|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind.
Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people.
During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
|
if you people want something good to come out of this (TLboards wise), make a new thread in which you debunk most (all) of 'his' ideas via logic/reasoning/past examples and whatnot.
i mean, its obvious hes not the only one thinking that way (or close to) and providing arguments as to why his reasoning is wrong/bad/mindless copyrighted/aged/ could go a long way.
|
On July 24 2011 19:35 Eurekastreet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 18:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 24 2011 18:41 shabby wrote:
He states in his manifesto that the main problem is that Islam by it's very foundation seeks to globalize and convert every man, woman and child. This is why - he says - we cannot coexist even if we wanted to, and he seeks alliance, long or temporary, with pretty much everybody else. He is fighting to preserve christian cultural values in the west. It is an extremely strange and horrendous way to get forth your message as a knight of the peace, and he will be condemned and sentenced for his monsterous acts. But people will read his book (heck I've already been reading for hours), and that's all it is about for him and the Knights Templars.
We take pride in our openness in Norway. We are vulnerable by choice and will continue to be so. Even the thoughts and opinions of a mass murderer must be allowed for debate, but in honesty I believe it will take a long time before any of the wounds have healed enough to bring it up. It's wrong for half islam : the most extremist islam view Europe as desecrated earth that all muslim should flee to return to the house of Islam (the middle east), it's the moderate Islam that view Europe as a earth of proselytism. And every religion seek to globalize... it's the same for christianism, yet with time they came to forget that idea and became a pretty peaceful organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growthBased on those figures, I wouldn't say christians have stopped trying to globalize. They'might be losing market share in some parts of Europe but it's probably insignificant for their worldwide business, they'll try and fix that if they need to I am sure. I would not call it a peaceful religion either. Unlike islam, they separated from the state politics in many places so every time a shitstorm happens, they can claim "not guilty" but still their sheeps seem to be very enclined to carry their message adamantly. Yesterday's event by a self proclaimed templar peaceful ? The past couple of years pedophilia scandals peaceful ? Rwanda genocide (christians massacring each other) peaceful ? Bush's "God Bless America" before going to Irak peaceful ? And so on and so on. The older I get, the more I think we'd be better off without any religion at all.
I agree with you but just wanted to say that in my post, I was not implying at all that christianity is better than islam in any way, just saying they're not in their prime anymore so they are not as agressiv as they were, at least in europe.
What shock me the most is that most people who think Islamic immigration is a problem in Europe come from country where there are no or almost no immigration - norway / bulgaria / romania ??? lol.
|
Socialism has worked for Norway for the past several decades and this massacre only happened because some extreme right-wing asshole believes that a European war will break out in the future.
|
On July 24 2011 22:29 LoLAdriankat wrote:
Socialism has worked for Norway for the past several decades and this massacre only happened because some extreme right-wing asshole believes that a European war will break out in the future.
Not really socialism, rather a social welfare state with free markets. Most Nordic countries have heavily been inspired by Social Democratic values but it's not the same as socialism, there are a lot of influences of social liberalism as well.
|
On July 24 2011 21:19 legaton wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 24 2011 20:23 MaGariShun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 19:35 Eurekastreet wrote:On July 24 2011 18:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 24 2011 18:41 shabby wrote:
He states in his manifesto that the main problem is that Islam by it's very foundation seeks to globalize and convert every man, woman and child. This is why - he says - we cannot coexist even if we wanted to, and he seeks alliance, long or temporary, with pretty much everybody else. He is fighting to preserve christian cultural values in the west. It is an extremely strange and horrendous way to get forth your message as a knight of the peace, and he will be condemned and sentenced for his monsterous acts. But people will read his book (heck I've already been reading for hours), and that's all it is about for him and the Knights Templars.
