|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 25 2011 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas 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. Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED. Sorry but no. What you said is wrong because some you are assuming that everyone in the immigrant community is refuse to assimilate any value coming from the country they are living in, which is absolutly false. The main problem of multiculturalism is that it strenghten the communities, and because of that, people tend to assimilate themselves as "french canadian", "indian", "turk" despite all living in the same country (here canada for exemple) and having nothing to do with true "indians" or "turks" who actuallylive in Indiaand turkie.
What makes you think I assume that? Thats a fucking stupid assumption to make, because its false. I have my own parents as proof of that...
Night[6], I would appreciate if you could actually show me to be incorrect, instead of spouting a one liner. tyvm
|
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. 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.
Well you can't make a general rule out of a single event. I don't think Norway has such a low immigration by the way, not according to the figures I could find. Maybe it's a low muslim population/immigration (i couldn't find exact figures about this compared to other countries) but if you're a deeply religious person, Scandinavia is not the place where you'd think of going to first anyway (unless you're on a crusade), many of them are atheists or deists, not very enthousiastic about organized religions and I don't think it's gonna change anytime soon.
Just to play devil's advocate, you could take it the other way around and think it's "logical" that this happens in a country with a low muslim population (and a strong national identity), people are usually scared of what they don't know....but there's nothing logical about the actions of a nutjobs, so I'll end there.
The guy was a nuts, that's probably the only conclusion from that shitstorm.
|
Police: Suspect in Norway attacks still had a lot of ammunition when he surrendered - AP
from @breakingnews twitter
|
On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:
If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread (my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same.
It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy.
For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims.
From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.
At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally.
Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror.
He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid.
The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response.
All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world.
---
To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote:
"He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."
Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour.
Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder.
As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries.
Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home.
So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right?
---
I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else.
I feel like this tragedy is the foreshadowing of what may come in the decades, so disheartening.
This post changed my way of thinking of what has happened...I thank you deeply for writing it Aylear. I'm really sad to have had to read how the foreign media immediately began speculating based on their own prejudices into what happened before any credible facts were known.
And having read some of the misguided opinions and beliefs of the nonsensical comments people post all over the internet regarding this tragedy, it's just such a sad image of the world. I cannot believe how insensitive, stupid and disrespectful people behave on the internet or what they write.
I don't know what to think anymore, this wasn't like past tragic shootings occurring in the world whom I remember all to well...where some introverted maniac filled with hatred or who got bullied, wanted vengeance and decided to kill people before ending his own life.
This was thoroughly planned by a man with a political or religious ideal who seemed like an established member of society who calculated and executed his actions in cold-blood, there is no justification for what he did but it portrays how dangerous holding beliefs are?
They're illogical and misguiding and I'm tired of seeing in this world, that the only way people who feel powerless, feel they can send a message, is by ultimately resorting to violence and killing...
I'm alone and do not know loss but I cannot even comprehend what the families of the victims are going through, they're pain and despair must be unimaginable...but I'm proud of the Norwegian citizens for staying composed and helping in the situation as much as they can.
I'm so tired of the conflicts on this planet, I don't want to be a part of it...
Edit: I just noticed it's my birthday 
|
On July 25 2011 00:59 Phenny wrote:
Police: Suspect in Norway attacks still had a lot of ammunition when he surrendered - AP
from @breakingnews twitter
He surrendered immediately because he wants the trial. He has actually included his trial statements in his manifesto, where he's going to explain that what he did wasn't a crime and demand the 'surrender' of Norway to his imaginary new european knight templar council. He's actually that insane.
Anyone familiar with Norwegian customs/laws on public/closed trials?
|
On July 25 2011 00:13 Magic84 wrote:
You can't let a bunch of young brainwashed idiots and zog rule cripple and destroy your race and nation. He did what he could, but of course the media and politicians will use it to their own advantage.
"He did what he could." ???
You don't mean what you're writing, do you?
This is really no good place to make such tasteless jokes.
|
On July 25 2011 00:28 Fuckyeah wrote:
Religion is the abomination that is killing.
