Bah Kee Stan

[Guest David Edwards]

I didn't say anything about Sweden's rates of violence, I said that it welcomes terrorists, which is undoubtedly true.

    And that's undoubtedly an example of classic Trumpism, or in other words: you're deliberately distorting the truth.

[Guest David Edwards]

Who? I'm not doubting you but if they're more prolific than the likes of Isis I'm amazed I've never heard of them.

Nobody's more prolific at exporting Islamist Fascism than the House of Saud. And the US and UK are big, big pals with them, even though they've chopped off thousands more heads than ISIS and Boko Haram combined. We sell them ship loads of arms and send our 'royals' to their royals funerals.

[TaunTon]

Who? I'm not doubting you but if they're more prolific than the likes of Isis I'm amazed I've never heard of them.

 

Boko Haram are particularly active in Nigeria and to a lesser extent the surrounding nations. They've been on the go for a decade and have killed thousands. Don't know where the are on the terrorist league table but they'll be up there. Another bunch of Wahhabist nutters in a country that's mired in problems and corruption.

[TRVMP]

Who? I'm not doubting you but if they're more prolific than the likes of Isis I'm amazed I've never heard of them.

If you recall the mass kidnapping of girls in Nigeria, that, believe it or not, wasn't their worst exploit. They control huge parts of Nigeria.

[TRVMP]

  And that's undoubtedly an example of classic Trumpism, or in other words: you're deliberately distorting the truth.

I'm really not. Sweden has cast itself as a humanitarian superpower and its very, very reluctant to refuse asylum, and while there admittedly a bit more of a split in this, many in Sweden, and many on Swedish government, are reluctant to deport criminals, the logic being (and there's actually some merit in this if you're a consistent thinker) that if asylum is granted, it's because life at home is too dangerous to contemplate, therefore sending someone back to their country of origin is to put them in grave danger. The logic is difficult to disagree with, and the end result is that Sweden is probably the most welcoming country in earth for terrorists. Moreso even than Pakistan.

[TRVMP]

Even if you restricted it to figures for *white 'Anglo-Saxon' male* or however you'd like to define the elite ethnic group, I strongly suspect that a higher probability of violent death would remain in play. That's partly why I excluded Chicago's horrendous recent spate of gangland crime, for example, because that situation isn't readily comparable to European population centres.

The bottom line is that even white Americans are more likely to suffer violent death through some psychologically imbalanced gunman in a college or a roadside than be a victim of terrorism. And are probably more likely to suffer either fate than their counterpart in Europe. Terrorism currently forms a larger section of the security agenda in Europe, but remains a minor threat to any European civilian. Germany suffering its first terrorist attack since leftist efforts a generation ago doesn't change that.

Go ahead and look up white gun crime in America. I'll wait. I mean, I know the figures already and you don't, so you can do the research.

[TRVMP]

Nobody's more prolific at exporting Islamist Fascism than the House of Saud. And the US and UK are big, big pals with them, even though they've chopped off thousands more heads than ISIS and Boko Haram combined. We sell them ship loads of arms and send our 'royals' to their royals funerals.

We also, Europe-wide, have in the last year imported tens of thousands of military-aged young men who were educated in Wahhabi, Saudi-funded madrassas. These are especially popular in - wait for it - Pakistan, despite the fact that Wahhabi as an identifier is pretty rare there.

 

If you're paying attention you'll also know that the Saudis are cheerleaders for the current invasion of Europe and their refusal to house displaced Syrians is for more reason than pure greed.

[bigdoc1874]

Even if you restricted it to figures for *white 'Anglo-Saxon' male* or however you'd like to define the elite ethnic group, I strongly suspect that a higher probability of violent death would remain in play. That's partly why I excluded Chicago's horrendous recent spate of gangland crime, for example, because that situation isn't readily comparable to European population centres.

 

The bottom line is that even white Americans are more likely to suffer violent death through some psychologically imbalanced gunman in a college or a roadside than be a victim of terrorism. And are probably more likely to suffer either fate than their counterpart in Europe. Terrorism currently forms a larger section of the security agenda in Europe, but remains a minor threat to any European civilian. Germany suffering its first terrorist attack since leftist efforts a generation ago doesn't change that.

^^^ too long, didn't read

[vikingTON]

^^^ too long, didn't read

Nobody even pretends to read your posts; you're a busted flush.

 

Gutted for you.

[bigdoc1874]

Nobody even pretends to read your posts; you're a busted flush.

 

Gutted for you.

^^^ crying in a snotterfest

[vikingTON]

Go ahead and look up white gun crime in America. I'll wait. I mean, I know the figures already and you don't, so you can do the research.

Well no, I really do have better things to do with my time (yes, really) than sifting through the entire minefield topic that is 'US gun crime by race'. And yet even a brief search finds that the most shrieking cheerleader for white America on the planet - Ann Coulter - has claimed that American whites fare merely 'as well' as in Belgium: Belgium, the armpit of Europe. And that is almost certainly a false claim anyway because, well, Ann Coulter is not a credible source.

