Europe submits voluntarily

[NightSky]

Straight from the horses mouth;

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of 'political correctness' He wrote: 'Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment. 'Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.'

DailyMail

Flies in the face of the "data" but we all know why.

I think you should note that even according to this Orebro police inspector's words, the basis of him forming this opinion is based on "suspected perpetrators." I'm sure you must know that during a police investigation, various people are considered suspects that turn out to not be the perpetrators. In any given investigation, there are five or six or sometimes ten suspects. This of course doesn't rule out the possibility of any suspects on the list as eventually turning out also to be a de facto perpetrators of crime, but it does mean that we should understand our justice system has the belief in "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason. That's because a crime must be tried before a jury of his/her peers and a verdict delivered in court as the wheels of the justice system turn before any layperson may assume guilt of any given party.

Also, let's talk now about perception and police operation. If Police Officer Unit X is assigned or has the task of policing majority black neighborhoods, then there's a great statistical probability that both the suspects and the people found guilty of a crime will be blacks. The reverse is also true. If Police Officer Unit Y is assigned or has the task of policing majority white neighborhoods, then there's a great statistical possibility that both the suspects and the people found guilty of a crime will be whites. Now let's imagine a police officer from Police Officer Unit X says, "The highest and most extreme violence - rapes and shooting - is dominated by blacks." His assertion specific to his own experience might even being factually true still not be anything that can be extrapolated to the larger country. The police officer then insisting that politicians are ignoring some truth that only he knows which others are afraid to point out in the country can validly be dismissed as rantings and ravings. The same applies here.

The police officer seems to, regardless in this situation, believe that the highest and most violent crimes are dominated by immigrants. However, his belief needs to be substantiated by factual data. Now, whether you or anyone else personally may disbelieve the data is irrelevant in terms of any discussion that must be fact-based and fact-dominated. However, if whatever number of Swedish people are extremely worried about the data not reflecting what they think is the reality due to some conspiracy, then those groups should make a public outcry for a full investigation into this matter. However, for reasonable people, believing one police officer over the words of the other police officers who, obviously from this specific police officer's own assertions, would tell differently or not support his version of what's happening is simply not something that can be unbiasedly contemplated.

Schools and teachers push us to learn critical thinking skills for a reason; that is because in any given life situation, we're going to be better off if we learn or are given to analyzing what we're reading to understand the specific components, the components as a mix, and the bigger picture.

Peace.

 

[repoman]

This is a short video from an american white nationalist talking about going to an underground Swedish identitarian meeting:

 

[NightSky]

TSwizzle, privately sending me a rep calling my post #4901 "spam" critiquing the assertions and slant in the article you've posted today does not take away from my presentment of what at least I consider a valid analysis. Consider that doing so makes your own position look weak. In the spirit of good advice, I instead request that you contemplate why others have previously disagreed with your worldview.

Peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't understand what you're on about? SCB has an open database. You can search whatever in Sweden at your hearts content. Why get worked up about the choice of table that Aftonbladet used? When you're making a pedagogical point you sometimes have to simplify. Simplification loses fidelity. And if you want to know more, just go to the source. There's few countries where it's as easy to do research as Sweden, since nearly everything is in a searchable database.

I'm not saying the data is false. I'm saying the data is irrelevant.

Perhaps you want them to be talking about something slightly different. So what would you prefer them showing with the data?

The issue is whether crime increased. We need data that shows crime rates over time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Straight from the horses mouth;

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of 'political correctness' He wrote: 'Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment. 'Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.'

DailyMail

Flies in the face of the "data" but we all know why.

Daily Fail.

 

[TSwizzle]

Straight from the horses mouth;



DailyMail

Flies in the face of the "data" but we all know why.

Daily Fail.

A comfort blanket for you I'm sure.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Straight from the horses mouth;

A Swedish detective who has triggered a row by blaming violent crime on migrants has gone one step further and accused politicians of turning a blind eye to the problem because of 'political correctness' He wrote: 'Here we go; this I've handled Monday-Friday this week: rape, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, rape-assault and rape, extortion, blackmail, off of, assault, violence against police, threats to police, drug crime, drugs, crime, felony, attempted murder, Rape again, extortion again and ill-treatment. 'Suspected perpetrators; Ali Mohammed, mahmod, Mohammed, Mohammed Ali, again, again, again Christopher... what is it true. Yes a Swedish name snuck on the outskirts of a drug crime, Mohammed, Mahmod Ali, again and again.'