It may have helped people in the past, but in today's world it's just an abomination doing the opposite of what it was intended to do; bringing peace.
That's not the result of religion, but differences. Racial/ethnic/cultural/national/religious/political/whatever.
I think that the maxim "diversity + proximity = conflict" is true.
|
On July 25 2011 01:20 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 00:59 Phenny wrote:
Police: Suspect in Norway attacks still had a lot of ammunition when he surrendered - AP
from @breakingnews twitter He surrendered immediately because he wants the trial. He has actually included his trial statements in his manifesto, where he's going to explain that what he did wasn't a crime and demand the 'surrender' of Norway to his imaginary new european knight templar council. He's actually that insane. Anyone familiar with Norwegian customs/laws on public/closed trials? Not that familiar, but I am pretty sure the only times we close trails to the public is in cases where it's needed to protect the victimes. In this case I am almost certain that the trail will be public.
|
It worries me how ppl here also start to talk about "culture" as if it is some exclusive clear thing everyone is either in or an outsider. I didnt wanted to get into this discussion, especially cause its highly disrespecfull to all the victimes to actually let the killer get a platform for his ideas out of his horrible event.
But since there is too much shit spreading out on some of the comments here, I wanna give you an answer.
For your ideas of "clash of cultures": We live in a multi-culti society all along. And even without any influence from cultures of diffrent regions (muslims cultures...) we have a multi-culti society. Atheists and christians have diffrences in their cultures, conservatives and liberals, ppl from the south part of a country and ppl from north, even poor ppl and rich ppl. Sometimes thess diffrences are even bigger than diffrences to some (you might call them) outisde cultures. For example over 35% of the german population are atheists.
For muslims, there isn't any single cultural identification-point with some exceptions as you might want to see it(you would call them the "few moderate muslims") there is actually the same diversity inside as everywhere else. I personally as an atheist would say that I share more cultural aspects with some muslim (lets call them sub-culture circles) than with some "traditional christian european" cultural circles.
So whats the solution to your thoughts. For a real mono-cultural society you actually would have to exclude (if you are extreme, kill) the 80% other ppl that dont fit your view.
The killer from oslo came to a point where he not only wanted to live without muslims, but also without ppl with diffrent political views.
Please ask yourself the following questions:
What is the countrys identity? Who does fit in, who doesnt? Is it only traditional patriotic natives. Will someone not fit in out of his behavior, his herritage, his views on politics, or cause he enjoys esports more than football? Or is it a "just" matter of race again?
I show you my solution: You cant prevent a multi-cultural society, simply the fact that ppl can chose diffrent livestyles or are influences by the connections they have to all over the world, will never get you a mono-cultural society. But what you can do is the following: You can creat a common base all those cultures have to share and hold on to. The minimum part of this cultural base is the law, human-rights.... The next step for this common base is respect/ tolerance and the believe in democracy...
All the cultures that come here or are here will have to life after this basic common principles.
|
On July 24 2011 22:49 koveras wrote:Show nested quote +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.
All I know is my gut says maybe.
|
After constant pondering since friday I am starting to circle in on a conclusion which I don't feel comfortable with at all:
A large amount of the population agrees that our immigration and integration policies the last 20-30 years has been flawed or at least unsuccessful, and there is starting to be some very serious problems and frictions in society because of this. We are not anywhere close to the state of some of the parts of France or Sweden, but a lot of people thinks that adjustments needs to be made. Even resourceful immigrants are moving away from the parts of Oslo where you have schools without ethnic norwegian kids.
However, you can not foster such views without being called a racist or a nazi. The one party that has a clear stance on this subject has 23% representation in parliament, but they are pretty much shut away from having any real influence. (The main reason they do not have a much larger part of vote is because their economic policy is completely incompetent, and as such they cannot be voted on). Also, mainstream media is very negative towards this party. Most of our journalists are safely placed at the left part of the political scale.
