Manchester Arena explosion: 22 killed in 'terror attack by suicide bomber' at concer

[Wolfsangel 88]

My point is that a failed policy of multiculturalism is a big issue in Sweden, contrary to your assertion that there is little xenophobia in the country.

In 2007 a Swedish survey on asylum concluded that 49% of all Swedes wanted to curb the number of asylum seekers. This was ten years ago, and I doubt that percentage has fallen.

 

[Somerandomdude]

what's your point?
People seeking asylum are not the same as migrants. People need to stop conflating these topics.

For all practical purposes they are.

Also, many of the migrants pouring into Europe at the moment are economic migrants. Fleeing hardship and poverty sure, but not for their lives.

There's literally thousands a week pouring into Italy and Greece. They are living in fucking tent cities on the streets of Paris. Honestly. If you think this can continue and Europe will stay Europe you're crazy. We have no precedent for this in human history. It doesn't take a genius to realise we are heading towards a very ugly situation in europe.

It is not racist to assert a sovereign nations right to defend its borders. That's the whole of point of a country. It's not a free for all where anyone who wants to can come in. Particularly if they aren't likely to share the same values.

 

[spacejunk]

Multiculturalism has not failed.
What has failed is the idea in developed western nations that we can discriminate against private citizens based upon their ethnicity or belief system.
I don't believe anyone claimed there was no xenophobia in Sweden - but the fact that a political party opposing immigration is polling so well would suggest that this apparent problem of potential muslim majorities is nothing of the sort.

 

[spacejunk]

For all practical purposes they are.

For the purpose of having this in a factual manner, they are not.
Humanitarian intake is not the same as immigration numbers. This is indeed an unprecedented situation, but your claim that people fleeing countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen (to name just a few) are not fleeing for their lives is a complete mischaracterisation of the situation.

People have a legal right to claim asylum to escape persecution, war, famine and other life threatening catastrophes that are taking place in a lot of the middle east at the moment.

You think people should just stay in Syria with their families and get raped/killed/tortured by ISIS?

 

[Wolfsangel 88]

Multiculturalism has not failed.
What has failed is the idea in developed western nations that we can discriminate against private citizens based upon their ethnicity or belief system.
I don't believe anyone claimed there was no xenophobia in Sweden - but the fact that a political party opposing immigration is polling so well would suggest that this apparent problem of potential muslim majorities is nothing of the sort.

Strange logic. Are you suggesting that the party is polling so well because the Swedish people are inherently racist / xenophobic? Or are they simply reacting to the changing realities of Sweden's ethnic makeup?

Nobody claimed there was an overall Moslem majority, or anything of the sort. We do, however, have Moslem majorities (or in some cases highly significant minorities) in many European inner city areas, and the problems are there for anybody to see.

 

[Somerandomdude]

Multiculturalism has not failed.
What has failed is the idea in developed western nations that we can discriminate against private citizens based upon their ethnicity or belief system.
I don't believe anyone claimed there was no xenophobia in Sweden - but the fact that a political party opposing immigration is polling so well would suggest that this apparent problem of potential muslim majorities is nothing of the sort.

You are literally the epitome of a deluded leftist.

Who's saying we need to discriminate against citizens based on anything ? Tightening up immigration is nothing of the sort. Even if we do limit or cut off muslim immigration, those people are not citizens and as such are not entitled to the benefit of any anti discrimination legislation we may have.

We already have A LOT of immigrants in this country. Let's focus on integrating the ones here, and slow down our intake in the meantime. It's in the best interest of everyone, lest problems arise and the uglier sides of the right become even more empowered than they are, because they are the only ones wanting to confront the problem.

 

[Somerandomdude]

For the purpose of having this in a factual manner, they are not.
Humanitarian intake is not the same as immigration numbers. This is indeed an unprecedented situation, but your claim that people fleeing countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen (to name just a few) are not fleeing for their lives is a complete mischaracterisation of the situation.

People have a legal right to claim asylum to escape persecution, war, famine and other life threatening catastrophes that are taking place in a lot of the middle east at the moment.

You think people should just stay in Syria with their families and get raped/killed/tortured by ISIS?

