Europe submits voluntarily

[TSwizzle]

Denmark surrenders;



DailyMail, can't be true.

Denmark learned its lesson after the mohammad cartoons.

The Danish law against blasphemy is from 1938. It comes from a time when Nazism and racism was all the rage in Europe. Nazis were very Christian. It was passed to shut up people like that.

Irrelevant.

The same kind of people who now are against Syrian refugees coming here.

Male bovine excrement.

All this the Daily Mail neglected to mention.

Irrelevant.

You should really stop responding, all you do is bump this thread. But you cannot stop yourself.

 

[barbos]

You are annoying in your desire to argue for the sake of arguing.

You're the one opening your mouth about stuff you clearly have no clue about. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by tearing apart your alternative facts.

No, it's not me. it's you.

 

[NightSky]

You're the one opening your mouth about stuff you clearly have no clue about. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by tearing apart your alternative facts.

No, it's not me. it's you.

Lol. Are you guys breaking up? And generally, I thought the line was, "It's not you; it's me."

/humor to have y'all break the inanity



Peace.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Danish law against blasphemy is from 1938. It comes from a time when Nazism and racism was all the rage in Europe. Nazis were very Christian. It was passed to shut up people like that.

Irrelevant.

Oh, piss off. It's completely relevant. That article implied that this was a new law that had come in response to the Mohammed cartoons.

You just don't know when to quit. You said something that was wrong. How about saying you're sorry and try to not do it again.

You should really stop responding, all you do is bump this thread. But you cannot stop yourself.

I enjoy posting here. Isn't that obvious. I'm completely cool with other people being wrong on the Internet. I don't post here to make the world a better place.

I also don't think that not bumping this thread will make these vile ideas disappear. I think it's good to talk about it. And this thread is a good example. Every anti-Islamic posts here has been completely cut to shreds. This thread shows how that side (in this thread) is completely vacuous. That's a good thing. All knowledge is good.

BTW, I'm also anti-Islamic. I think Islam is terrible. But it's not the root of all evil and nothing will happen by a bunch of Muslims coming here. That's absurd.

 

[TSwizzle]

Irrelevant.

That article implied that this was a new law that had come in response to the Mohammed cartoons.

Male bovine excrement.

How about saying you're sorry and try to not do it again.

How about you stop spamming and trolling ? (see below)

You should really stop responding, all you do is bump this thread. But you cannot stop yourself.

I enjoy posting here. Isn't that obvious. I'm completely cool with other people being wrong on the Internet. I don't post here to make the world a better place.

Yes, I can see that it is an obsession for you. You get no encouragement from me to respond but you still do spam with irrelevant bullshit.

Every anti-Islamic posts here has been completely cut to shreds.

No it hasn't. It has been spammed to death. Well not quite dead because you keep hitting the post button. Tell me, do you cry out your own name when you click on post ?

BTW, I'm also anti-Islamic. I think Islam is terrible. But it's not the root of all evil and nothing will happen by a bunch of Muslims coming here. That's absurd.

That's not the way things are unfolding. But you carry on.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That article implied that this was a new law that had come in response to the Mohammed cartoons.

Male bovine excrement.

If it wasn't, then why was it:

1) news
2) posted in this thread which is about Islamic immigration to Europe?

Every anti-Islamic posts here has been completely cut to shreds.

No it hasn't. It has been spammed to death. Well not quite dead because you keep hitting the post button. Tell me, do you cry out your own name when you click on post ?

Does it hurt your feelings when people reply to your posts that don't agree with you and cheer you on?

What I've mostly done in this thread is fact check. Something which everybody should do before posting anything, just out of respect for their fellow forumers. Lies are lies, no matter how many times you post them. If you start posting stuff that a quick fact check can't cut to pieces then you'll hear a lot less from me. Perhaps you should try it?

 

[TSwizzle]

What I've mostly done in this thread is fact check.

All you have done in this thread (and every other thread you are active in) is provide sermons and bullshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All this stuff is easy to fact check. The racist are just making shit up.

Here's a Swedish newspaper that has compiled the statistics of what happened to Swedish crime rates when we took in Syrian refugees.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a...tion-in-sweden-compared-to-the-us-in-4-charts

After? Only one of those graphs shows the change over time--and that graph only goes through 2015. This smells like an attempt to deceive with cherry-picked stats.