The thing that i am getting at is: Has the political correctness and main stream media ban been part of the reason why this catastrophe has happened?
|
No, a madman and a monster is the reason this has happened, please stop.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 25 2011 01:13 ChaseR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 20:41 Aylear wrote:
If I may, I want to briefly give some opinions on how we as a nation have handled this thus far. Some of you may have read my post in the other thread (my reply here), and this is a bit of clarification and some more of the same.
It may surprise some of you - especially if you live in the United States, where sensationalism and fear drives the news - to know that the government, the police department, and the media have all been very honest and straightforward in covering this tragedy, and that the people of Norway remain calm and composed (if a lot more sombre than usual) despite the enormity of the tragedy.
For instance, after the explosion and the early reports of the shooting on Utøya, the news simply recycled what they had previously stated: That a bomb had exploded in or near a government office building, that there was a related shooting in a political youth camp on Utøya, and that people had been killed in both of these cases. The ticker line at the bottom of the screen wasn't some quote from a news anchor or the prime minister -- it was the phone number for a hotline offered to the families of the victims.
From the first, there was no public outcry of, how did this happen, how did you let this happen, who is responsible for this travesty. There was no speculation or debate, no expert-witness criticism of foreign or domestic policy, no guesswork. In fact, when an Islamic extremist group claimed responsibility for the attack, few newspapers even deigned it worthy of mention -- the claim was either ignored completely, or there was a small notice buried under other headlines dealing with the actual facts.
At the end of the day, it seems that this was the correct approach: The entire tragedy now appears to be the work of one individual, who in fact had anti-Islamic views. Planned, yes, and executed with chilling efficiency, but to muddy the waters with sensationalist guesswork like some news channels in the UK, the US, and elsewhere did before they even had any of the facts in hand is the kind of thing that can partially obfuscate the actual events in retrospect, especially for onlookers abroad that by nature get a more peripheral glance. In that regard, I am very impressed with how the aftermath has been handled locally.
Later yesterday evening, the prime minister and the minister of justice held a press conference. It was excellently handled. The prime minister, his expression stoic, opened by saying that this abhorrent event will not bring Norway down; that we will be able to remain proud of our strong democracy, and that the open discourse and debate on every topic - no matter how controversial that topic may be - which has been a staple of our freedom of speech, will remain intact -- that we will not be cowed into silence, and that our politics should become even more open in the aftermath, as that is the correct response when faced with this kind of terror.
He also stated that the first priority over the coming days is to save lives, and to provide medical aid to the victims. Later on, there will be further statements as regards to the perpetrator, but for the moment the focus is completely on providing immediate aid.
The media questions at the press conference were of a similar nature: Who is this man, has he given a motive for his actions, what will you do in the coming days, can you clarify this one small thing. Very to the point. And, again, worth of note and admiration: When asked his opinion on the alleged claim of responsibility by the Islamic extremist group, the prime minister said simply, "These groups often claim responsibility for actions they had nothing to do with in an attempt to seem more capable than they really are." It was a great response.
All in all, I admire how the aftermath of this terrible incident was dealt with, and how open and honest the police, the government, and (most of all) the media have been in reporting this obscenity to us and the rest of the world.
---
To switch topics a bit, I've noticed that some people appear to be baffled at our justice system. I will address this briefly by taking on this composite quote:
"He deserves to fry. Norway's justice system is retarded for giving him decent living conditions for the rest of his life."
Really? Killing this human being would bring back the other human beings? Would it lessen the blow of our loss? Most Norwegians don't see it that way; we don't agree with this biblical desire for vengeance. Granted, in this particular case I'm sure some Norwegians will feel differently, but we aren't going to completely alter our justice system for just one man. Even this depraved individual will not get that dubious honour.
Our justice system is one of rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Those individuals who are simply too damaged to ever be released (of which there are very few) are simply imprisoned for life. Bad people, yes, but still human beings. We won't publicly kill a fellow human being just because we feel like it, out of some desire for revenge. How is that any better than killing someone over an ideological viewpoint? Both are abhorrent. Both are murder.