DailyMail

Flies in the face of the "data" but we all know why.

Because it's Daily Mail?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Straight from the horses mouth;



DailyMail

Flies in the face of the "data" but we all know why.

I think you should note that even according to this Orebro police inspector's words, the basis of him forming this opinion is based on "suspected perpetrators." I'm sure you must know that during a police investigation, various people are considered suspects that turn out to not be the perpetrators. In any given investigation, there are five or six or sometimes ten suspects. This of course doesn't rule out the possibility of any suspects on the list as eventually turning out also to be a de facto perpetrators of crime, but it does mean that we should understand our justice system has the belief in "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason. That's because a crime must be tried before a jury of his/her peers and a verdict delivered in court as the wheels of the justice system turn before any layperson may assume guilt of any given party.

Also, let's talk now about perception and police operation. If Police Officer Unit X is assigned or has the task of policing majority black neighborhoods, then there's a great statistical probability that both the suspects and the people found guilty of a crime will be blacks. The reverse is also true. If Police Officer Unit Y is assigned or has the task of policing majority white neighborhoods, then there's a great statistical possibility that both the suspects and the people found guilty of a crime will be whites. Now let's imagine a police officer from Police Officer Unit X says, "The highest and most extreme violence - rapes and shooting - is dominated by blacks." His assertion specific to his own experience might even being factually true still not be anything that can be extrapolated to the larger country. The police officer then insisting that politicians are ignoring some truth that only he knows which others are afraid to point out in the country can validly be dismissed as rantings and ravings. The same applies here.

The police officer seems to, regardless in this situation, believe that the highest and most violent crimes are dominated by immigrants. However, his belief needs to be substantiated by factual data. Now, whether you or anyone else personally may disbelieve the data is irrelevant in terms of any discussion that must be fact-based and fact-dominated. However, if whatever number of Swedish people are extremely worried about the data not reflecting what they think is the reality due to some conspiracy, then those groups should make a public outcry for a full investigation into this matter. However, for reasonable people, believing one police officer over the words of the other police officers who, obviously from this specific police officer's own assertions, would tell differently or not support his version of what's happening is simply not something that can be unbiasedly contemplated.

Schools and teachers push us to learn critical thinking skills for a reason; that is because in any given life situation, we're going to be better off if we learn or are given to analyzing what we're reading to understand the specific components, the components as a mix, and the bigger picture.

Peace.

It's even simpler. He's not misrepresenting, as much as just bold faced lying. Peter Springare has been lobbying to become a politician in the Sweden Democracts for quite a while now. It's our racist/nationalist party. All populist. He's wilfully lying about the situation to curry favour with those voters. He's exploiting the fact that we tend to respect the statements by the police. But he's not talking as a police officer. He's talking as himself, or a politician, and being about as honest as we expect from our elected leaders.

He's just talking shit and the Daily Mail uncritically published all of it without checking if any of it is true. It's not. Also, this is all easy to fact check. Perhaps the Daily Mail have not have learned of this new amazing Internet thing with it's googlez?

 

[DrZoidberg]

One thing it's important to understand about Sweden Democrats is that they're not a regular European nationalistic populist movement. They're not like Front National or the BNP. 20 years ago it was a political party of Neo-Nazis. All the top leadership are ex-Nazis. Well, that's what they say. All of that Nazism is supposedly gone now. Hardly.

They're still struggling with getting people to stop doing the Nazi salute at their meetings. And it's not just random people at their meetings doing it. It's their leadership. And they keep getting arrested for physically assaulting people. It's a source of constant comedy here. They're just a fucking joke. And just like Trump supporters, the Sweden Democrat supporters, view all the evidence of this as "alternative facts".

- - - Updated - - -

TSwizzle, privately sending me a rep calling my post #4901 "spam" critiquing the assertions and slant in the article you've posted today does not take away from my presentment of what at least I consider a valid analysis. Consider that doing so makes your own position look weak. In the spirit of good advice, I instead request that you contemplate why others have previously disagreed with your worldview.