We take pride in our openness in Norway. We are vulnerable by choice and will continue to be so. Even the thoughts and opinions of a mass murderer must be allowed for debate, but in honesty I believe it will take a long time before any of the wounds have healed enough to bring it up. It's wrong for half islam : the most extremist islam view Europe as desecrated earth that all muslim should flee to return to the house of Islam (the middle east), it's the moderate Islam that view Europe as a earth of proselytism. And every religion seek to globalize... it's the same for christianism, yet with time they came to forget that idea and became a pretty peaceful organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growthBased on those figures, I wouldn't say christians have stopped trying to globalize. They'might be losing market share in some parts of Europe but it's probably insignificant for their worldwide business, they'll try and fix that if they need to I am sure. I would not call it a peaceful religion either. Unlike islam, they separated from the state politics in many places so every time a shitstorm happens, they can claim "not guilty" but still their sheeps seem to be very enclined to carry their message adamantly. Yesterday's event by a self proclaimed templar peaceful ? The past couple of years pedophilia scandals peaceful ? Rwanda genocide (christians massacring each other) peaceful ? Bush's "God Bless America" before going to Irak peaceful ? And so on and so on. The older I get, the more I think we'd be better off without any religion at all. The difference is that the founder of christianity (jesus) was a man who strictly opposed violence and preached to love everyone, even your foes. Mohammed on the other hand was also a military leader and promoted violence against those who don't believe. So those applying violence in any form in the name of christianity completely act against the nature and fundamental beliefs of the religion and its founder (I'm well aware the historical person might have been different to what is in the bible), while in the Islam Mohammed's actions and certain parts of the Koran (ofc prone to different interpretations) justify violence in various circumstances. Also keep in mind that christianity, while also trying to expand, does this in a peaceful manner (at least that is the theory, of course over the time people have abused the religion for their needs), while even mohammed himself tried to expand the Islam with force. I am not saying Muslims are evil and christians are good, but there is a fundamental difference between those two religions in their stance to violence. PS: I am not a christian (well technically I am, but I don't believe), but I agree with christian principles. I also don't hate or dislike muslims because of their religion, they are still individuals who decide for themselves what they do. I don't like the religion itself tho This is certainly not the place for this discussion, but i just wanted to point how a-historical your explanation is. - You have a "essentialist" definition of the cores values of a religion. Christianism and Islam are defined entirely by their founders, disregarding any evolution of the dogma (a long history for both Islam and Christianism), any influence of their apparatus (the chuch) or the cross-influence of other social structures (like the relationship with the different local States). - You don't realize the "image" of the founders of this religions are social and historical construction. Jesus as a pacifist hippy is fairly recent representation of the founder of this religion. It coexists with others, way more severe. I lived for a long time in South America and i can mention a bunch of movements (Legionarios de Cristo in Mexico, Opus Dei in Chile and Spain, Schoenstatt for girls) that defended a whole different representation, with a more severe god that died for your sins and that asked you to live in constant mortification. Same thing for muslims, you have a huge range of approaches to religion, ranging from asceticism as dervish from the Sunni to blown-up crazy, with a huge majority of people that just doesn't care (like christians). - The stance on violence from both of these religions have changed over time and depends on you ask (by the way, Islam suffers from a PR problem as they don't have a centralized government as catholics do; therefore, you only have "opinions" from scholars. Nobody is going to hear what a crazy idiot as Monseigneur Lefebvre is going to say about how much he opposes to the Vatican II Council, because people realize how much of a marginal he is and you know the Pope is the official position of the church, but it doesn't work that way with Islam). Mainstream religion has abandon violence a long time ago. Their stance in violence is fundamentally the same. - Religion is always a selective procedure, picking and emphasizing some stuff and forgetting some other. Being so contradictory is one of their strength as it makes religion a malleable tool. You can have both ultra conservative catholics and theologians of liberation under the same church. Same thing for Islam. It's just how religion works. - It becomes intellectually dishonest and politically poisonous when you describe religions as a predefined set of unalterable values, and when you imply that they are "essentially" in contradiction.
Great post. A lot of people in this thread need to read this.
|
On July 24 2011 22:36 TheSilverfox wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:29 LoLAdriankat wrote:
Socialism has worked for Norway for the past several decades and this massacre only happened because some extreme right-wing asshole believes that a European war will break out in the future. Not really socialism, rather a social welfare state with free markets. Most Nordic countries have heavily been inspired by Social Democratic values but it's not the same as socialism, there are a lot of influences of social liberalism as well.
Yes, I think many think of the wrong thing when hearing about socialdemocracy in the nordics. You might name them liberaldemocrats really. It is not some halfstep to communism, like extremist want people to belive.
|
On July 24 2011 22:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 19:35 Eurekastreet wrote:On July 24 2011 18:47 WhiteDog wrote:On July 24 2011 18:41 shabby wrote:
He states in his manifesto that the main problem is that Islam by it's very foundation seeks to globalize and convert every man, woman and child. This is why - he says - we cannot coexist even if we wanted to, and he seeks alliance, long or temporary, with pretty much everybody else. He is fighting to preserve christian cultural values in the west. It is an extremely strange and horrendous way to get forth your message as a knight of the peace, and he will be condemned and sentenced for his monsterous acts. But people will read his book (heck I've already been reading for hours), and that's all it is about for him and the Knights Templars.
