about teh muslimz invading Norway why?...

Come on. Malaysia is about 60%, and Albania has a strong European culture and has a lesser Muslim influence due to decades of socialism.

...what's this "muslim influence" that has been kept out, that an estimated 70% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html) muslim population can't bring?

No, not really. It's not my country, so it's not my problem.

That's a very poor way of looking at things, but not surprising given your political viewpoints. See, I happen to think that all humans, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or any other minor difference ought to be treated with respect and be granted fundamental human rights. (Grave_n_Idle, please do NOT start up the rights argument again.) That means that any oppression is wrong. Any genocide is wrong. (By the way, stop fucking using the term ethnic cleansing. It's ridiculous.) Any abuse is wrong. So the oppression of Kurds should be your problem, just like the oppression of homosexuals, or the oppression of Australian aboriginals, ect ect ect. Not being a part of the group being oppressed is no reason to consider it not your problem, because sooner or later those who crack down on one group and get away with it will crack down on everyone.

So you get riled up about teh muslimz invading Norway why?...

Because it's a convenient excuse to start singing "MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!!" of course.

...what's this "muslim influence" that has been kept out, that an estimated 70% (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/al.html) muslim population can't bring?

The religion is less extreme. There is no state support of the religion. The nation is secular. The Reds banned religion until 1990, so there was no chance for extremism to grow.

That's a very poor way of looking at things, but not surprising given your political viewpoints. See, I happen to think that all humans, regardless of culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or any other minor difference ought to be treated with respect and be granted fundamental human rights. (Grave_n_Idle, please do NOT start up the rights argument again.) That means that any oppression is wrong. Any genocide is wrong. (By the way, stop fucking using the term ethnic cleansing. It's ridiculous.) Any abuse is wrong. So the oppression of Kurds should be your problem, just like the oppression of homosexuals, or the oppression of Australian aboriginals, ect ect ect. Not being a part of the group being oppressed is no reason to consider it not your problem, because sooner or later those who crack down on one group and get away with it will crack down on everyone.

Good for you. And I believe that people from other countries should stay the fuck away from Australia and stop bringing their fucking problems with them. We see Africa, the Middle East, the shit that goes on, who in fuck's name wants to bring that shit over here? Why, it's the Liberals!

Um, by this logic most of the countries I'd bet you'd consider 'core Christian' are not actually Christian.

Yes, communist influence was really good at suppressing religion in their bloc. I mean, compare the West to Poland, Hungary, Czech Repub...

... oh, wait a minute.

Well, see, Christianity and the West has a Renaissance. Islam didn't. There's a difference.

Because it's a convenient excuse to start singing "MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!!" of course.

True, although I was leaning more towards the explanation that Kurds are Muslim so they don't matter.

The religion is less extreme. There is no state support of the religion. The nation is secular. The Reds banned religion until 1990, so there was no chance for extremism to grow.
Um, by this logic most of the countries I'd bet you'd consider 'core Christian' are not actually Christian.

Yes, communist influence was really good at suppressing religion in its bloc. I mean, compare Western Europe to Poland, Hungary, Czech Repub...

... wait a minute...

Good for you. And I believe that people from other countries should stay the fuck away from Australia and stop bringing their fucking problems with them. We see Africa, the Middle East, the shit that goes on, who in fuck's name wants to bring that shit over here? Why, it's the Liberals!

Okay, by all means, expel all immigrants and their descendants.

So leave America unless you're a complete descendant of Native Americans. Now.

Wait, is this still going? Are we still saying that Norway doesn't keep statistics on immigration?

Because it seems like they do, here at Statistics Norway (http://www.ssb.no/innvandring_en/)

They keep stats on immigration, but they don't keep stats on the religious persuation of the immigrants, nor of the religious persuation of criminals.

Okay, by all means, expel all immigrants and their descendants.

So leave America unless you're a complete descendant of Native Americans. Now.

I don't live in America. And my family was willing to submit to integration and assimilation; we were fucking grateful to be let in. Modern immigrants are not. They expect us to kowtow to their demands, and I will fucking die fighting before that happens.

But in all likelihood, I'll probably just move to Israel. It's the new US.

The religion is less extreme. There is no state support of the religion. The nation is secular. The Reds banned religion until 1990, so there was no chance for extremism to grow.

So it's not Islam that's the problem then. Gotcha.

So it's not Islam that's the problem then. Gotcha.

No, it is. Just Islam that hasn't been cracked the fuck down on.

EDIT:, No, you're right. It's not Islam. It's the Muslims. Distinct, different things.

Good for you. And I believe that people from other countries should stay the fuck away from Australia and stop bringing their fucking problems with them. We see Africa, the Middle East, the shit that goes on, who in fuck's name wants to bring that shit over here? Why, it's the Liberals!
Has it occurred to you that they're leaving those countries because they want a better life? That they bring their culture with them because it's what's familiar? Has it also occurred to you that it would be far more sensible to:

A. Help improve their countries

and

B. Improve immigration policy so that new immigrants can integrate more fully into society

and

C. Stop the bigoted attitudes that are the true source of the problem, on both sides.

But no, of course not. That's far too reasonable for you to ever come up with it.