I never said people in syria weren't fleeing for their lives, I said many of the migrants pouring into Europe are not (many are from sub Saharan Africa)

I wholeheartedly support taking in the most vulnerable and persecuted minorities from the middle east. Christians and yazidis chief among them.

 

[spacejunk]

Strange logic. Are you suggesting that the party is polling so well because the Swedish people are inherently racist / xenophobic? Or are they simply reacting to the changing realities of Sweden's ethnic makeup?

I'm suggesting that if an anti-immigration party is polling that well, that the fears of a muslim majority are unfounded.
Besides that i'm not making any vague generalisations about the nature of swedish political thought, as i'm not informed enough to do so.

Nobody claimed there was an overall Moslem majority, or anything of the sort. We do, however, have Moslem majorities (or in some cases highly significant minorities) in many European inner city areas, and the problems are there for anybody to see.

Really? What about this?

Sweden will be the same country when muslims are 51% of the population, yes or no?

Seems to be the whole point of the question you wanted to come back to.

 

[Wolfsangel 88]

That was just a hypothetical question based on the prospect of unlimited immigration. It is not a claim that there is a Moslem majority in Sweden, but is merely pointing out that with widespread immigration countries such as Sweden will inevitably end up changing in character, and at the expense of indigenous people and customs. You keep returning to - and ridiculing - the absent claim of a Moslem majority to avoid addressing the very real fears felt by the people of Western Europa.

 

[spacejunk]

Right. I'd call that fear mongering.

Given the enormity of the refugee crisis, i think we need to respond calmly and rationally - not with projections of "invasion" imagery or the fantastic lie of - ahem - "white genocide".

I'm all for people believing whatever they want, but mischaracterising millions of displaced people as 'invaders' hell-bent on destroying european culture, as some folks are intent on claiming, requires correction.

Countries might change after increases in immigration? Sure they will.
But i'll let you in on a little secret; those countries will change in time anyway.
Cultures aren't fixed or unchanging. All countries, all cultures, are in a state of flux.

It's the people of Iraq, Syria (etc etc etc) who have real cause for concern about changes in their homelands - much of it thanks to Western imperial aggression.

 

[Wolfsangel 88]

Again, nobody is claiming that there are hordes of aliens ready to wilfully destroy western values. Yet these people arrive, largely refuse to integrate and be assimilated, and end up outbreeding the native population, creating the kind of ethno-cultural enclaves that actively resist the cohesion that any nation state requires.

 

[Somerandomdude]

Right. I'd call that fear mongering.

Given the enormity of the refugee crisis, i think we need to respond calmly and rationally - not with projections of "invasion" imagery or the fantastic lie of - ahem - "white genocide".

I'm all for people believing whatever they want, but mischaracterising millions of displaced people as 'invaders' hell-bent on destroying european culture, as some folks are intent on claiming, requires correction.

You're literally hearing this from someone in Europe and telling him it's all fear mongering.

Is it beyond your comprehension to grasp that many people from the mid east and north Africa don't share your values, and want to impose theirs upon you. It's really not an abstract concept.

Was Merkel throwing open the borders to a million people "calm and rational" ? Far out lol

White genocide is a loaded term used by many true racists, BUT

Have you ever wondered why we aren't getting implored to accept white South Africans as refugees, even though they are literally in mortal peril? I'm just saying, it's curious isn't it.

Just like there isn't really a push to accept central Americans (not white I know) who are currently fleeing war and unrest.

It's almost like a certain country is very wealthy and they are using that influence to push the most powerful and prosperous countries on earth to accept large numbers of adherents to an ideology this wealthy country shares, in order to spread that ideology. That simple enough for you?

How much money have the saudis spent on mosques overseas ?

 

[Somerandomdude]

Why not focus on integrating migrants already here?

Not to mention we have an indigenous community in utter crisis in this country. People living in third world conditions with horrific rates of substance abuse and sexual abuse. It's something the left don't like to talk about. They like milking the indigenous for their votes but don't want to confront the reality some of these people live in. Better keep them in the communities all drunk with many abusing kids, lest someone call them racist for pointing it out.

 

[spacejunk]

Again, nobody is claiming that there are hordes of aliens ready to wilfully destroy western values. Yet these people arrive, largely refuse to integrate and be assimilated, and end up outbreeding the native population, creating the kind of ethno-cultural enclaves that actively resist the cohesion that any nation state requires.