As for us having a "retarded" justice system? While you were reading about the appallingly decent living conditions provided to our prison population and the leniency granted to our criminals, you should have also looked up some numbers, namely the per capita crime rate and the number of repeat offenders. In both cases, that number is extremely low. The justice system is working a hell of a lot better than that of most countries.
Lastly, the comment that the political youth camp equals indoctrination and likening it to Hitler-Jugend is so ignorant and insulting that I don't even want to tarnish the English language by crafting a response to it, but I'll call it out anyway in order to prevent its propagation as anything but drivel: The young men and women who suffered this living nightmare yesterday were nothing more than enthusiastic youths who were personally and voluntarily interested and engaged in politics, young men and women who take an interest in and care about how the government runs their home.
So, with all that said, how is our country failing again? Please, let us know -- we desperately need to improve our standing in the Human Development Index. Seriously, can we at least agree that this misguided socialist country of ours appears to be doing something right?
---
I'll end on a much more optimistic note. I mentioned this in my previous post as well, but it's worth repeating: Shortly after the call went out for blood donors, hospitals had to start publicly declining offers from further donors because they had already acquired more than enough of even the rarer blood types. That's how quickly Oslo responded. I think I'm more happy about that than anything else. I feel like this tragedy is the foreshadowing of what may come in the decades, so disheartening. This post changed my way of thinking of what has happened...I thank you deeply for writing it Aylear. I'm really sad to have had to read how the foreign media immediately began speculating based on their own prejudices into what happened before any credible facts were known. And having read some of the misguided opinions and beliefs of the nonsensical comments people post all over the internet regarding this tragedy, it's just such a sad image of the world. I cannot believe how insensitive, stupid and disrespectful people behave on the internet or what they write. I don't know what to think anymore, this wasn't like past tragic shootings occurring in the world whom I remember all to well...where some introverted maniac filled with hatred or who got bullied, wanted vengeance and decided to kill people before ending his own life. This was thoroughly planned by a man with a political or religious ideal who seemed like an established member of society who calculated and executed his actions in cold-blood, there is no justification for what he did but it portrays how dangerous holding beliefs are? They're illogical and misguiding and I'm tired of seeing in this world, that the only way people who feel powerless, feel they can send a message, is by ultimately resorting to violence and killing... I'm alone and do not know loss but I cannot even comprehend what the families of the victims are going through, they're pain and despair must be unimaginable...but I'm proud of the Norwegian citizens for staying composed and helping in the situation as much as they can. I'm so tired of the conflicts on this planet, I don't want to be a part of it... Edit: I just noticed it's my birthday
He was an introverted maniac filled with hatred though.
He has a lot of traits that fit the profile of your run-of-the-mill spreekiller.
Spreekillers are hard to stop, it's hard for the system to catch these misfits.
We don't see them coming. How can anyone see the emotional switch go haywire in people that doesn't show any emotion?
|
On July 25 2011 00:36 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 00:25 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas 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. Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED. Sorry but no. What you said is wrong because some you are assuming that everyone in the immigrant community is refuse to assimilate any value coming from the country they are living in, which is absolutly false. The main problem of multiculturalism is that it strenghten the communities, and because of that, people tend to assimilate themselves as "french canadian", "indian", "turk" despite all living in the same country (here canada for exemple) and having nothing to do with true "indians" or "turks" who actuallylive in Indiaand turkie. What makes you think I assume that? Thats a fucking stupid assumption to make, because its false. I have my own parents as proof of that... Night[6], I would appreciate if you could actually show me to be incorrect, instead of spouting a one liner. tyvm
The demographic 'theory' (whole eurabia bullshit) you are referring to is actually completely untrue.
Birthrates among immigrants adjust themselves to the mean within 2 generations, and at the moment birthrates for muslim minorities are below the national average, and even below the magic 2.1 that's needed to maintain the size of their population.