Peace.

Because it's the only comeback TSwizzle can think of? He seems unable to argue his case or come up with credible sources for any of the garbage he posts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

BTW, Peter Springare is nearing retirement. I think he's saying all these outrageous things and trying to get fired from the police force for them. So as to catapult him into the limelight and his new career as a politician in SD. He's already a contributor on the racist/nationalist blogs.

This isn't the first time he's done shit like this. In Sweden police officers aren't allowed to say blatantly racist things in the media. Not even in their spare time. But he's been writing a string of pieces
teetering on the brink of what is acceptable/legal. It's already been a legal case about it. He was acquitted. But it wasn't for lack of him trying. I think it's calculated only to get him attention. And to give him an excuse to say that he's being censored. Or that the crimes of immigrants is being covered up. Or that there's a whitewash, or whatever nonsense his crowd are saying.

I think his behaviour can best be described as childish. Whether or not publishing racist articles should be legal or not, is a separate debate. And not what this is about. He's not arguing that he should be able to. He's arguing that him making shit up shouldn't be challenged just because. Which makes no sense.

BTW, it's because of idiots like him I think racist expressions should be legal. Not just for ideological reasons. But because people like him has created a meta-debate where their supporters believe they are factually correct and are being censored because of that, not because of the racism.

 

[angelo]

Why is any criticism of islam labelled racist? Is it because the only way to deflect any criticism is to attack, and many times violently with physical assault and murder [ Van Gough] to any who dare to criticise it?

Do the muslim apologist hope to silence the masses by threats and the racist label? Since when has islam been a race?

 

[bilby]

Why is any criticism of islam labelled racist? Is it because the only way to deflect any criticism is to attack, and many times violently with physical assault and murder [ Van Gough] to any who dare to criticise it?

Do the muslim apologist hope to silence the masses by threats and the racist label? Since when has islam been a race?

What "masses"? You and the nutjob who runs the jihadwatch website don't add up to "masses".

Perhaps the "m" was typed in error?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why is any criticism of islam labelled racist? Is it because the only way to deflect any criticism is to attack, and many times violently with physical assault and murder [ Van Gough] to any who dare to criticise it?

Do the muslim apologist hope to silence the masses by threats and the racist label? Since when has islam been a race?

Exactly, Islam is an idea. Not a people. So when you're worried about Muslims pouring into our lands and "breeding" you're not talking about an opinion. Opinions can change. Races can't. If Islam is such a powerful idea that prevents people from leaving the faith, how aren't you saying that Islam is a powerful idea because it is right? Obviously it's not. All the Abrahamic faiths are about as shallow and dumb. What are you so damn afraid of?

All studies on religions show that they're all weakening. People aren't becoming less religious. But they are reformulating their religions making them increasingly liberal. This is across the board for all religions. These kinds of studies are of course hard to carry out in Islamic fascist states. But there's no reason to believe it's any different over there. We've all access to the same Internet. Censorship of the Internet doesn't work.

The increasing instability of Iran is a good example. Liberal Islam has been growing to the point where it's nearing a critical mass that will topple the hard line Islamist government. It seems to only be a matter of time now. And if you know anything about the Iranian revolution you know that the Iranian people were pretty split even back in 1979. A majority were conservative Muslims. But the country had a very large liberal Muslim minority that weren't at all cool with the conservative Islamic Republic. Well... that minority has been growing and is likely the majority now. There's a hell of a lot more of those liberal Muslims today and they will have none of the Ayatollah's bullshit.

So when you're worried about Muslims coming here, and you're convinced that they will stay Muslim, and their children will be Muslim you're not talking about what's in their heads. You're talking about something they are. Something intrinsic to them that they cannot change. To me that sounds like a proxy for Racism. Newspeak.

Please, Angelo, could you please try to convince me that you're not just a racist? Right now, I'm not convinced.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is Ms. Sky, thank you, sir.

