Bomb and shooting in Norway

[Nepenthe]

which apparently = racist fascist nazi here.

See, I'm not the only one who can play martyr here.

 

I'm personally skeptical of multiculturalism, especially when it means integrating a culture where, say 95 % unemployment and polygamy are the first things that need to be accepted...

 

However, I feel that when discussed on a macro level, it definitely has a strong connection to xenophobia, since it opposes diversity in general, and not bending over and abandoning core tenets of your society to appease a minority. So we're kind of back to my usual stance, I can't say multiculturalism is GOOD or it's BAD, more like a little bit of it is really good, but embracing it wholeheartedly, without criticism, allowing everybody to do their thing, except with a government-sponsored Western European standrad of living... no thanks.

 

And, like I said when I mentioned fascism before, it is just a belief in a certain type of totalitarian society, if I wanted to just label someone, I'd use "nazi" like you did. ;P

 

Also, shouldn't really post after having just woken up, doesn't make much sense, but then that's not really a requirement in this thread, is it?

[GreasyDogMeat]

I can't say multiculturalism is GOOD or it's BAD, more like a little bit of it is really good, but embracing it wholeheartedly, without criticism, allowing everybody to do their thing, except with a government-sponsored Western European standrad of living... no thanks.

Well put.

[Nepenthe]

Actually, to paraphrase a professor of mine... a liberal western democracy cannot accept those, whose views are an antithesis to it (whether fascists, jihadists etc.) without, eventually, ceasing to be a liberal western democracy. When the society no longer has shared values, it stops being a society. We already see the first signs of that, here...

[Nightshape]

Multiculturalism can work, but only if there is a willingness to integrate. Some communities have, and do. Others do not even attempt to do so, and that is the problem. Specifically those of a conservative muslim background tends to result in segragation, by choice, of native and immigrant communities. In which I hold the governments of europe entirely responsible, despite the fact they're utterly uninterested in being responsible.

 

Societies larger immigration problems stopped being about skin colour, I believe atleast, a long time ago - Its more about culture, and the lack of will shown by immigrants to adopt the culture of there new home.

 

Here is an example: Spain is a popular destination for british people to emmagrate to, but they're often not interested in spanish culture, what they're really after is England with spanish weather. There are pleanty of communities in spain which are essencially english communities, that have no interest in spanish.

 

Likewise, I also give you Bradford, where the exact same has happend in England, except its pakistani immigrants.

 

They're identical, and they're wrong, and its why mass immigration is bad opposed to, steady controlled immigration.

 

That's before you even begin with how essencially immigration strip mines developing nations of their educated citizens.

 

I don't think multiculturalism really works, it just leads to lots of confused, frightend people. I give you the EDL.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't know if this is what Boo is seeing where he lives, but its certainly a problem in Arizona, hence the recent backlash of laws etc. When immigrants are willing to conform to their new countries laws multiculturalism is great... not so much when you have invaders under the guise of immigrants.

 

My experiences with it are slight. As a small and poor country we were not targeted for mass immigration. The only substantial number of immigrants is our "chinatown" which hasn't been a source of any major trouble.

 

However the same self whipping approach is accepted by our political elites regarding matters of vital national interest. They're ignoring the rise of fundamentalism in one borough with a substantial muslim population, spouting the same multiculturalist rethoric in the case of Kosovo (to disguise the fact that they want to let the issue go down the drain) etc.

 

The problem is not the muslims per se, its the ideology of multiculturalism and its proponents that's making them untouchable. It has become perverse to the degree that I can, in the news, hear anti-serbian, pro-separatist attitudes from muslim leaders (in that borough) - some of them borderline treason. On the other hand, anyone with a nationalistic platform gets jailed instantly.

 

 

Some cultures are fully able and willing to assimilate. Others like for example the chinese, don't assimilate but don't cause trouble either (obviously there is crime but its not ideologically motivated).