We take pride in our openness in Norway. We are vulnerable by choice and will continue to be so. Even the thoughts and opinions of a mass murderer must be allowed for debate, but in honesty I believe it will take a long time before any of the wounds have healed enough to bring it up. It's wrong for half islam : the most extremist islam view Europe as desecrated earth that all muslim should flee to return to the house of Islam (the middle east), it's the moderate Islam that view Europe as a earth of proselytism. And every religion seek to globalize... it's the same for christianism, yet with time they came to forget that idea and became a pretty peaceful organisation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growthBased on those figures, I wouldn't say christians have stopped trying to globalize. They'might be losing market share in some parts of Europe but it's probably insignificant for their worldwide business, they'll try and fix that if they need to I am sure. I would not call it a peaceful religion either. Unlike islam, they separated from the state politics in many places so every time a shitstorm happens, they can claim "not guilty" but still their sheeps seem to be very enclined to carry their message adamantly. Yesterday's event by a self proclaimed templar peaceful ? The past couple of years pedophilia scandals peaceful ? Rwanda genocide (christians massacring each other) peaceful ? Bush's "God Bless America" before going to Irak peaceful ? And so on and so on. The older I get, the more I think we'd be better off without any religion at all. What shock me the most is that most people who think Islamic immigration is a problem in Europe come from country where there are no or almost no immigration - norway / bulgaria / romania ??? lol.
im guessing (here) its an extension of the 'gypsy problem' ; indoctrination by commies.
|
It's scary to see how many people in this thread throws the word "extremist" around yet fail to see that they are one them self
|
On July 24 2011 22:44 trucane wrote:
It's scary to see how many people in this thread throws the word "extremist" around yet fail to see that they are one them self
I think I know what you mean. But to tell you the truth man, Im sometimes more afraid of the so called moderates.
|
On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
|
On July 24 2011 22:24 Dystisis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind. Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people. During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head:
-Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages.
-Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism.
-Increase in crime.
In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border.
I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
|
On July 24 2011 21:34 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 21:26 Aim Here wrote:On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote:
I am truly disgusted by the attitude presented by some people in here. Do you not think I care deeply for those killed by this terrorist? Do you not think I was moved by tales from eyewitnesses? It is never right to kill innocent people, and these were children for god's sake, they wouldn't even have understand what he was talking about. This monster destroyed the lives of those who would have a full life ahead of them.
And how is this not the place to discuss his motivation? Is it not directly connected to this act of terror? I believe in a world where everyone lives together peacefully, a world dictated by love, reason and logic. Not by hate, fear and the inability to see other people's views. However, I don't cover my eyes from all the problems when cultures clash. Some cultures are only a little different from others thus can live together and some have directly opposing views and it would not be wise to mix them. No matter how much I wish we could all live together, it just doesn't work like that. Some cultures are just better off staying away from each other minding their own business.
You know what is the value I hold dearest? Live and let live.
Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together. The Nazis were discredited after the world learned of the holocaust, because they took their belief that there should be no Jews in Europe to it's logical conclusion. Practically speaking, how else were the jews to leave? It was impossible to expel millions of them - the rest of the world wouldn't take them -, and even shooting them in mass graves was difficult, slow, and bad for troop morale. Hence the creation of the gas chambers. Since then, Naziism and antisemitism have been associated with the mechanised mass murder of millions of innocent people, because, to be fair to the Nazis, there was no other way of actually practicing their depraved racist creed. There are far rightwingers, and Breivik is one of them, who complains bitterly that the Nazis discredited HIS views. Now you have been saying, with a great deal of wounded self-righteous wounded pride, that Muslims and Westerners cannot coexist, and complaining bitterly that you're being unfairly associated with Breivik because of it. How exactly would you put your beliefs in practice and seperate these supposedly incompatible cultures then? If you wouldn't, then why even say that these cultures can't live together? We're talking about millions of people all over Europe whose social and cultural practices and deeply held religious beliefs are incompatible with yours. They're already living among us, and you're saying it's impossible for this to continue. I think it's perfectly possible for muslims and Westerners to live together in close proximity, modulo a few minor hiccups, but you don't. What do you do with millions of people you find impossible to live with, but are already beside you? The Serbian and Croatian terrorists who ethnically cleansed Bosnia and terrorised Kosovan civilians had a solution to this supposed 'incompatibility'. Anders Breivik had another solution. Both are utterly repugnant to the great mass of civilized mankind, and I fail to see any such solution that isn't. If you have no 'solution', then what did you have in mind when you said that "Muslims and the West just cannot live together"? You must have meant that they should be living apart somehow. What does that entail, exactly? This is a great post. Allow me to explain; the solution I had in mind would be that both Westerners and Muslims accept each others views and adjust their own views so that they can live together in peace. But this isn't happening at the moment and that's why I said what I said. I believe our unchanged cultures will clash when the amount of Muslims increases in Europe. So we both have to change our cultures. So there you have it, my peaceful solution that does not involve comparing me to Nazis or Serbes.