And then every minor little event gets blown out of proportion, twisted or past off like something completely contrary to what it is.

I was under the impression that what amounts to a gang taking on the police isn't normal for Sweden.
.

Yes it's a rare event. So? It's still a rare event. Good luck trying to tie it to anything other than the fact that drugs are illegal in Sweden.

Finding one example does nothing to show how common or rare it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Drug busts are pretty routine in US, but I don't recall any which immediately resulted in burning cars and trashing stores. They usually result in people taken to jail.

The bit of taking on the police isn't exactly unheard of in the projects. I do agree that it doesn't lead to rioting, though.

We generally only see riots when the agitators can see a way to stir up trouble for something that happened to a black guy. (Not always a shooting--consider the Rodney King verdict. People saw a cherry-picked snippet of the video, the jury saw the whole thing and came to a different conclusion.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are refugees the ones committing these attacks? I read the Telegraph article from which you seem to have cited these numbers, but I should let you know that nowhere in the article did they mention refugees or immigrants as being responsible for these attacks. Moreover, I'm unsure how they've understood or judged that there are 15,000 radicalized Muslims? What criteria are the French using to arrive at to draw conclusions about this number being valid? Remember this is the same country that tried to ban burkinis despite no logical evidence or data to support that burkinis are associated with any type of radicalism.

The burkini ban wasn't about radicalism, it was about them being tools of oppression.

 

[NightSky]

Are refugees the ones committing these attacks? I read the Telegraph article from which you seem to have cited these numbers, but I should let you know that nowhere in the article did they mention refugees or immigrants as being responsible for these attacks. Moreover, I'm unsure how they've understood or judged that there are 15,000 radicalized Muslims? What criteria are the French using to arrive at to draw conclusions about this number being valid? Remember this is the same country that tried to ban burkinis despite no logical evidence or data to support that burkinis are associated with any type of radicalism.

The burkini ban wasn't about radicalism, it was about them being tools of oppression.

And yet funnily enough, they're not by any way of facts shown to be tools of oppression. They're assigned that value by people who believe that to the be the case without any evidence. How about the apple? Is apple really the fruit that made Adam and Eve fall from grace in Heaven? Or is that a construction by artists? Why is apple associated with teachers and blackboards? So, the apple being a fruit of temptation is not factual. Apple's association with pedagogy as a learning tool is not tautological either, although in students once upon a time in Frontier times had given their teachers apples to show their appreciation. However, to be clear, when the burkini ban was being discussed by leaders, it was within the context of radicalization that was concerning France. Let's remember the burkini ban was discussed after various ISIS attacks and concerns over homegrown terrorism. And my personal opinion is that the government jumped off into uncharted territory wanting to seem as if they were doing something about security and safety of the public rather than seem that they headless chickens who had no idea how to stop homegrown terrorism. Burkini became just a convenient target. And logic and facts became a casualty in the fracas of intolerance until the courts stopped the idiocy in its tracks.

Peace.

 

[Bomb#20]

That doesn't explain why you post things that you know are just make belief?

He was being sarcastic. Were you unable to pick up on that, or are you posting things that you know are just make believe?

The fact that the Daily Mail is unreliable plus the fact that an incident is reported in the Daily Mail do not constitute evidence that the incident is make believe.

That incident was a drug bust that went bad. Two cops tried to arrest a large gang of drug dealers who threw stones at the cops to get away. Much mayhem ensued. The cops had just misread the situation. It happens. Cops came back with re-enforcement to sort it out.

There's nothing in this story about immigration, Muslims or anythung else relevant to this thread. People live in Rinkeby because housing is cheap there. It's full of people with low status in society. People like drug dealers. Also immigrants right off the boat. But it's Sweden so it's still not bad. Not a ghetto. Not a no-go zone.

So yes, the article is make believe. The fact that they have a picture of burning cars doesn't support the rest of the story.

The BBC article you linked to on the other hand is accurate. They are different.

I have two questions for you. I expect you'll duck them.

(1) What did the Daily Mail article say that you are claiming is make believe? Answer with a quotation.

(2) What is the make believe thing TSwizzle posted that you are claiming he knows is just make believe?