What is the difference between the first characterisation and the second, besides the words you used to describe them?
The idea that "these people" are going to "actively resist the cohesion that any nation state requires" is pretty disintenuous. I live in an area with a big muslim population, and it's plenty cohesive.

There is a big problem with fear and scapegoating of refugees, especially in the wake of terrorist attacks.
The problem with equating all muslims with ISIS inspired terrorist attacks seems pretty self evident.

You're literally hearing this from someone in Europe and telling him it's all fear mongering.

It is all fear mongering. Another term for it ("it" being "white cultural genocide" - a concept thrown about from time to time) is bullshit

Is it beyond your comprehension to grasp that many people from the mid east and north Africa don't share your values, and want to impose theirs upon you. It's really not an abstract concept.

Far worse are people that live in the same country as me and wish to impose their racist fear upon me. I have no gripe with impoverished disempowered people from the middle east or northern africa.

I've known a lot of refugees from the middle east and to a lesser extent, northern africa over the years - as well as refugees from the balkans, vietnam, the USSR etc.
In my experience they've all been wonderful, brave, warm people - and regardless of our different beliefs or values, there was a clear sense of mutual respect.

This is something i've never witnessed from the stop the boats anti-refugee crowd.
They are among the least pleasant people i've ever had the misfortune of coming across.

Was Merkel throwing open the borders to a million people "calm and rational" ? Far out lol

Yeah, it was - for reasons of economic and social demographics. I've already discussed this in this thread.

White genocide is a loaded term used by many true racists, BUT

Have you ever wondered why we aren't getting implored to accept white South Africans as refugees, even though they are literally in mortal peril? I'm just saying, it's curious isn't it.

What are you talking about?
These are completely different situations, and i'm pretty sure countries like Australia have accepted asylum claims from white Zimbabweans in the last couple of decades (though i could be wrong about that).

completely different scenario however, and i'm not sure what you are attempting to imply.

Just like there isn't really a push to accept central Americans (not white I know) who are currently fleeing war and unrest.

Your attempts to make this a "racial" issue don't make a lot of sense.
Are you trying to downplay the seriousness of what has been happening in the middle east? It is not all relative.

It's almost like a certain country is very wealthy and they are using that influence to push the most powerful and prosperous countries on earth to accept large numbers of adherents to an ideology this wealthy country shares, in order to spread that ideology. That simple enough for you?

Sounds like a very poorly constructed conspiracy theory to me.

How much money have the saudis spent on mosques overseas ?

I don't know - why are you asking me? And what does it have to do with this discussion?

Why not focus on integrating migrants already here?

Not to mention we have an indigenous community in utter crisis in this country. People living in third world conditions with horrific rates of substance abuse and sexual abuse. It's something the left don't like to talk about. They like milking the indigenous for their votes but don't want to confront the reality some of these people live in. Better keep them in the communities all drunk with many abusing kids, lest someone call them racist for pointing it out.

This is absolute nonsense.
Criticising "teh left" (in australia) for a fallacious misrepresentation of a completely different issue that has nothing to do with this discussion (or this thread) makes no sense at all.

Please try to stay focused and remain on-topic.

 

[Somerandomdude]

What is the difference between the first characterisation and the second, besides the words you used to describe them?
The idea that "these people" are going to "actively resist the cohesion that any nation state requires" is pretty disintenuous. I live in an area with a big muslim population, and it's plenty cohesive.

There is a big problem with fear and scapegoating of refugees, especially in the wake of terrorist attacks.
The problem with equating all muslims with ISIS inspired terrorist attacks seems pretty self evident.

It is all fear mongering. Another term for it ("it" being "white cultural genocide" - a concept thrown about from time to time) is bullshit

Far worse are people that live in the same country as me and wish to impose their racist fear upon me. I have no gripe with impoverished disempowered people from the middle east or northern africa.

I've known a lot of refugees from the middle east and to a lesser extent, northern africa over the years - as well as refugees from the balkans, vietnam, the USSR etc.
In my experience they've all been wonderful, brave, warm people - and regardless of our different beliefs or values, there was a clear sense of mutual respect.

This is something i've never witnessed from the stop the boats anti-refugee crowd.
They are among the least pleasant people i've ever had the misfortune of coming across.