Okay, by all means, expel all immigrants and their descendants.

So leave America unless you're a complete descendant of Native Americans. Now.

He's Australian. Which makes it even more hilariously ironic. :p

He's Australian. Which makes it even more hilariously ironic. :p

By all means, replace America with Australia. Australia is for the native Australians.

Has it occurred to you that they're leaving those countries because they want a better life? That they bring their culture with them because it's what's familiar? Has it also occurred to you that it would be far more sensible to:

A. Help improve their countries

and

B. Improve immigration policy so that new immigrants can integrate more fully into society

and

C. Stop the bigoted attitudes that are the true source of the problem, on both sides.

But no, of course not. That's far too reasonable for you to ever come up with it.

No, fuck them. They're not our problem. If we wanted to inherit their bullshit, we'd all give up sovereignty and have one world government.

No, it is. Just Islam that hasn't been cracked the fuck down on.

EDIT:, No, you're right. It's not Islam. It's the Muslims. Distinct, different things.

It's the muslims, eh? But not all muslims, apparently... So then, it's not really the muslims either is it?

I don't live in America. And my family was willing to submit to integration and assimilation; we were fucking grateful to be let in. Modern immigrants are not. They expect us to kowtow to their demands, and I will fucking die fighting before that happens.

But in all likelihood, I'll probably just move to Israel. It's the new US.

Wow, you seem to know everything about EVERY immigrant there has ever BEEN, which is surprising, seeing as you're too much of a bigot to be around them.

It's the muslims, eh? But not all muslims, apparently... So then, it's not really the muslims either is it?

What do you want me to say? There's no problem with Islam or Muslims? That the world is fine and dandy?

Fine. La la la la la. No problems with people integrating, no problems with terrorism, no problem with rape victims being execute. Everything is fine!

No, fuck them. They're not our problem. If we wanted to inherit their bullshit, we'd all give up sovereignty and have one world government.

Oh, the primal shout of "fuck them". It sort of reminds me of a caveman yelling and flailing his arms at a tree because he thinks they cause lightning.

They keep stats on immigration, but they don't keep stats on the religious persuation of the immigrants, nor of the religious persuation of criminals.

It does have statistics on religion, though this is an unsourced letter from stumble (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/OPINION02/710020304/1006), so meh-

Rev. Rick Mason notes that atheism is on the rise. He blames Christian fundamentalism. Certainly the ineptness, dishonesty and lack of ethics of the overtly God-fearing Bush administration may be turning people off on God.

A case study shows what this could mean for America. Norway has embraced secularism at the expense of its Christian roots. A 2005 survey conducted by Gallup International rated Norway the least religious country in Western Europe.

In Norway, 82.9 percent of the population are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (they are automatically registered at birth and few bother to be unregistered). However, only approximately 10 percent regularly attend church services and identify themselves as being personally Christian.

A 2006 survey found: 29 percent believe in a god or deity; 23 percent believe in a higher power without being certain of what; 26 percent don't believe in God or higher powers; 22 percent have doubts.

Depending on the definition of atheism, Norway thus has between 26 percent and 71 percent atheists. The Norwegian Humanist Association is the world's largest humanist association per capita.

And what has secularism done to Norway? The Global Peace Index rates Norway the most peaceful country in the world. The Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living, has ranked Norway No. 1 every year for the last five years.

Norway has the second highest GDP per capita in the world, an unemployment rate below 2 percent, and average hourly wages among the world's highest.
David N. Miles
Doesn't seem like religion is even much of an issue in Norway.

There is this on religion (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/) but not related to crime.

They have this table (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2007-08-13-20-en.html) on crime and citizenship, so at the very least it's more detailed than "Norwegian" and "Not Norwegian".

By all means, replace America with Australia. Australia is for the native Australians.

If anything, what happened to the American Indians and Australian Aborigines is a good lesson on how important it is to control immigration from incompatible cultures and religions.

We can't go back in time and change history, but we can make sure that what happened to those cultures and societies does not happen to us.

No, fuck them. They're not our problem. If we wanted to inherit their bullshit, we'd all give up sovereignty and have one world government.

Ah, I see. How short-sighted.

You can't live in this world like that. You can't shut everything away and try to live on your own, isolated...that's simply impossible. You can't stop problems by ignoring them. You have to fix them. You want to stop the immigrants and the problems? You follow my plan. Otherwise nothing will change.

You'd like to move to Israel to get away from Muslim culture and immigrants.

To get away from Muslim influence, you want to move from a nation where 2% of the population are Muslim to a nation where 16% of the population are Muslim. That's surrounded by Islamic states.

*brain asplode*

Israel is at constant war with Muslims. They'd never submit, like the West does.

I don't live in America. And my family was willing to submit to integration and assimilation; we were fucking grateful to be let in. Modern immigrants are not. They expect us to kowtow to their demands, and I will fucking die fighting before that happens.

But in all likelihood, I'll probably just move to Israel. It's the new US.