Enjoy:
http://dougsaunders.net/2008/09/eurabia-debunking-steyn-bawer-melanie-phillips-geert-wilders/
|
Aftonbladet is saying that the killer shot a police in the Island.
|
On July 25 2011 02:09 Ghad wrote:
After constant pondering since friday I am starting to circle in on a conclusion which I don't feel comfortable with at all:
A large amount of the population agrees that our immigration and integration policies the last 20-30 years has been flawed or at least unsuccessful, and there is starting to be some very serious problems and frictions in society because of this. We are not anywhere close to the state of some of the parts of France or Sweden, but a lot of people thinks that adjustments needs to be made. Even resourceful immigrants are moving away from the parts of Oslo where you have schools without ethnic norwegian kids.
However, you can not foster such views without being called a racist or a nazi. The one party that has a clear stance on this subject has 23% representation in parliament, but they are pretty much shut away from having any real influence. (The main reason they do not have a much larger part of vote is because their economic policy is completely incompetent, and as such they cannot be voted on). Also, mainstream media is very negative towards this party. Most of our journalists are safely placed at the left part of the political scale.
The thing that i am getting at is: Has the political correctness and main stream media ban been part of the reason why this catastrophe has happened?
Quite obviously, it would be downright dangerous to say that the political correctness in Scandinavia over the past decade has had nothing to do with laying the groundwork for extremism. This is the reason we now all have a very immigration hostile party in our parliaments. Because we drove a lot of people there. The problem is that we've been so afraid of racism that just people wanting to voice concern over immigration issues are instantly branded racists and shut down.
What happens then is that a lot of sensible people gets frustrated when there is no room for them to voice their moderate concern, and they are driven into the hands of the extremists.
We now have a party that is very anti immigration in Sweden and they are not a good and responsible party. They would never had existed if the main stream parties had been willing to at least discuss immigration. The silence fuels extremists and it is important that we do not neglect this because events like the ones who happened in Norway is bound to risk creating even more taboo over discussing immigration and Islam, and so the circle goes around.
|
On July 25 2011 02:09 Ghad wrote:
After constant pondering since friday I am starting to circle in on a conclusion which I don't feel comfortable with at all:
A large amount of the population agrees that our immigration and integration policies the last 20-30 years has been flawed or at least unsuccessful, and there is starting to be some very serious problems and frictions in society because of this. We are not anywhere close to the state of some of the parts of France or Sweden, but a lot of people thinks that adjustments needs to be made. Even resourceful immigrants are moving away from the parts of Oslo where you have schools without ethnic norwegian kids.
However, you can not foster such views without being called a racist or a nazi. The one party that has a clear stance on this subject has 23% representation in parliament, but they are pretty much shut away from having any real influence. (The main reason they do not have a much larger part of vote is because their economic policy is completely incompetent, and as such they cannot be voted on). Also, mainstream media is very negative towards this party. Most of our journalists are safely placed at the left part of the political scale.
The thing that i am getting at is: Has the political correctness and main stream media ban been part of the reason why this catastrophe has happened?
Ask yourself this question. Had this atrocity been committed by an Islamic extremist, would you still be pondering for days on how society was insufficiently respectful of Islam, and asking if your government should receive more Muslim influence? Or would you be angry at the perpetrator and the people who encourage him ideologically?
My guess is that you'd be taking the opportunity to have the same sorts of thoughts that you're having now, despite the reasoning behind the atrocity being diametrically opposed. You might want to ponder on that for a while.
|
To be quite honest with you. In line with the madrid and london bombings, an attack from our opponents in afghanistan or libya has not been far from my mind at all. This would not in any way impact on my view of muslims. Norways army has been in a shooting war since 2007, not expecting a backfire from that would be naive.
I don't think anyone saw this coming at all. I am sure the police has considered the risk that far right extremists could possibly bomb governmental buildings, or attack politicians, but a killing spree against youth? Unthinkable.
|
On July 25 2011 02:17 Grettin wrote:
Aftonbladet is saying that the killer shot a police in the Island.
Yes, a police man (or two) was shot and killed, but they were there working as unarmed guards, not wearing police uniforms.
|
Im living 10 minutes from Utøya, its a bit weird having something like this happening so close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