Yeah, it was - for reasons of economic and social demographics. I've already discussed this in this thread.


What are you talking about?
These are completely different situations, and i'm pretty sure countries like Australia have accepted asylum claims from white Zimbabweans in the last couple of decades (though i could be wrong about that).

completely different scenario however, and i'm not sure what you are attempting to imply.


Your attempts to make this a "racial" issue don't make a lot of sense.
Are you trying to downplay the seriousness of what has been happening in the middle east? It is not all relative.


Sounds like a very poorly constructed conspiracy theory to me.

I don't know - why are you asking me? And what does it have to do with this discussion?



This is absolute nonsense.
Criticising "teh left" (in australia) for a fallacious misrepresentation of a completely different issue that has nothing to do with this discussion (or this thread) makes no sense at all.

Please try to stay focused and remain on-topic.

Honestly you're a waste of time to argue with. The patronising way you gush about "all the refugees you've met being so great" is nauseating. They are people dude. There's good ones, bad ones, in between and all that. They aren't all fantastic beacons of human excellence just because you've automatically allocated them victim status. It's a patronising form of racism.

I'm not trying to downplay the seriousnss of the mid east crisis, just wondering why other crises don't get nearly as much attention.

Yes ok just dismiss it as a conspiracy theory even though it's definitely plausible given the fact the saudis have all the oil.

The indigenous thing is not off topic. It is highly relevant because it's a crisis right here in this country. Cleanup your backyard before you clean the street

 

[Somerandomdude]

And hey, you know one of the reasons why people wanted the boats stopped? Because people were fucking dying at sea in rickety boats after paying criminals their life savings to get on one. And it was gonna keep happening unless we did something about it.

 

[spacejunk]

That's how the government spun it.
People probably still are dying at sea, but the federal government have made it a criminal offence for anyone to release such information to the public.

All information is controlled by Border Force, and doctors and nurses who work in the offshore detention centres face two years jail for releasing any information to the australian public.
The people detained there are imprisoned indefinitely, without charge - and have (instead of dying at sea) been dying on Manus Island and Nauru.
The scapegoating of refugees in australia is an international embarassment. It is not to save lives - that's just the government line. If we had a reasonable refugee intake, the issue of people drowning at sea would be moot.
But as it stands, we don't even know if more people have drowned at sea trying to get to australia, because the government dismisses any questions on the matter as "operational" and therefore classified information. And anyone who informs the public or leaks information gets a fucking custodial sentence. Disgraceful, but lapped up by the racists who are unfortunately too plentiful in Australia.
It's outrageous, and quite unbelievable that anyone believes it.


Now, when i tell you that i've known lots of refugees and that they've all been nice people is relevant, because i've also met quite a few bigots who push this anti-islam rhetoric - and the contrast is striking.
By which, i mean that refugees (that i've known) tend to be grateful, industrious and warm hearted - whereas everybody i've ever known that thinks asylum seeker boats should be turned back, and that the people that make it to land should be imprisoned or deported have been paranoid, entitled, narrow-minded borderline sadists.

It's merely an observation, and a crass one at that - but the point is that i do have contact with middle eastern refugees in my work and social life, and can comfortably say that in terms of shared values, i have more in common with the middle eastern refugees i know (or have known) than i do some of my more vocally xenophobic countrymen.
Make of that what you will.

Now, let's get back to the topic of the Manchester bombing, shall we?

 

[cduggles]

SJ and Swilow: thank you for reading my post. :D

I'm on my phone so I'll be brief, thanks for the response

Cool. I felt your post was worth answering.

1. Yea you're correct the Catholic church did do that stuff circa 1500s but that's not relevant to my point about them NOT doing that stuff during the time of the IRA. I was trying to say imagine how much bloodier that conflict would have been if they were doing so.

History isn't a hypothetical discussion. At that point, who is to say it would be bloodier? It might not even have happened. Because I could say "Imagine if the Queen of England (Head of the Anglican Church) and the Pope worked it out over tea and crumpets (or scones) and all the parties involved accepted their opinions and therefore the troubles never existed?" But it didn't happen that way.

And your point about my point being irrelevant to your point is irrelevant to my point. Seriously.