You'd like to move to Israel to get away from Muslim culture and immigrants.

To get away from Muslim influence, you want to move from a nation where 2% of the population are Muslim to a nation where 16% of the population are Muslim. That's surrounded by Islamic states.

*brain asplode*

If anything, what happened to the American Indians and Australian Aborigines is a good lesson on how important it is to control immigration from incompatible cultures and religions.

We can't go back in time and change history, but we can make sure that what happened to those cultures and societies does not happen to us.

No, you can, since you make these claims about immigrants make reparations and go back to Europe. Which is a bit LESS than what the quasi-nazis here are wanting to happen to current immigrants.

Israel is at constant war with Muslims. They'd never submit, like the West does.

Are you even listening to yourself? Don't you realize that you are part of the problem in terms of your bigoted attitudes? Don't you realize that in order for things to be solved you have to change along with them? You can't just make everything bend to your will...that's just not how life works. It's a constant compromise.

And really, try caring about others once in a while. You'll find that you like it.

Question, also: Are you The Potato Factory? You certainly are acting like him.

Israel is at constant war with Muslims. They'd never submit, like the West does.

And it just gets you hard, doesn't it? The thought of watching all those brown people getting slaughtered. Or maybe you'd like them to be gassed? Segregate them, make them sew special symbols on their clothes, get them to these facilities with a gas chamber ready and running?

If anything, what happened to the American Indians and Australian Aborigines is a good lesson on how important it is to control immigration from incompatible cultures and religions.

We can't go back in time and change history, but we can make sure that what happened to those cultures and societies does not happen to us.

Do immigrants bring with them fearsome military technology so as to make the United States and Western Europe's arsenal seem as spears versus muskets?

No?

Unless the military lays down its arms and has to resort to bake sales for money, kindly explain how Muslims are going to round up Westerners and forcibly take over their countries. Even if it is because of the Global Islamic Conspiracy to infiltrate the governments of the west, it's clearly not the same situation as the colonization of the Americas/Australia.

And it just gets you hard, doesn't it? The thought of watching all those brown people getting slaughtered. Or maybe you'd like them to be gassed? Segregate them, make them sew special symbols on their clothes, get them to these facilities with a gas chamber ready and running?

No, I just want them to stay the fuck away from me. And I plan to do that by joining Shin Bet.

Personally, Rita Faltoyano gets me hard.

No, I just want them to stay the fuck away from me. And I plan to do that by joining Shin Bet.

Not what you said. You said Israel is in a state of constant war with them. More horrifying, that's what you LIKE about Israel.

What do you want me to say? There's no problem with Islam or Muslims? That the world is fine and dandy?

Fine. La la la la la. No problems with people integrating, no problems with terrorism, no problem with rape victims being execute. Everything is fine!

Most of those problems have been caused by the western world. Integration is putting people in segregated suburbs/ghettos instead of spreading them out over the country. Terrorism is due to people being desperate because they live in poor nations exploited by various groups wanting power. May I remind you that Al-Qaeda was trained by the CIA. Many of the dictatorships is/was supported by the USA.

Not what you said. You said Israel is in a state of constant war with them. More horrifying, that's what you LIKE about Israel.

Yes. And what Muslim who's at war with Israel will ENTER Israel?

And it just gets you hard, doesn't it? The thought of watching all those brown people getting slaughtered. Or maybe you'd like them to be gassed? Segregate them, make them sew special symbols on their clothes, get them to these facilities with a gas chamber ready and running?

Roughly half the people who declare "Never Again" will in fact cream in their pants given the chance to pull a trigger pointed at a Muslim of Arab or other ethnicities.

Yes. And what Muslim who's at war with Israel will ENTER Israel?

My GOD you're a moron.

No, you can, since you make these claims about immigrants make reparations and go back to Europe. Which is a bit LESS than what the quasi-nazis here are wanting to happen to current immigrants.

You're being silly, and you know it. Let's live in the real world, shall we?

Like I said, what happened to the native populations of the Americas and and Australia was a historic tragedy, but it's done and we're not going to give the land back and abandon these continents.

But that doesn't mean our societies shouldn't be allowed to preserve their cultures and ways of life.

My GOD you're a moron.

Hey, I'm not the one who's going to be living under Sharia law.

Roughly half the people who declare "Never Again" will in fact cream in their pants given the chance to pull a trigger pointed at a Muslim of Arab or other ethnicities.

I think even the Israelis are moving in that direction. The oppressed become the oppressors.

What do you want me to say? There's no problem with Islam or Muslims? That the world is fine and dandy?

Fine. La la la la la. No problems with people integrating, no problems with terrorism, no problem with rape victims being execute. Everything is fine!
:rolleyes:

I want you to stop stereotyping and generalizing. I want you to stop the islamophobic symtoms you
re showing, and rather talk about the real problems. Yes, there are problems within islam, especially the fundamentalist variety. I want you to look at the reasons individual muslims might commit crime. I want you too look at the influence of the power-brokers in the muslim world and the influences stemming from the middle eastern countries and societies.