 

Even before you account for the class dynamic involved in the far larger rate of black crime in the US, it still doesn't provide a credible model for western Europe to follow.

[vikingTON]

^^^ crying in a snotterfest

^^^ doing it wrong

 

It's cute to see some old relics like yourself try to make a comeback on the forum though. A bit like watching The Rangers play but somehow even more cringeworthy.

[TRVMP]

Well no, I really do have better things to do with my time (yes, really) than sifting through the entire minefield topic that is 'US gun crime by race'. And yet even a brief search finds that the most shrieking cheerleader for white America on the planet - Ann Coulter - has claimed that American whites fare merely 'as well' as in Belgium: Belgium, the armpit of Europe. And that is almost certainly a false claim anyway because, well, Ann Coulter is not a credible source.

 

I'd say you're right, I'd be surprised if the US was quite as good as Belgium.

 

Even before you account for the class dynamic involved in the far larger rate of black crime in the US,

 

Which you haven't accounted for. Don't forget you have better things to do. You can't make that claim without evidence.

 

it still doesn't provide a credible model for western Europe to follow.

Sure, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I wouldn't recommend that Western Europe, or anywhere for that matter, follow the US' lead in gun control or criminal justice, so I'm not sure what you're driving at.

[vikingTON]

I haven't accounted for it to cut your argument some slack. The US' overall violent death rate is far higher than any civilised country. Most - but not all - of that could be separated by racial groups, but only if you discard the argument that inequality within the huge non-white population in the US plays a factor in their high crime rate. When life's losers in a European nation-state are typically themselves white, that obviously inflates the white violent death rate compared to a multi-racial society in which whites tend to be winners. And even excluding that argument, European states still have very little to learn from the US in protecting their citizens against violence.

 

The UK security forces' response after the London attack in 2005 is a more credible case for the German security forces to follow to limit future atrocities. Which had nothing to do with "restricting migration" or "surrendering national security". Germany and the UK are exceptionally safe countries and nothing that The Donald can improve.

[TRVMP]

I haven't accounted for it to cut your argument some slack. The US' overall violent death rate is far higher than any civilised country. Most - but not all - of that could be separated by racial groups, but only if you discard the argument that inequality within the huge non-white population in the US plays a factor in their high crime rate. When life's losers in a European nation-state are typically themselves white, that obviously inflates the white violent death rate compared to a multi-racial society in which whites tend to be winners. And even excluding that argument, European states still have very little to learn from the US in protecting their citizens against violence.

I didn't say anything about discarding class, in fact I encouraged you to research it. I know you won't do that because it'll hurt your argument. To give one tiny but very representative example, Ladera Heights is the richest black area in the country, and virtually all of its violent crime measures are worse than, say, almost all of white, poor Appalachia.

 

I imagine the next thing you won't have time to research will be the urban-rural divide and/or proximity to poor neighborhoods. Let me know when you don't get to those.

 

The UK security forces' response after the London attack in 2005 is a more credible case for the German security forces to follow to limit future atrocities. Which had nothing to do with "restricting migration" or "surrendering national security". Germany and the UK are exceptionally safe countries and nothing that The Donald can improve.

Just to be clear, you're saying that restricting migration doesn't impact terror? Let's leave general crime aside and just focus on that.

[TonInDublin]

BIgDoc said "your God doesn't exist, it's been proven". Errr, no it hasn't nor is it likely to be.

 

As big a lie/idiotic statement as your first attempt on here to pin the troubles in Pakistan solely on religion.

You really do want to chuck it mate - you are making an even bigger tit of yourself with every passing post.

Every now and then, just for the craic like, try and engage brain before you engage mouth.

Better still - read something - a book for example - read two or three maybe - listen to different viewpoints on any subject matter - and then, and only then, make your own mind up and get involved in educated, rationale debate.

 

Instead of blurting out consistent lines of absolute horse shite that quite frankly draw the point and laugh response you get from so many on here.

 

Oh, and Google doesn't count .....

[Guest David Edwards]

I'm really not. Sweden has cast itself as a humanitarian superpower and its very, very reluctant to refuse asylum, and while there admittedly a bit more of a split in this, many in Sweden, and many on Swedish government, are reluctant to deport criminals, the logic being (and there's actually some merit in this if you're a consistent thinker) that if asylum is granted, it's because life at home is too dangerous to contemplate, therefore sending someone back to their country of origin is to put them in grave danger. The logic is difficult to disagree with, and the end result is that Sweden is probably the most welcoming country in earth for terrorists. Moreso even than Pakistan.

But you really are. To say that a welcome to a refugee is effectively a welcome to a terrorist is a twist too far. It's a Trumpism almost as blatantly reactionary as "they're bringing crime, drugs, their rapists". There are an estimated 65 million people in the world currently displaced by war and famine.  Closing doors indiscriminately won't make the problem go away, if anything it will only make it worse.