 

[NightSky]

(1) What did the Daily Mail article say that you are claiming is make believe? Answer with a quotation.

First off, your first question is askew. DrZoidberg said, and I quote, "So yes, the article is make believe." He did not say that specific sentences in the article were make believe. I imagine he's talking about the slant of the article being in the realm of make-believe. He's said, "There's nothing in this story about immigration, Muslims, or anything relevant to this thread." I assume he's saying that the rioters were neither Muslim nor immigrants to the best of his knowledge based on Swedish reporting. This would make that Daily Mail article a click-bait misleading piece of news and one playing to the prejudices of people, especially as it's titled, "Was Trump right about Sweden after all? Riot breaks out in the Stockholm suburb the President was ridiculed for referring to in speech about immigration dangers." So, that slant itself could validly be interpreted to be in the realm of make-believe.

(2) What is the make believe thing TSwizzle posted that you are claiming he knows is just make believe?

To answer your second question, although obvious now from the heels of assertions above, is that TSwizzle is posting an article which DrZoidberg does not understand to be a matter which involved immigrants or refugees to be rioting (based on Swedish reporting) on this thread about the dangers of refugees and immigrants. Do you think that now qualifies DrZoidberg to being able to say that TSwizzle is posting a make-believe thing that he knows is make-believe?

And in fact, we already know the possibility of the rioters not being immigrants or refugees existed when The Daily Mail itself said the following: "The suburb, north of central Stockholm, has a population made up of 75 per cent immigrants." That, by default, means that the other 25% are neither immigrants nor refugees. It was therefore always a real possibility that the people who rioted were neither immigrants nor refugees.

Peace.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is just getting increasingly fun/bizarre

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/fa...ions-in-us-no-connection-to-swedish-security/

 

[DrZoidberg]

After? Only one of those graphs shows the change over time--and that graph only goes through 2015. This smells like an attempt to deceive with cherry-picked stats.

But why would they? They're the biggest Swedish newspaper. They have an incentive to skew the reporting in a way to increase drama and throw gasoline on any fires. Which they have been doing until now. But of course transparent to anybody that fact checks.

But now they decided to stop doing that because they were hurting Sweden. Honesty is the new thing for them now. They have one a day now with statistics published straight up. Each of these article holds up when fact checked.

And then every minor little event gets blown out of proportion, twisted or past off like something completely contrary to what it is.

I was under the impression that what amounts to a gang taking on the police isn't normal for Sweden.
.

Yes it's a rare event. So? It's still a rare event. Good luck trying to tie it to anything other than the fact that drugs are illegal in Sweden.

Finding one example does nothing to show how common or rare it is.

Good luck finding another one. I've never heard of it before. And it's certainly something that would make the news. And as always, the original story is probably exaggerated to begin with. Sweden is not a good country if you like excitement

 

[DrZoidberg]

The burkini ban wasn't about radicalism, it was about them being tools of oppression.

And yet funnily enough, they're not by any way of facts shown to be tools of oppression. They're assigned that value by people who believe that to the be the case without any evidence. How about the apple? Is apple really the fruit that made Adam and Eve fall from grace in Heaven? Or is that a construction by artists? Why is apple associated with teachers and blackboards? So, the apple being a fruit of temptation is not factual. Apple's association with pedagogy as a learning tool is not tautological either, although in students once upon a time in Frontier times had given their teachers apples to show their appreciation. However, to be clear, when the burkini ban was being discussed by leaders, it was within the context of radicalization that was concerning France. Let's remember the burkini ban was discussed after various ISIS attacks and concerns over homegrown terrorism. And my personal opinion is that the government jumped off into uncharted territory wanting to seem as if they were doing something about security and safety of the public rather than seem that they headless chickens who had no idea how to stop homegrown terrorism. Burkini became just a convenient target. And logic and facts became a casualty in the fracas of intolerance until the courts stopped the idiocy in its tracks.

Peace.

There's a third possibility. The drug dealers aren't from Rinkeby. They might travel there to sell drugs. Which is more than likely.

There's also a thing about Swedish criminals. They might be 100% Swedish and talk perfect Swedish. And then take on a foreign sounding accent. Throw in Arab slang. It's our version of American whiggers. If you're Swedish these are easy to spot. And very common in poor suburbs. So someone superficially looking like an immigrant doesn't have to mean they are. It's easy to just assume they are immigrants. These are never Muslim. Always atheists.