In other words, Mr. Bomb #20, you still are arguing a losing position. To answer your question, a story can have statements that are true but the story still be a story that is slanted to give an impression that is both erroneous and misleading. Do you disagree that The Daily Mail with the headline gave the impression that the story was about immigrants and Muslims rioting without any proof? The riot happening in a 75% neighborhood of immigrants does not mean in any scenario that the perpetrators of the riot were factually either Muslims or immigrants. Yellow journalism? I think so.

Given the facts of the case so far reported, it appears that there is about a 75% probability that the story is in point of fact about immigrants and/or Muslims. Your opinion that it's yellow journalism to even raise the issue before getting proof does not qualify as grounds to call the story "make believe", let alone to jump to the conclusion that a person who evidently doesn't think like you knows it's make believe. This is not rocket science.

Moreover, your pointing out that a story can be slanted to give an impression that is both erroneous and misleading insinuates that this particular story is slanted to give an impression that is both erroneous and misleading, even though you have not provided any proof that the impression this story is slanted to give is an erroneous or misleading impression. Going by your criterion, your own post is yellow journalism.

This presumption is only bolstered by the fact that DrZ says from Swedish reporting he doesn't understand immigrants to have been the instigators of the riot at all.

That's nonsense. DrZoidberg makes stuff up and fails to fact check with depressing regularity. He is a source even less reliable than the Daily Mail. And since in this case his lack of understanding appears to result from the Swedish media not having said one way or another whether the perps were immigrants, it can add no information to all the reports we've already seen that didn't say one way or the other.

(I'd add that the hypothesis that the rioters were out-of-neighborhood visitors is highly implausible. Thirty to fifty outside drug dealers are not going to show up to do a drug deal in the first place -- drug dealers try to do drug deals inconspicuously. And when it all goes south outsiders involved in the original crime aren't going to hang around to burn cars and loot shops; they're going to get the heck out before police reinforcements come. It's of course plausible that the riot was instigated by outsiders, but the bulk of the rioters have to have been local.)

However, if you must know as to why I responded when your question was towards DrZ, an implicit question I presume in your post if not actually outright asked, it is because not only did I think your questions were askew but you gave the attitude of wanting to get one over on him in an unkind way.

DrZoidberg is not entitled to kindness. He has a history of unethical conduct on this board, including a strong tendency to groundlessly call his opponents racists.

Your written English is, so far as at least I can tell, flawless. I'm sure you'll agree. So, I'm sure you'll understand my skepticism as to you not understanding as to who the pronoun "he" referred to within my post. Your original question was, "What is the make believe thing TSwizzle posted that you are claiming he knows is just make believe?" And then after my assertions connecting the dots, I said precisely, "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?"

But to answer what I consider frankly a question that's entirely unnecessary and in some ways absurd as my coloring of the questions show above, of course the pronoun "he" was referring to TSwizzle.

Are you accusing me of lying? It is a fact that your statement was grammatically ambiguous. You appear to be expressing the opinion that I knew which of the two possible meanings you had in mind. That's the sort of thing you and DrZoidberg really need to not do. The circumstance that you believe something is not grounds for you to assume that others share your belief.

But to clarify this for you, the reason I supposed you had probably made a pronoun reference error is that what you wrote made sense if your "he" meant DrZoidberg, whereas it was moronic if your "he" meant TSwizzle. I know I'm putting this in unkind terms, but then I tend to react that way to people who suggest that I'm a liar.

However, that wasn't my comment to you by way of a response. My comment by way of response was the question, "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?" After understanding that the story did not point the fingers at immigrants or refugees or Muslims at the culprits despite the DM headline, I think it did qualify DrZ to be able to say that TSwizzle was ignoring an understanding of the specific situation that would make the posting of the article irrelevant and thereby in the realm of "make-believe" as it was not supported by current known facts that would point the fingers towards immigrants or refugees or Muslims in a thread specifically about the dangers of them.

That is illogical on multiple levels. In the first place, there appears to be a 75% chance that immigrants or refugees or Muslims are the culprits. In the second place, you and DrZ are drawing conclusions about what's in TSwizzle's head from premises about what's in your own heads. And in the third place, TSwizzle very obviously does not think like you two. You are arguing a losing position. DrZ was, in his typical reprehensible style, throwing in an abusive you-know-I'm-right parting shot he had no basis for believing. It's one of many things he didn't fact-check.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's nonsense. DrZoidberg makes stuff up and fails to fact check with depressing regularity.