2. It is a central tenet of Islam to murder infidels. This is obvious. It is explicitly commanded a in the quran. How do you think Islam spread from Arabia all through the middle east to North Africa, central Asia, Malaysia, India etc...

They didn't go around handing out leaflets and knocking on doors. It was spread by the sword. Look at the example of Muhammad. What was he? A warlord who killed innocents and abused a small girl. What are Isis doing that he didn't do? Nothing.

It's not obvious that it is a central tenet of Islam to murder infidels. If it was, all Muslims would be murdering infidels or there are some seriously slacking among the Faithful.

We can go head-to-head on translating the Koran/Qu'ran/Quran, scholar by scholar. Unfortunately, unless one of us is a translator of that particular dialect in Arabic and has a certified original copy of the original and the other capitulates, it's not going to result in our agreeing.

And Muhammad translated the Koran from Archangel to Arabic, so I would definitely argue at that juncture, mistakes were made.

Ah, if you had just stopped at Arabia... How did Islam spread from there? Commerce with traders followed by proselytizers of Islam. I'm going to let this go for now as you are on your phone and give you some time to research it. You might want to focus on the correlation between trade routes in say North Africa and the paths by which Islam spread not with a military.

Please post about it if you still believe Islam spread from Arabia by the sword after your research.

To most of the world, Muhammad was an Arab who is considered a prophet by adherents to Islam. In that capacity, he translated the word of God via the Archangel Gabriel.

I didn't read his unauthorized biography. He abused a little girl?

Warlord or conqueror? Creator or destroyer? Uniter of Arabia or murderer of innocent Meccans and possibly others? Prophet of God or delusional man?

It's a matter of perspective. You (and I) might not agree with certain of these perspectives, but understanding them and different factions and nuances of Islam is critical to addressing the challenges that come with finding allies and solutions to fighting ISIS. If you think we're going to do this without Muslims or some of their oil, you're wrong.

ISIS is doing a lot of things Muhammad didn't do. He was one guy who lived quite awhile ago, while ISIS is a sprawling 21st century terrorist group. And ISIS is also doing things a lot of non-ISIS Muslims aren't doing. I'm just going to glaze over this part... too broad and odd.

3. I'm not saying western foreign policy has done Nothing to inflame the current situation but it's far from the only cause. Look at the problems the Phillipines are having with Isis style militants. Who did they ever invade or colonise ? Sweden got attacked last month. The most neutral country ever.

France was a prominent opponent of the Iraq war. Didn't spare them from losing 300+ ppl to terror in the last 2 years.

Germany was too. They have had a spate of attacks since the "refugee" crisis. Plus the sex attacks

What? I never intended to imply that ISIS is looking only at the US or the West for payback. I'm not sure why you are. I was suggesting that we should carefully examine our history in the region, and the lessons we should have learned but apparently haven't.

But in that vein, some folks have answered (France was a gimme) and please review the Germans invasion of North Africa (Rommel would be a good starting point, if I remember correctly - I'm on my phone too). As Stephen Colbert noted sarcastically, (paraphrase) "it isn't like the people there hold grudges for centuries."

Sweden and the Philippines aren't so innocent either. I'm kidding (about this topic anyway) - I'm not aware of any particular disputes.

Real terrorists aren't always known for simply wanting historical payback. You said they want to establish a caliphate state and kill all the infidels. I'm guessing there are infidels in Sweden and the Philippines (no offense to them).

Or perhaps they attacked the Swedes simply because they could due to lax security. Maybe they're taking credit for the terror wrought by others to increase their terrorist cred. They're terrorists. Who knows?

I hope we can agree that they also need food, water, shelter, money, weapons, ammunition, supply lines, bases of operation and logistics coordination, and matching badass outfits.

Sex attacks? Just don't.
----------------
Spacejunk and Somerandomdude:

SJ is right. Immigrants (not migrants- that's completely different) are quite different from asylum seekers. Those are far more than just terms. I worked with both groups at two different international organizations. The funding streams and intake process (in the US) are completely different and the likelihood of attaining resident status varies significantly.

And not all immigrants (Melania) or asylum seekers are poor.

 

[Soso78]

3 immigrants been caught stealing from the memorial site, they were caught stealing flowers and little teddys etc.

 

[swilow]

True. But has the Philippines? Sweden? Germany ? Belgium?

Fair point.