But you nailed it.

 

[NightSky]

There's a third possibility. The drug dealers aren't from Rinkeby. They might travel there to sell drugs. Which is more than likely.

Thank you for sharing the info.

 

[barbos]

NightSky, DrZoidberg
It's hard to take you too seriously.

 

[Bomb#20]

Good god, man, are virtue signalling and trumped-up racism accusations all you've got left in your rhetoric toolbox? What the heck happened to you to make your brain work that way? Your link does not assert what Bilby claimed! You obviously know perfectly well that rape rates cannot be measured with anywhere close to enough accuracy to support Bilby's ridiculous claim that his opinion is "demonstrable fact", because you've pointed that out yourself, any number of times, when the inevitable mushiness of rape statistics worked in your rhetorical favor. So for you now to trot out a source that offers nothing in support of your position but a few vague generalities like "The academic literature provides mixed findings for the relationship between immigration and crime worldwide", and pretend it's demonstrating refugees definitely do not commit more rapes, is pure hypocrisy.

Thanks for pointing it out. Yup, that to. Which is yet another reason to relax. Claiming that because we don't know therefore immigrants did it, is argument from ignorance.

Why are you telling us that? Did somebody claim that because we don't know therefore immigrants did it? Or are you just insinuating that somebody claimed that, as your lame-ass way to try to reverse burden of proof?

Bilby made a claim he could not possibly back up. I called him on it. But for purely emotional reasons you agree with his claim, so you're trying desperately to come up with an excuse to paint me as being wrong to call him on it.

But let's hope that these serious studies have taken that into account. Even though they might not study rape generally, they can still study something very specific. Which may not give the whole answer, but give an indication of something.

In Sweden all information of who is convicted of anything is freely available. Their social security number is published and available to anybody. Anybody with a social security number ending in a 5 is an immigrant. So extremely easy to do immigrant vs non-immigrants research in Sweden.

Yes. And this has been done. And I already cited just such a serious study, upthread, in post #2253. (Good god, 2500 posts ago! This thread is still going strong after a year and a half, and your refusal to fact-check your claims is still going just as strong.)

To repeat, here is the complete list of source countries, the immigrants and children of immigrants from which commit crimes at more than three times the per capita rate of indigenous Swedes:

Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chile, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria

Those are the facts, according to Swedish government statistics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In Sweden all information of who is convicted of anything is freely available. Their social security number is published and available to anybody. Anybody with a social security number ending in a 5 is an immigrant. So extremely easy to do immigrant vs non-immigrants research in Sweden.

Yes. And this has been done. And I already cited just such a serious study, upthread, in post #2253. (Good god, 2500 posts ago! This thread is still going strong after a year and a half, and your refusal to fact-check your claims is still going just as strong.)

To repeat, here is the complete list of source countries, the immigrants and children of immigrants from which commit crimes at more than three times the per capita rate of indigenous Swedes:

Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Chile, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Syria

Those are the facts, according to Swedish government statistics.

I answered this in my next post. What was wrong about my answer? I won't revisit those points.

The question being begged here is whether there's something about the culture in those countries you listed that makes people more criminally inclined. I can't see it be supported by the data. You first got to compensate for stuff like immigrants in general are more likely to be convicted since they just don't know how the justice system works in their new country. Or any of the other social factors connected with having moved to a new country. Like poverty.

Especially refugees have fucking nothing and might need cash fast for something the rest of us have savings that cover. They might owe money to traffickers. Or need to raise cash to help friends stranded god knows where. Which is not their fault. It's down to obstacles we've thrown in their way.

All this can explain why the crime rate for these people is slightly higher than for non-immigrants.

It's not statistically significant enough to worry about it IMHO.

And then there's just the fact that the crime rate for Sweden overall has dropped since we started taking in refugees. But this of course isn't linked to the refugees. That's just linked to that the crime rate has steadily been dropping since 1933. When we started with social welfare. There's of course statistical variation. But Sweden has never before been safer and more free of crime than today. That's just fact. The slightly raised crime rate that immigration brings with it isn't enough to dent that.