It is only the Islamic immigrants that:

1. fail to fully assimilate and,

2. participate in terrorism

 

When is the last time you heard of a Hindu or Chinese, or a Polish immigrant planning a religiously motivated bombing attack?

 

Yet...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...ood-attack.html

 

@Grom: I will not accept it not being open to discussion. If its not open to discussion, its no different from any dogma you care to mention.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[pmp10]

Multiculturalism can work, but only if there is a willingness to integrate. Some communities have, and do. Others do not even attempt to do so, and that is the problem. Specifically those of a conservative muslim background tends to result in segragation, by choice, of native and immigrant communities. In which I hold the governments of europe entirely responsible, despite the fact they're utterly uninterested in being responsible.

That's very interesting but how do you suggest the governments handle the problem?

Issue a immigrant per square km quota?

Or maybe demand some level of language fluency after say 5 years?

[Nightshape]

Multiculturalism can work, but only if there is a willingness to integrate. Some communities have, and do. Others do not even attempt to do so, and that is the problem. Specifically those of a conservative muslim background tends to result in segragation, by choice, of native and immigrant communities. In which I hold the governments of europe entirely responsible, despite the fact they're utterly uninterested in being responsible.

That's very interesting but how do you suggest the governments handle the problem?

Issue a immigrant per square km quota?

Or maybe demand some level of language fluency after say 5 years?

 

Two very good suggestions.

 

I do think that they shouldn't be able to surplant entire cities, towns, and villages.

 

That said, I believe that the conditions on immigrations should be the same as for me going to say the US, or Canada, or any country really.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Nightshape

[Meshugger]

Compared to other killers, this guy is interesting since:

 

1) He wasn't suicidal, yet he wanted to get caught (lite martyr-complex?)

2) You have to have a tremendous rage to go on a rampage and kill 80 people, but he still had enough self-control to spare an 11 year old when the kid pleaded for mercy

3) Allegedly socially conservative, but still not against homosexuality and other generally "conservative" issues

4) Finally, his target was strangely refined. It wasn't the muslims in general, or even imams and similar people in power. It was instead the youth section of a party that he blamed for destroying the norwegian culture.

 

 

/me scratches head...

 

That was my point all along.

 

no it wasn't, but am not gonna rehash the obvious that you is intrigued by brev's message.

 

your basic premise is that we should not ignore the message just 'cause the messenger is a pathetic, cowardly, and monstrous killer o' children. you find some value in the message.

 

Gromnir, on the other hand, is quite comfortable dismissing the messenger. there is a very long list o' anti-islamic commentators who gots very impressive resumes... scientists, diplomats, philosophers, doctors, etc. many such commentators has not felt the need to plagiarize, and virtually none worth mentioning has gone on killing sprees. the last thing we is gonna do is give some delinquent with daddy issues an opportunity to set the agenda on multiculturalism in europe. is precisely 'cause he resorted to such a cowardly act that his message is deserving less/no consideration... but you don't get that 'cause you agree with him... and you continue to defend his intellect and courage.

 

we walked out the fed court house a couple a days ago and were accosted by a dirty and bearded fellow who assured us that fbi were involved in human trafficking with mexican drug cartels. he sounded at least as coherent as boo or vol. am guessing he had not bathed in at least a week, though we did not recognize him from the local soup kitchen and homeless shelter where we volunteer. we didn't pay much attention to the fellow. would you? *snort* even so, as far as we know, grimy conspiracy theorist never killed dozens o' kids in an attempt to get us to listen to his message. neither grimy guy nor brev has any academic, professional or personal life experience that we is aware o' to be making their relative messages worthy o' consideration, so as between dirty and bearded and mass-murdering prepster, am gonna actual be more likely to listen to the guy who looks like a walking lice and tick farm. heck, the dirty fellow could turn out to be a former fed himself, which would at least give him some expertise. there is at least a possible (if improbable) reason to consider dirty-guy. brev gots nothing... dead bodies and a plagiarized manifesto.