Religion is but one of the factors in play here, and usually it's only a tool. It's not at all the main reason.

Problem with integration? Why? Local policies? The original societies?

Problems with terrorism? Why? How? And from who?

Rape victims being executed? Is that the norm? Does it happen often?

You don't ask any of these questions, you just dismiss it as "Islam" or "Muslims". As such, you won't come close to solving the problems bacause you fail to properly identify them.

That's what I want you to do.
It does have statistics on religion, though this is an unsourced letter from stumble (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071003/OPINION02/710020304/1006), so meh-

Doesn't seem like religion is even much of an issue in Norway.
Religion, yes, but not related to immigrants and not related to crime.

There is this on religion (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/) but not related to crime.
Nor related to immigration.


They have this table (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/05/a_krim_tab_en/tab/tab-2007-08-13-20-en.html) on crime and citizenship, so at the very least it's more detailed than "Norwegian" and "Not Norwegian".
That's the link I'e already posted.

Liberals love the idea of the democratic majority; until that majority decides something they don't like, such as cutting off immigration.

Um, no. Liberals generally like the idea of freedom about democracy. Democracy is tyranny by majority. Most countries have bils of rights that are widely supported by liberals, since they promote individual freedom.

For example, find a liberal who would allow the majority to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or any other basic freedoms. If they will, they actually aren't liberal (I assume we're talking about social liberals here.)

Ah, I see. The only possible explanation is that those 16% or so are actually spies for the United Islamic Alliance working to destroy Israel. Obviously.

No, those 16% better watch their fucking steps or they'll get the Shin Bet technique.

You'd like to move to Israel to get away from Muslim culture and immigrants.

To get away from Muslim influence, you want to move from a nation where 2% of the population are Muslim to a nation where 16% of the population are Muslim. That's surrounded by Islamic states.

*brain asplode*

Yes. And what Muslim who's at war with Israel will ENTER Israel?

Ah, I see. The only possible explanation is that those 16% or so are actually hundreds of thousands of spies for the United Islamic Alliance working to destroy Israel. Obviously.

I guess you don't have much faith in the cultures of white people, huh? Can't survive without the protection of government. I sure I'm glad I don't have so little faith in the value of white contributions to society.

Despite common belief, white people, and this is coming from a white person, white people are fucking stupid. In general, they have the intelligence of staplers. They're about as gullible as children being offered candy by pedophiles, and they can see a threat coming like a blind man can see the eighteen wheeler barreling down the street towards him.

Racism is just fear. Forgive us for not succumbing to your irrational fear. You're welcome to do so to your liking. We'll be over here giggling and pointing and waiting for you to grow up and stop saying ludicrously trollish things.

I'll stop saying these things when there's world peace.

You're being silly, and you know it. Let's live in the real world, shall we?

Like I said, what happened to the native populations of the Americas and and Australia was a historic tragedy, but it's done and we're not going to give the land back and abandon these continents.

But that doesn't mean our societies shouldn't be allowed to preserve their cultures and ways of life.

You, of course, feel the same way about the middle east and campaign to get the US and Europe out of the Middle East, yes?

I guess you don't have much faith in the cultures of white people, huh? Can't survive without the protection of government. I sure I'm glad I don't have so little faith in the value of white contributions to society.

Hey, I'm not the one who's going to be living under Sharia law.

You're STILL a moron. You're trying to say no Muslim would enter a place that's at war with Muslims when:

1- 16% of Israelis are Muslims.

2- There IS one reason for a person to enter a place they're at war with. Namely, to CARRY OUT said war.

3- You assume that sharia law is the natural result of a 2% Muslim population in the country you live in, as opposed to the 16% Muslim population of the country you plan on living in.

Even if your assumptions were true, you'd be a moron for the way you react to them!

Yes, racism and xenophobia usually result in world peace. Yep, that's very consistent with history.

No, world peace should come first. I'll stop saying what I say when there are no more terrorist attacks and no more calls to submit to Allah.

No, those 16% better watch their fucking steps or they'll get the Shin Bet technique.

Racism is just fear. Forgive us for not succumbing to your irrational fear. You're welcome to do so to your liking. We'll be over here giggling and pointing and waiting for you to grow up and stop saying ludicrously trollish things.

You're STILL a moron. You're trying to say no Muslim would enter a place that's at war with Muslims when:

1- 16% of Israelis are Muslims.

2- There IS one reason for a person to enter a place they're at war with. Namely, to CARRY OUT said war.

3- You assume that sharia law is the natural result of a 2% Muslim population in the country you live in, as opposed to the 16% Muslim population of the country you plan on living in.

Again, 16% of Israelis are watched very closely. And Muslims have failed every attempt at war with the Israelis so far. Finally, Australia would fold and submit, unlike Israel, who looked into their pants and found their balls.

I'll stop saying these things when there's world peace.

Yes, racism and xenophobia usually result in world peace. Yep, that's very consistent with history.

No, those 16% better watch their fucking steps or they'll get the Shin Bet technique.