 

We also, Europe-wide, have in the last year imported tens of thousands of military-aged young men who were educated in Wahhabi, Saudi-funded madrassas. These are especially popular in - wait for it - Pakistan, despite the fact that Wahhabi as an identifier is pretty rare there.

 

If you're paying attention you'll also know that the Saudis are cheerleaders for the current invasion of Europe and their refusal to house displaced Syrians is for more reason than pure greed.

And if you're paying attention, you may note that it's the Deobandis, not the Wahhabis, (little difference in their extremist philosophies, but a distinction nonetheless) who pose the biggest threat in Pakistan. Despite a Sufi / Barelevi majority population, Deobandis control the majority of the mosques and madrassas there.

They pose a real threat to social cohesion in the UK as well. Again, despite a moderate majority of British Muslims, Deobandi Imams are gaining a strong foothold here too. Glasgow Central Mosque is a case in point - you'll maybe know that the lawyer Aemar Anwar, who spoke out against extremist influences, received death threats for doing so. Much stronger action is needed against the hate preachers I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Merry Christmas.  

[TRVMP]

But you really are. To say that a welcome to a refugee is effectively a welcome to a terrorist is a twist too far.

 

Which isn't what I said. Stop misrepresenting my position, it's the height of rudeness. I didn't equate refugees with terrorists, I said that if you adopt Sweden's refugee policy you welcome terrorists, and this is the inevitable outcome of a program where the right of asylum trumps the criminal record of the refugee.

 

 

It's a Trumpism almost as blatantly reactionary as "they're bringing crime, drugs, their rapists".

 

To his credit he did follow that up with" and some, I assume, are good people." I wouldn't put it the way he did but the crux of his argument is correct - the most desperate people tend to be the ones to cross illegally, along with the hundreds of thousands of mostly Northern Mexicans involved in the drug trade (in which the US, one must admit, is a willing participant), and there is a large criminal element there.

 

And the thing is, Mexican government and high society knows this better than anyone. Without the safety valve of El Norte through which to expel the massive underclass, Mexico would be even more of a failed state than it already is. Nobody hates Mexicans more than other Mexicans, which is why it's now a population bifurcated by a porous border it can't bear to see filled in.

 

When Donald I, the Hammer of Juarez sends approximately three million criminals from the US back to their home- mostly Mexico, but also El Salvador, Honduras and others - you watch carefully and tell me if the Mexicans treat their fellows with one hundredth of the fairness and dignity they were given here. Feel free to ask your pal in Sonoma.

 

 

There are an estimated 65 million people in the world currently displaced by war and famine.

 

There are indeed, and that's very sad. It's not a very compelling argument for letting in any old wispy-bearded moron from Tunisia with a book of matches and a driver's license, but that's the position Europe currently argues.

 

 

Closing doors indiscriminately won't make the problem go away, if anything it will only make it worse.

 

People keep saying this but I've yet to hear a compelling reason why that doesn't distill down to "let us in or we'll kill you."

 

 

 

And if you're paying attention, you may note that it's the Deobandis, not the Wahhabis, (little difference in their extremist philosophies, but a distinction nonetheless) who pose the biggest threat in Pakistan. Despite a Sufi / Barelevi majority population, Deobandis control the majority of the mosques and madrassas there.

 

I noted earlier, twice in fact, that despite Saudi efforts, Wahhabism has yet to really establish itself in Pakistan. But the Saudis play the long game, as does anyone truly committed to victory. From little acorns etc. Again, try arguing against my actual positions and not things you've made up to make yourself feel smart. "Pakistan is Wahhabi" is not my position, neither is "Most Pakistani madrassas are Wahhabi." What absolutely is the case that the recent influx of Pakistanis will include a not-inconsiderate percentage of Wahhabists.

 

 

They pose a real threat to social cohesion in the UK as well. Again, despite a moderate majority of British Muslims, Deobandi Imams are gaining a strong foothold here too. Glasgow Central Mosque is a case in point - you'll maybe know that the lawyer Aemar Anwar, who spoke out against extremist influences, received death threats for doing so. Much stronger action is needed against the hate preachers I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Yes, absolutely. I bear no ill will whatsoever towards the majority of British Muslims and Muslim-Americans. I simply believe that there's no compelling reason to import more of them en masse, any more than I'd advocate to flood Lahore with people from Essex or Aberdeen.

 

 

Merry Christmas.

 

You'll get a Merry Christmas when you promise to stop misrepresenting my arguments.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

You'll get a Merry Christmas when you promise to stop misrepresenting my arguments.

Oh come now Nacho, you're being a tad hypocritical here because you're the grand master of the straw man argument yourself.

[TRVMP]

Oh come now Nacho, you're being a tad hypocritical here because you're the grand master of the straw man argument yourself.

 

I knew you were going to post that When I do misrepresent arguments, or at least agree that I've done so, you'll recall that I retract and apologize. Sometimes I disagree that this is what I've done, but if I do so in the heat of the moment I'm more than happy to retract it.