 

fascination with brev as a kinda unique monster? sure, that is understandable... but to actually consider the merits o' his message when his only notable accomplishment in life is mass murder? at least ted were actual smart. brev is simply the 2011 version with more idiot appeal.

 

given his educational and personal accomplishments, is unlikely that we would take breivik's narcissistic and rambling manifesto serious if we had read it on july 21, 2011. the guy were a nobody and 1,500 pages o' doggerel and stolen material woulda' been evoking maybe a smidgen o' scorn and a dollop o' amusement. read today? why? his message is less relevant today, not more.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I find him interesting from psychological point of view. People like Dahmer and Bundy are easy to "understand" since they killed because of a sexual desire to do so. But people like Breivik, McVeigh and the unabomber, they did incomprehensive acts of violence without any basic desire, but rather out of a weird sense of desperation and hate. For me, that makes them "interesting" because i cannot phantom on what exactly makes them tick.

 

It is pretty much the fear of the everyday man to snap and kill everyone that they might wish that keeps me compelled.

[Rosbjerg]

Two very good suggestions.

 

I do think that they shouldn't be able to surplant entire cities, towns, and villages.

 

That said, I believe that the conditions on immigrations should be the same as for me going to say the US, or Canada, or any country really.

 

I'd be very pissed if I moved to America and they told me I had to move to a small town outside a city I wanted to live in, because the immigrant quota was filled.

[Gorgon]

Integration happens when the kids go to the same schools, have the same interests etc. While I don't believe in forcing it, ghettos are usually not a positive factor.

[Blarghagh]

So, ex-Smiths singer Morrissey said it's a tragedy, but it's nothing compared to what goes on every day at MacDonalds and KFC's all over the world.

 

I just- I don't- WHAT?

[Nepenthe]

Two very good suggestions.

 

I do think that they shouldn't be able to surplant entire cities, towns, and villages.

 

That said, I believe that the conditions on immigrations should be the same as for me going to say the US, or Canada, or any country really.

 

I'd be very pissed if I moved to America and they told me I had to move to a small town outside a city I wanted to live in, because the immigrant quota was filled.

Well, if you were moving to a suburb with, say, 95 % scandinavians or nordics, it might be a good idea. Otherwise, not necessarily so much...

[Nightshape]

Two very good suggestions.

 

I do think that they shouldn't be able to surplant entire cities, towns, and villages.

 

That said, I believe that the conditions on immigrations should be the same as for me going to say the US, or Canada, or any country really.

 

I'd be very pissed if I moved to America and they told me I had to move to a small town outside a city I wanted to live in, because the immigrant quota was filled.

 

It depends upon why you're moving, it almost seems like anyone can walk into europe, try getting into the states, you'll need to be sponsered by your workplace, visa's etc...

 

It just seems like hard work is all, and it depends upon the reason for the move.

 

I was thinking more about economic migration.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Nightshape

[Vilhelm]

When is the last time you heard of a Hindu or Chinese, or a Polish immigrant planning a religiously motivated bombing attack?

 

Not to be that guy, but...

 

Europol's EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT) records a total of 249 terrorist attacks in the EU in 2010, in which seven people died and scores of others were injured. Most of these were related to violent separatist, nationalist, or anarchist activities. Three attacks were attributed to Islamist terrorist groups, of which two were aimed at causing mass casualties

 

Source.

 

Granted, it's not the United States, but it shows just how ridiculous the focus on Islamic terrorist groups is considering the amount of non-muslim terrorists.

 

Edit: Yes, most of them were politically motivated, but there is really no difference between politically and religiously motivated terrorist attacks. The one in Norway is on the edge of being political and religious (and I lean to call it more politically rather than religiously motivated). Nevertheless, the motivation of a terrorist attack doesn't make it any better.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Vilhelm

[Drowsy Emperor]

I was talking about immigrants causing terrorism.

 

The article doesn't actually say what this "terrorism" consists of and what the nationality/religion the majority of them belong to.