This is a great solution. It is also completely contradictionary to what you posted earlier, "The only way the future will be peaceful is by seperating cultures that are straightly opposed to each other in terms of views" and "I absolutely agree with people who share the view that Muslims and the West just cannot live together, if the concentration of Muslims is high enough. The Islam is just not build that way. We can peacefully coexist, by being in different countries, but not by being in the same."
I'm happy we can agree on that Muslims and Western Europe can indeed live together if both sides respect and accept eachother. We're not there yet but if more people would change their adamant beliefs like you just did we'd be in for a good start.
|
On July 24 2011 23:06 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:24 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind. Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people. During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught. Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head: -Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages. -Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism. -Increase in crime. In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border. I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
This isn't a problem stemming from multiculturalism, it's a problem from the socio-economic background of immigrants, who could be from any cultural background.
Look at Singapore. Multicultural. Problems? Very few.
|
On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
Yeah, it kinda erode national identities in favor of cultural or ethnical identities. We should first clarify what is multiculturalism : it's not the fact that people from different cultural origin live together (like how the crazy guy who killed 90 poor people seems to think it is) it's more like in Canada, where the state promote specific ethnicity / culture, helping them economically and it also permit some specific communities to deviate from the law for cultural reasons (for exemple, you can't have a hat when you work in public but you can have a turban if you're a sikh).
I'm against multiculturalism and I'm a cosmopolitan (which mean I think that all human, despite their cultural difference, belong - or should belong - to one community sharing the same morality).
I think you are messing the two
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism
In my country (France) we are for assimilation and social integration and not multiculturalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_integration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation
|
On July 24 2011 23:11 Ardhimas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 23:06 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:24 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind. Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people. During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught. Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head: -Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages. -Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism. -Increase in crime. In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border. I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work. This isn't a problem stemming from multiculturalism, it's a problem from the socio-economic background of immigrants, who could be from any cultural background. Look at Singapore. Multicultural. Problems? Very few.
Exactly, because Singapore was smart and didnt let anyone cross their border. The country works like a clock and they only allow in people that they actually need. Another fine example of immigration policies that actually work. Europe needs to change that.
|
Spiegel Online just published an article stating that large parts of his manifesto are copied from blogs of the right-wing scene, so don't think too much of him!
I don't buy for a minute that he regrets the killing and did it because he felt it was necessary. Reading a bit in his manifesto and sifting through the witness reports convinced me that he enjoyed every second of the killings. On that island he had absolute power and this was the glorious moment he waited for so long. He is really not that different from the typical school shooters, only his rationalizations were more sophisticated.
|
On July 24 2011 23:18 Maenander wrote:
Spiegel Online just published an article stating that large parts of his manifesto are copied from blogs of the right-wing scene, so don't think too much of him!
I don't buy for a minute that he regrets the killing and did it because he felt it was necessary. Reading a bit in his manifesto and sifting through the witness reports convinced me that he enjoyed every second of the killings. On that island he had absolute power and this was the glorious moment he waited for so long. He is really not that different from the typical school shooters, only his rationalizations were more sophisticated.
Well, I've read that he himself has said that about half of them were copied and half were his. It's not like it's a huge revealation that some of the text isn't his (oops shouldnt state that as facts)
|
On July 24 2011 23:06 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 22:24 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote:
Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem. You are a despicable person. The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do. Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is. "let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences". There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way. Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught. No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong. No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind. Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people. During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught. Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head: -Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages. -Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism. -Increase in crime. In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border. I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
Multiculturalism is a fact in most of Europe, not some kind of theoretical concept. Even if we ever had a 'choice' on multiculturalism, that time is long gone. The only option 'left' is to deal with it in the best possible manner, without forsaking all that we stand for as democratic, tolerant, open, free societies.
Enforcing a 'single culture' is ridiculous, simply because it goes against everything our societies stand for. It's about finding a way of peaceful coexistance, and the good news is that the vast majority manages this just fine. It's the extremists on both sides that ruin this process: one does it by clinging to a national identity that never excisted in the first place, the other by claiming rights they never had.
You end up with the bizarre situation where the extremists on both sides claim to be opposing eachother, but are actually targetting the moderate majority. Norway is the latest very sad example of this.
The current footage from the island, the kids arriving home, the memorial service, it's all absolutely heartbreaking. Norway is dealing with this in an amazing way, both the average person and the political elite. How people manage to find this much good in themselves after such an atrocity is beyond me.
|
What a pathetic waste, he devised a horrible attack against a summer camp as a marketing ploy to make you read his plagiarized political rants and his inane Livejournal. Yet it worked as people keep spewing the same shit about muslims and immigrants. As a class C cultural-marxist race traitor, I'm well disposed to discuss this subject, but not here. It is revolting to read the "he was wrong BUT....", "it was an awful crime BUT..." on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