Ah, so you'll play judge, jury and executioner now? That's cute. Now, sit. Good boy!

Uh-huh. You amuse me. So because white people are stupid we must protect them from the superior individuals that will destroy them if permitted? I can't wait to hear more.

Seriously, didn't you ever study WWII? The world was watching the Nazis march through Paris, and everyone said, "Don't the French SEE the Nazis taking them over?". And the thing is, they did, but they didn't really process it. They got it a few months after, once Vichy France was set up, every French person suddenly realised "Oh fuck, we're at fucking war with the Germans!"

That's how dumb whites are.

Despite common belief, white people, and this is coming from a white person, white people are fucking stupid. In general, they have the intelligence of staplers. They're about as gullible as children being offered candy by pedophiles, and they can see a threat coming like a blind man can see the eighteen wheeler barreling down the street towards him.

Uh-huh. You amuse me. So because white people are stupid we must protect them from the superior individuals that will destroy them if permitted? I can't wait to hear more.

And thanks for offering evidence for my claim that racism and xenophobia are just irrational fear.

Uh-huh. You amuse me. So because white people are stupid we must protect them from the superior individuals that will destroy them if permitted? I can't wait to hear more.

That's exactly why even if the Muslims were all working to destroy teh glorious white culture I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I could care less over the continued existence of a culture that allows itself to be eliminated when it has a 95% + majority.

Again, 16% of Israelis are watched very closely. And Muslims have failed every attempt at war with the Israelis so far. Finally, Australia would fold and submit, unlike Israel, who looked into their pants and found their balls.

His definition of "submitting" = "not putting them into concentration camps". Seeing you in action is a joke.

His definition of "submitting" = "not putting them into concentration camps". Seeing you in action is a joke.

Now, have I ever actually MENTIONED a concentration camp, or massacring anybody?

No, world peace should come first. I'll stop saying what I say when there are no more terrorist attacks and no more calls to submit to Allah.

Sorry Rusty Potato, but it doesn't work that way. Those attacks happen because of extremists who use the bigoted attitudes of people like you to fuel their rage. WE have to hold out the olive branch. WE have to make the first step. WE have to correct OUR stupid mistakes before ANYTHING will be solved.

Sorry Rusty Potato, but it doesn't work that way. Those attacks happen because of extremists who use the bigoted attitudes of people like you to fuel their rage. WE have to hold out the olive branch. WE have to make the first step. WE have to correct OUR stupid mistakes before ANYTHING will be solved.

Our mistakes? Maybe it's just me, but I'M bigoted because THEY attack us. And besides, to anybody who's ethics compass isn't fucking retarded, terrorism kicks the shit out of bigotry on the "bad" scale.

I like that though, the way you manage to blame their terrorism on us. You'd make a great Iranian.

No, fuck them. They're not our problem. If we wanted to inherit their bullshit, we'd all give up sovereignty and have one world government.

ATTENTION THREAD READERS:

Now you know why, back in the day, in the US, we called these guys the Know-Nothings.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0233110-00&templatename=/art

Seriously, didn't you ever study WWII? The world was watching the Nazis march through Paris, and everyone said, "Don't the French SEE the Nazis taking them over?". And the thing is, they did, but they didn't really process it. They got it a few months after, once Vichy France was set up, every French person suddenly realised "Oh fuck, we're at fucking war with the Germans!"

That's how dumb whites are.

What magic dust are you smoking!? I want it!!

Now, have I ever actually MENTIONED a concentration camp, or massacring anybody?

Do you HAVE to? You see anything remotely like peaceful coexistence as submitting! You think Israel "has balls" because it kills whoever opposes it in that hellhole! You don't HAVE to mention concentration camps. You IMPLY them in your discourse.

Do you HAVE to? You see anything remotely like peaceful coexistence as submitting! You think Israel "has balls" because it kills whoever opposes it in that hellhole! You don't HAVE to mention concentration camps. You IMPLY them in your discourse.

See, concentration camps imply a certain amount of effort on my part. I'm not going to go kill anybody, as long as they stay the fuck away from me over in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet.

Our mistakes? Maybe it's just me, but I'M bigoted because THEY attack us. And besides, to anybody who's ethics compass isn't fucking retarded, terrorism kicks the shit out of bigotry on the "bad" scale.

I like that though, the way you manage to blame their terrorism on us. You'd make a great Iranian.

They who? All Muslims? Most of them? As has been pointed out time and again, if even one percent of all Muslims were attacking you, you'd be meat by now.

They who? All Muslims? Most of them? As has been pointed out time and again, if even one percent of all Muslims were attacking you, you'd be meat by now.

One percent of Muslims may not be attacking me, but they sure as hell are SUPPORTING the people that are attacking me.

Our mistakes? Maybe it's just me, but I'M bigoted because THEY attack us. And besides, to anybody who's ethics compass isn't fucking retarded, terrorism kicks the shit out of bigotry on the "bad" scale.

I like that though, the way you manage to blame their terrorism on us. You'd make a great Iranian.
Oh please.