"Regularly", you say? If that would be true you could perhaps come up with an example of me making something up? Or several. That should be easy if it's something I regularly do.

And since in this case his lack of understanding appears to result from the Swedish media not having said one way or another whether the perps were immigrants, it can add no information to all the reports we've already seen that didn't say one way or the other.

And assuming they are Muslim or immigrants is argument from ignorance.

(I'd add that the hypothesis that the rioters were out-of-neighborhood visitors is highly implausible. Thirty to fifty outside drug dealers are not going to show up to do a drug deal in the first place -- drug dealers try to do drug deals inconspicuously. And when it all goes south outsiders involved in the original crime aren't going to hang around to burn cars and loot shops; they're going to get the heck out before police reinforcements come. It's of course plausible that the riot was instigated by outsiders, but the bulk of the rioters have to have been local.)

It doesn't have to be drug dealers. It could just as well have been two cops smelling the smell of weed in a large group of kids and going into arrest them and then it all goes bananas. The article says drug bust. That's not really saying much other than that they suspected that some in that group had drugs on them. People who buy drugs do travel to the "rougher" neighbourhoods to buy drugs. These kids could have been drug buyers. Who the fuck knows?

There's too little information in the source material articles about it to make any bold claims. All I've done is speculate on various possible and/or plausible alternative theories. We don't know enough to say anything really. And that's been my point all along. The Daily Mail article is formulated in such a way that we're supposed to make a bunch of assumptions. Which no doubt is why Tswizzle posted it in this thread. But there's no grounds to make any assumptions.

I should add that the Daily Mail articles about Swedish are most often so outlandish and far removed from understanding the country or context that it's clearly just click-bait articles. The Daily Mail aren't even trying to be accurate. As a Swede I know the context well and the source articles are in my own language. Why wouldn't I do my best to explain this to people on this board, who aren't locals.

DrZoidberg is not entitled to kindness. He has a history of unethical conduct on this board, including a strong tendency to groundlessly call his opponents racists.

WTF?!? "unethical conduct" sounds serious. What are you talking about? I'm pretty cautious before calling anybody a racist, and I always explain myself when I do. You might not agree with my reasons. But I always have reasons. What's unethical about that?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

(I'd add that the hypothesis that the rioters were out-of-neighborhood visitors is highly implausible. Thirty to fifty outside drug dealers are not going to show up to do a drug deal in the first place -- drug dealers try to do drug deals inconspicuously. And when it all goes south outsiders involved in the original crime aren't going to hang around to burn cars and loot shops; they're going to get the heck out before police reinforcements come. It's of course plausible that the riot was instigated by outsiders, but the bulk of the rioters have to have been local.)

Pretty good points, as usual.


Also, according to CNN, the police said the rioters were residents:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/index.html

The NYT reports that residents clashed with police:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/world/europe/stockholm-sweden-riots-trump.html?_r=0

 

[DrZoidberg]

(I'd add that the hypothesis that the rioters were out-of-neighborhood visitors is highly implausible. Thirty to fifty outside drug dealers are not going to show up to do a drug deal in the first place -- drug dealers try to do drug deals inconspicuously. And when it all goes south outsiders involved in the original crime aren't going to hang around to burn cars and loot shops; they're going to get the heck out before police reinforcements come. It's of course plausible that the riot was instigated by outsiders, but the bulk of the rioters have to have been local.)

Pretty good points, as usual.

Also, according to CNN, the police said the rioters were residents:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/europe/sweden-stockholm-riots/index.html

I'm not saying they weren't residents. But I wonder where they got that piece of information from? It's in none of the Swedish newspapers. It makes me wonder why they didn't write it?

They also connect this with the 2013 riots, in another part of Stockholm. These two events is four years apart. Not to mention that this one wasn't so much a riot as just a random incident.

But apart from that it corroborates all that I said.

The NYT reports that residents clashed with police:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/world/europe/stockholm-sweden-riots-trump.html?_r=0

Same deal here.