Many of these, like separatist movements are confined to one or two countries. Some, like the anarchists more often engage in property destruction than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if nationalist attacks (like skinheads) on immigrants were also classified as terrorism.

 

As terrorism goes I don't see any world spanning organizations except Islamic ones.

 

But even the most hardcore right wingers don't see Islam as a threat militarily or through terrorism, (after all terrorism isn't very far reaching) but through demographics/unchecked immigration* (mostly) and ideology (to a lesser extent).

 

*Wikipedia Norway stats

Year Muslims Percent

1980 1,006 0.02%

1990 19,189 0.45%

2000 56,458 1.30%

2010 98,953 2.03%

 

Total fertility rate for Norwegian residents by country of birth in 2004: Norway (1.8 ), Somalia (4.4), Iraq (4.3), Morocco (3.6), Pakistan (3.2), Turkey (2.3), Iran (1.6), Vietnam (2.0), Sri Lanka (2.7), India (1.8 ), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (1.7).

As is plain, for every 2 ethnic Norwegians approximately 15-20 muslims are born in Norway.

 

Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman.[1] This can be "translated" as 2 children per woman to replace the parents, plus a third of a child to make up for the higher probability of boys being born, and early mortality prior to the end of their fertile life.

 

Obviously, there are a lot more Norwegians so the number of Norwegians born still exceeds all minority groups combined, but in the long run its a losing game. The 1.8 Norwegian fertility isn't high enough to sustain the native population.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Drowsy Emperor

[Morgoth]

I'm not really worried about Muslims "overtaking" anyones country. Once they reach a certain number (and don't assimilate) they'll just get kicked out.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm not really worried about Muslims "overtaking" anyones country. Once they reach a certain number (and don't assimilate) they'll just get kicked out.

 

I concur that the problem aren't the muslims themselves but the "head in the sand" multiculturalism propagated by EU politicians.

[Morgoth]

Well, there's the political reality, there's the media reality, and then there's the real reality.

 

Nobody really wants to become a minority in his/her own country. All I'm saying is is that reality will eventually prevail over what media and politics is trying to infuse us. And it won't be pretty I'm afraid.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Morgoth

[obyknven]

Eueopeans must be more tolerant.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...-UK-cities.html

 

Edited July 29, 2011 by obyknven

[Nightshape]

Eueopeans must be more tolerant.

 

http://quitenormal.wordpress.com/2011/07/2...aw-zones-in-uk/

 

 

If that actually happend, I would break those laws constantly.

[Drowsy Emperor]

You can laugh, but people are inherently attracted to strict moral codes - if they lack one they often gravitate towards it. I believe, though I can't find the stats that Islam has the most converts in Europe of all the major religions.

[HoonDing]

Problem isn't really islam, since most third generation immigrants in Western Europe are just closet Muslims. The main problem is that they're not productive to society.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The main problem is that they're not productive to society.

 

Explain this to me please.

[HoonDing]

Keep in mind I'm speaking for the urban wastelands of my own country only, in particular the nation's capitol (ironically, also the captitol of Europe) where 2/3 of the population is of immigrant (mostly Northern-African) descent (incidentally, some parts of the capitol have 96% population of immigrant descent). Basically, in many cases it goes like this: little or no education -> no job prospects -> descent into life of crime and/or leeching off the social services.

 

Most third generation immigrants also usually are arranged to marry a person of the countryside of their home-country, which is then brought to the country. This person usually only speaks the language of the home country only and is unfamiliar with Western culture, continuing the cycle.

 

(There's of course also the cluster**** of French-speaking fleeing Brussels en masse and moving to Dutch-speaking communities bordering the nation's capitol, taking them over, but that's a different matter entirely. Let's just say if the Dutch-speaking weren't mellowed by centuries of being conquered and down-trodden by pretty much every major country, there would've been quite the historyof civil wars here).

Edited July 29, 2011 by virumor

[Morgoth]

What happens to the (mostly) French speaking Brusselers when Belgium breaks up? Isn't Brussel in Flemish territory?