Okay, reality check: we--that is, the West--have been interfering in the Middle East since the late 1880s due to the presence of oil. We have been altering countries, supporting dictatorships, training terrorist groups, and generally setting things up for exactly this kind of situation. Try looking at things from their point of view. Consider how we've seriously harmed their culture, their way of life and generally prevented them from making the very same cultural advances we made. They weren't able to because we kept the from doing so through our own interference. We have made this bed, as it were, and now we're laying in it.

Oh please.

Okay, reality check: we--that is, the West--have been interfering in the Middle East since the late 1880s due to the presence of oil. We have been altering countries, supporting dictatorships, training terrorist groups, and generally setting things up for exactly this kind of situation. Try looking at things from their point of view. Consider how we've seriously harmed their culture, their way of life and generally prevented them from making the very same cultural advances we made. They weren't able to because we kept the from doing so through our own interference. We have made this bed, as it were, and now we're laying in it.

Well, I was born in 1989, so that's their fucking problem. I want to live in peace, and be allowed to say what I want and do what I want. I don't personally remember having going into the Middle East and inteferred there.

See, concentration camps imply a certain amount of effort on my part. I'm not going to go kill anybody, as long as they stay the fuck away from me over in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet.

Which is, by your logic, what the Australian authorities should have said to whoever it is you descend from that's foreign.

No, world peace should come first. I'll stop saying what I say when there are no more terrorist attacks and no more calls to submit to Allah.

Hehe. Yes, and the way to silence racists and violence has always been more racism and violence. I find it amusing that you incite the spectre of WWII when a lot of what it was fueled by wer claims that Jews and various other groups were taking over that white people needed some guiding force to protect them from such things.

You are espousing the exact same things out of one side of your mouth while claiming white people weren't smart enought to see YOU coming. Honestly, are you taking a piss here, because you couldn't be more ironic on purpose.

Which is, by your logic, what the Australian authorities should have said to whoever it is you descend from that's foreign.

Yes! That's my point! What psychopath invited refugees from Europe after WWII?

Our mistakes? Maybe it's just me, but I'M bigoted because THEY attack us. And besides, to anybody who's ethics compass isn't fucking retarded, terrorism kicks the shit out of bigotry on the "bad" scale.

I like that though, the way you manage to blame their terrorism on us. You'd make a great Iranian.
Spoken like a true Know-Nothing. OUR mistakes give our enemies all the material they need to recruit armies against us, so fixing those mistakes will inevitably weaken those enemies, but I'm not surprised you failed to figure that out. Also, bigotry does outrank terrorism on the "bad" scale because if there were no bigotry there would be little or no terrorism. But I guess that's another cause-effect relationship that's beyond your ken. I'll give you a hint -- most terrorists are bigots.

Here's another hint: You're a bigot too, as evidenced by your preference for insulting language and your attempt in this post to justify your bigotry by blaming it on your enemies. But just as their bigotry came first, I suspect yours did, too.

And a final hint: You're also either a hypocrite or a liar (or maybe both). Earlier, I noticed you first praising Israel for maintaining constant war, and then later claiming that world peace has to come first. You can't have it both ways. Peace or war. You can't claim to support both.

Nobody supports terrorism. And we're decrying racism. See we can be against both.

Meanwhile, THEY didn't attack us. Terrorists attacked us. Incidentally all Muslims didn't become terrorists simply because A terrorist is Muslim or even most terrorists are Muslim or even all terrorists are Muslim. Your reasoning is flawed.

I guess if I was this outgunned I'd be resorting something as stupid as "you'd make a great Iranian."

Listen, nothing succeeds without people supporting it. Terrorism succeeding because Muslims support it, just like the Nazis succeeded because the Germans supported them.

One percent of Muslims may not be attacking me, but they sure as hell are SUPPORTING the people that are attacking me.

Prove it. Now. Or admit you lost the debate.

Well, I was born in 1989, so that's their fucking problem. I want to live in peace, and be allowed to say what I want and do what I want. I don't personally remember having going into the Middle East and inteferred there.

Oh, the irony!

See, concentration camps imply a certain amount of effort on my part. I'm not going to go kill anybody, as long as they stay the fuck away from me over in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet.
So, in addition to being ignorant, confused, and hypocritical, you're also lazy? Well, that's one point in your favor, at least -- the assurance that all you'll ever do in life is shoot off your uninformed mouth.

Well, I was born in 1989, so that's their fucking problem. I want to live in peace, and be allowed to say what I want and do what I want. I don't personally remember having going into the Middle East and inteferred there.

And I was born two years earlier. Your point? In 1989 we were still funding Osama bin Laden. Fuck, we're still pulling the exact same shit today. Look at the war in Iraq!

Our mistakes? Maybe it's just me, but I'M bigoted because THEY attack us. And besides, to anybody who's ethics compass isn't fucking retarded, terrorism kicks the shit out of bigotry on the "bad" scale.

I like that though, the way you manage to blame their terrorism on us. You'd make a great Iranian.

Nobody supports terrorism. And we're decrying racism. See we can be against both.