None of the Swedish articles have tied this to immigration or Islam. That is something only going on in the International press. No, doubt due to Trump's comments. Don't you think the locals would have a better understanding of the root causes?

Here's a new article (google translate it) written by the police who opened fire. This is his version.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/dA4PB/vi-i-polisen-lamnade-rinkeby-at-kriminella

In short. In this version is wasn't a drug bust.

1. A large group of teenagers are causing trouble in Rinkeby centrum. Vandalising shops, terrorising shop staff and so on. Doesn't seem to be anything that serious, but enough to scare away customers. The article makes it clear that this is not normal for this area.

2. For some reason the police is slow to respond. The police in the article apologises for this but doesn't give an explanation.

3. The police who shows up is a local policeman who's job is to "be in a dialogue" with the locals. This is his "beat". They walk right in and just two of them tries to calm down the large group of kids. He claims that this was a misjudgement and that he should have called backup at once. It was a lot of kids and they were already aggressive.

4. The kids throw stones and threaten the police.

5. The policeman draws his gun and fires. Not at the kids. But warning shots. The kids aren't scared off. He says that this is his next mistake, and that the situation in no way called for his gun to be pulled.

6. The cops back away and call for re-enforcement.

7. The kids go bananas and start tearing up the place and burning cars.

8. Reenforcements arrive promptly and get it all sorted. Some of the kids are arrested.

9. end of drama.

I should add that this week is a week when all Swedish school children are off school. Usually this means going up to the mountains skiing. But poor kids can't afford it. So they tend to drift around town causing trouble. This is most likely the reason for this happening at the time it is.

I'm also guessing that some of the kids arrested had drugs on them. Which is why the first articles said it was a drug bust.

While unfortunate, it's still a very rare event. And a situation where one thing led to another. I think people are trying too hard to find evidence of something that just isn't there.

Like I said before, I remember myself being a teenager. Riots were exciting for their own sake. And fun. I remember being part of several riots for the hell of it. It didn't mean anything, and while leading to some destroyed property wasn't particularly serious, all one-off random events. I see this kind of thing a part of growing up. Not as evidence of some anomalous Islamic evil.

But most importantly, we're all low on facts here. All we have to work with is a couple of articles in newspapers. By the looks of it it's also a small one-off event.

So what's the big deal? Why the inordinate attention on this? Riots aren't all that uncommon. They happen in cities all over the world. With or without immigrants or Muslims.

This thread is about Islamic immigration to Europe. What I would like to know is why is this riot in this thread?

Donald Trump just talks shit all the time. What makes you all think that now suddenly Trump is the bringer of honesty and truth? Why is this the first and only thing Trump is correct about? Isn't it more likely that this too is just more of Trump's lies?

 

[barbos]

DrZoidberg, stop insulting your opponent's intelligence.
Everything points toward muslim immigrants, even the fact that article does not say they were immigrants points toward that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg, stop insulting your opponent's intelligence.
Everything points toward muslim immigrants, even the fact that article does not say they were immigrants points toward that.

That makes no sense. And is argument from ignorance.

Nothing points to Muslims, immigrants or Muslim immigrants.

Most of our immigrants living in Rinkeby come from other parts of Europe. That's our, by far, biggest group of immigrants. Another big group is Americans (south and north Americans). Yes, we also have Islamic immigrants. But they're not the biggest group.

There's no smoking gun here?

 

[barbos]

DrZoidberg, stop insulting your opponent's intelligence.
Everything points toward muslim immigrants, even the fact that article does not say they were immigrants points toward that.

That makes no sense. And is argument from ignorance.

No, it's argument from knowledge. If it were swedes then politically correct swedish press would say so, so the fact that they did not means they were immigrants.

Nothing points to Muslims, immigrants or Muslim immigrants.

That's patently false. M.O. points toward muslim youth, hence your "nothing" is bullshit. In reality everything points toward muslim immigrants.

Most of our immigrants living in Rinkeby come from other parts of Europe. That's our, by far, biggest group of immigrants. Another big group is Americans (south and north Americans). Yes, we also have Islamic immigrants. But they're not the biggest group.

Stop insulting my intelligence. There are no north american ghettos in Sweden. Even South American ghettos do not exist in Sweden. You are making shit up.