Meanwhile, THEY didn't attack us. Terrorists attacked us. Incidentally all Muslims didn't become terrorists simply because A terrorist is Muslim or even most terrorists are Muslim or even all terrorists are Muslim. Your reasoning is flawed.

I guess if I was this outgunned I'd be resorting something as stupid as "you'd make a great Iranian."

Yes! That's my point! What psychopath invited refugees from Europe after WWII?

I don't know, but they sure were stupid letting your family in so they could rase a bigoted spoiled brat.

See, concentration camps imply a certain amount of effort on my part. I'm not going to go kill anybody, as long as they stay the fuck away from me over in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet.

You mean like how they were staying the fuck away from you in the crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet known as Iraq... until Your Beloved Dear Leader wanted to avenge Daddy's honor and his buddies realized there's OIL in that crapshack of a country?

You mean like how the Native Americans were always staying in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the continent until a bunch of white people decided those places weren't crapshacks at all?

Really, that plus believing in the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Who Never Fired A Single Shot myth really makes you a Certified Islamic Scholar.

:rolleyes:

People who have been to Oslo for the 17th of May holiday in the 1980s or 1990s do understand the sadness in the fact that Oslo is now turning into a same Somali bazaar as London and Paris have become a Pakistani and Maghrebian ones (respectively).

And is it really global? Did we get a Jewish neighbourhood in Saudi Arabia and can Western women go around in knee-length (NOT mini!) skirts in Tehran?

Why is it only normal that the West accepts not only Moslem people (which is totally OK), but also their backward ideologies (which are despicable) the likes of which the now only nominally Christian West also used to have until recently and managed to get rid of with a lot of fighting, but it is never considered equally normal that the countries whence these wretches flee to the West extend the same courtesy to a married gay couple of Spaniards?

Spain was a despotic fief of the Roman-Catholic church until less than 50 years ago. But it has modernised. How come there are only three Moslem countries that attempted the same -- Tunisia, Turkey, and Lebanon -- of which the laste one was severely chastised for daring to do so?

You mean like how they were staying the fuck away from you in the crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet known as Iraq... until Your Beloved Dear Leader wanted to avenge Daddy's honor and his buddies realized there's OIL in that crapshack of a country?

I'm AUSTRALIAN.

You mean like how the Native Americans were always staying in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the continent until a bunch of white people decided those places weren't crapshacks at all?

And that's my fault... why? You expect me to just take people attacking me and my country because of a past I can't change? Fuck off.

Really, that plus believing in the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Who Never Fired A Single Shot myth really makes you a Certified Islamic Scholar.

Oh, I'm not saying they just surrendered like cowards. I'm saying they didn't actually know there was a war. Well, they did, but they thought was still WWI. They'd rock up to each other and go "Hey homies! How we doing against the Kaiser?" all while the Wehrmacht marched through the Arc de Triumph.

Did we stop interfering in 1989 and no one told me? We're interfering now. Part of the reason for the high Arab emmigration is because of our continued interference. "Us" aggressively interfering in their countries doesn't evidence that "we're" dangerous, but "them" emmigrating to our countries makes "them" a threat.

Yes. You're interfering now. I'm not. Why should I suffer?

You mean like how they were staying the fuck away from you in the crapshack of a country on the other side of the planet known as Iraq... until Your Beloved Dear Leader wanted to avenge Daddy's honor and his buddies realized there's OIL in that crapshack of a country?

You mean like how the Native Americans were always staying in their crapshack of a country on the other side of the continent until a bunch of white people decided those places weren't crapshacks at all?

Really, that plus believing in the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Who Never Fired A Single Shot myth really makes you a Certified Islamic Scholar.

:rolleyes:
Oi. He's Australian. If you're going to attack him like this, try to keep at least that fact in mind.

Good for you. And I believe that people from other countries should stay the fuck away from Australia and stop bringing their....


O no....not another Highschool Lebo-phobe....Or maybe its the same one....


I'll stop saying these things when there's world peace.

..or until you finally get a girlfriend/the acne recedes.

Why is it only normal that the West accepts not only Moslem people (which is totally OK), but also their backward ideologies (which are despicable) the likes of which the now only nominally Christian West also used to have until recently and managed to get rid of with a lot of fighting, but it is never considered equally normal that the countries whence these wretches flee to the West extend the same courtesy to a married gay couple of Spaniards?

Um, I'm just throwing guesses out here, but might that not be a reason why these 'wretches' are fleeing their countries in the first place?

Well, I was born in 1989, so that's their fucking problem. I want to live in peace, and be allowed to say what I want and do what I want. I don't personally remember having going into the Middle East and inteferred there.

Did we stop interfering in 1989 and no one told me? We're interfering now. Part of the reason for the high Arab emmigration is because of our continued interference. "Us" aggressively interfering in their countries doesn't evidence that "we're" dangerous, but "them" emmigrating to our countries makes "them" a threat.

Hehe. If you're trolling by the way, you're not actually very effective. Lots of people on your side of the argument actually have an argument. The only person these posts reflect on is you. It's not even good trolling.

I'm AUSTRALIAN.



And that's my fault... why? You expect me to just take people attacking me and my country because of a past I can't change? Fuck off.



Oh, I'm not saying they just surrendered like cowards. I'm saying they didn't actually know there was a war. Well, they did, but they thought was still WWI. They'd rock up to each other and go "Hey homies! How we doing against the Kaiser?" all while the Wehrmacht marched through the Arc de Triumph.


This isn't the past. Australia was involved as well. Or didn't you learn that in high school?

Did we stop interfering in 1989 and no one told me? We're interfering now. Part of the reason for the high Arab emmigration is because of our continued interference. "Us" aggressively interfering in their countries doesn't evidence that "we're" dangerous, but "them" emmigrating to our countries makes "them" a threat.

Hehe. If you're trolling by the way, you're not actually very effective. Lots of people on your side of the argument actually have an argument. The only person these posts reflect on is you. It's not even good trolling.

Try to keep in mind, J, that with his know-nothing "they can all go to hell except Cave 76" mindset, he will claim that he doesn't have to care about what the US has done in the Middle East before or after he was born because he's Australian. Let's not bother trying to remind him that the Australian government has been supporting US policies in Iraq and the Middle East, or that Australia has its own interests and history in that region. Because thought would only interfere with his performance.

Let's not bother trying to remind him that the Australian government has been supporting US policies in Iraq and the Middle East, or that Australia has its own interests and history in that region. Because thought would only interfere with his performance.

The operative problem is that I'm not Australia. I'm Shaun. How is what Australia did or does my fault or problem?

The operative problem is that I'm not Australia. I'm Shaun. How is what Australia did or does my fault or problem?

Welcome to the wonderful world of citizenry, pal. It's your fault, whether you like it or not. It's all your fault.

Yes. You're interfering now. I'm not. Why should I suffer?

Oh, I see. You want to be treated as an individual but "they" are a "them". I see. Not good with logic, eh?

Meanwhile, your country IS interfering and has never stopped.

Oh, I see. You want to be treated as an individual but "they" are a "them". I see. Not good with logic, eh?

Yes. Them. As in, everyone. Every single person who's not me.

Meanwhile, your country IS interfering and has never stopped.

Good for them. When I mind merge with the Australian govt., I'll let you know and I'll stop interfering.

The operative problem is that I'm not Australia. I'm Shaun. How is what Australia did or does my fault or problem?

Again, not good with logic. And each Muslim is not "Muslims", they're just a person who is only responsible for their actions. Since you propose we treat people as individuals and then completely destroys your own argument, I suppose we're done here.

Okay, so you don't have a problem with Muslims then, right? Just terrorists. Good. You're on our side then. You don't have a problem with Muslim immigration. Just a problem with people who commit crimes. Good to know. You're on our side then.

And you don't judge white people by the acts of the majority of white people or their governments, because we're all to be treated as individuals. And every argument you've made is undermined by the above claim that individuals are only responsible for themselves. Good to know.

No, it's just easier to judge everyone who's not me as "bad".

I'm afraid that we can never be on the same side, really.

Oi. He's Australian. If you're going to attack him like this, try to keep at least that fact in mind.

A Romper Stompers extra in other words. Gotcha, sorry about that. Still, if by any chance he supports Howard then that would be extension still qualify him to be a Bushevik.

The operative problem is that I'm not Australia. I'm Shaun. How is what Australia did or does my fault or problem?

The operative problem is that a hypothetical person Mohammed is not Al-Qaeda. He is Mohammed. How is what Al-Qaeda did or does his fault or problem?

You really don't see the irony of this?

Listen, nothing succeeds without people supporting it. Terrorism succeeding because Muslims support it, just like the Nazis succeeded because the Germans supported them.
There you go generalizing again.

The operative problem is that I'm not Australia. I'm Shaun. How is what Australia did or does my fault or problem?

:D

Yes, you're done here, aren't you.

You can't have it both ways. Peace or war. You can't claim to support both.

Maybe he is an Ingsoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingsoc
You know, "Peace is War", "Freedom is slavery", "Ignorance is Strength".

Yes. Them. As in, everyone. Every single person who's not me.



Good for them. When I mind merge with the Australian govt., I'll let you know and I'll stop interfering.

Okay, so you don't have a problem with Muslims then, right? Just terrorists. Good. You're on our side then. You don't have a problem with Muslim immigration. Just a problem with people who commit crimes. Good to know. You're on our side then.

And you don't judge white people by the acts of the majority of white people or their governments, because we're all to be treated as individuals. And every argument you've made is undermined by the above claim that individuals are only responsible for themselves. Good to know.

Yes. Them. As in, everyone. Every single person who's not me.
If you're that antisocial, what the hell are you doing here wasting our time?

Good for them. When I mind merge with the Australian govt., I'll let you know and I'll stop interfering.
Newsflash! Australia is a democracy. That means the Australian government does what the voters tell them to. That means they take their direction from YOU. That means it's your fault. Either you told them to do the wrong thing, or you failed to tell them to do the right thing. Your bad, either way.