Meanwhile in Palestine

[Rostere]

Arabs living in Israel do have the right to vote, although they are subject to discrimination in many parts of Israel.

 

The Arabs living in the occupied West Bank do not have the right to vote however, unlike the Jewish settlers who live there.

[TrashMan]

I love it how Isreal friggin breaks almost every treaty and convention the UN has, and nothing happens.

 

They annex territory, take control of cities depite having explicity signed not to and generally do crap like that. Yeah, kinda make it hard for me to root for them.

[Walsingham]

All you're doing is re-entrenching well established lines. It's the mechanics of the situation which define what is going to happen, not moral opinions.

 

Neither side can deliver a lasting peace strategy, ergo no lasting peace. 

 

I should add that there are dozens of equally worthy and far more interesting conflicts raging worldwide. Take an interest in them.

[Meshugger]

I love it how Isreal friggin breaks almost every treaty and convention the UN has, and nothing happens.

 

They annex territory, take control of cities depite having explicity signed not to and generally do crap like that. Yeah, kinda make it hard for me to root for them.

 

*sssssssshhhhh* my little feisty one......................communism is the only answer

[Rostere]

All you're doing is re-entrenching well established lines. It's the mechanics of the situation which define what is going to happen, not moral opinions.

 

Neither side can deliver a lasting peace strategy, ergo no lasting peace. 

 

I should add that there are dozens of equally worthy and far more interesting conflicts raging worldwide. Take an interest in them.

 

There are lots of similar ongoing conflicts I'm also very interested in, such as Tibet, Chechnya, Sinkiang, West Sahara, Kurdistan, and so on, which all can be adequately explained by knee-jerk nationalism and/or oil politics. There are several unique aspects to the Israeli/Palestinian one which exists in none of the above mentioned conflicts.

• The unlikely illegal mass immigration of one people to a completely foreign land (on the basis of religion!). If you would have asked me about establishing a Jewish state in Palestine around 1900 when the Jewish population was about 1%, I would have laughed and called you insane
• The lack of consensus on the conflict in media
• The absence of "heroes" or movements which I personally would give my support without many objections
• The pretty extreme one-sided support of Israel in the US
• The schizophrenic nature of Israeli society, which is ever-changing and contains many different groups with completely different goals

All of these points make the conflict unique and if not interesting to discuss, interesting to follow.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Rostere

[Arcoss]

 

Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US.

That's just not true, Arabs living in Israel don't have the right to vote, and are continuously discriminated against in person and in policy.

 

As a citizen of Israel myself I can tell you that not only that arabs do have a right to vote, arab women get the same rights as men which is a lot more than what they get in the arab countries

[JFSOCC]

So what's your view on this topic, I'm very curious.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US.

That's just not true, Arabs living in Israel don't have the right to vote, and are continuously discriminated against in person and in policy.

As a citizen of Israel myself I can tell you that not only that arabs do have a right to vote, arab women get the same rights as men which is a lot more than what they get in the arab countries

Israeli citizens have the right to vote. The question there is how many Arabs are allowed Israeli citizenship?

[Rostere]

Read the Hamas charter. Did ANC charter say anything similar about Whites? It was a Marxist organization, not a racist or fanatically religious one. You may also want to read about the history of massacres in Palestine before the establishment of Israel.

 

My original comparison was between the PLO and the ANC.

 

On the subject of Hamas, you should read this: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4353480,00.html

 

Hamas is the offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood operating in the Palestinian Territories. When they first came to power in Egypt, many people were worried that they might destabilize the region by initiating a conflict with Israel. The fringe right "pro-Israel" crowd went crazy and talked abut how USA should totally bomb Egypt.

 

It was not at all an entirely unfounded fear, though. I also had (have?) lots of doubts about the Muslim Brotherhood. Eventually they proved to be pragmatists though - who would have known? In hindsight, considering Egypt's economical ties with Israel and a comparison of their armies, this was pretty obvious. Now they are putting pressure on Hamas to "get clean" in order to become a viable partner for peace.

 

Peace gives prosperity. With power comes responsibility. And once the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (previously labelled terrorists just like the ANC, PLO and so on...) achieved power, they chose the only sensible path.

 

Not much to discuss with you then, since you admit you goal is to destroy Israel. Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US.

 

This is rather contradictory, so I don't really know where to start.

 

If there are indeed racial preference laws in the US, are we in agreement that these are unjust?

 

You have a very strange definition of "destroying Israel". If I wanted to abolish slavery in the United States in 1780, would that constitute "destroying the US" lessening the power of the White voting majority? I think it's also very strange how you think Jewish racial identity of Israel is so important. If anything, you as an American would know that a state based on a certain race is a bad idea. The absence of an American race does not mean that the US is worse off than other countries, I'd rather say the opposite. Do you think Hispanic migration to the US is "destroying" the US? When/if Hispanics achieve a voting majority, is the US "destroyed"? If Catholics become a voting majority? That's what a lot of Americans with rhetoric similar to yours claimed during the last part of the 19th century. 

 

With your definition of words, of course I want the destruction of any state on the Earth which is built on the principle of favouring one race over others. It is my duty as a moral being to want that. I care about the well-being and democratic rights of individuals, not the right of a race to take over someone else's land in order to have a country controlled by them.

 

The racial policies of Israel start here. Are you Jewish? Great, you're a citizen now. Palestinian? Sorry, don't want your kind around here. Wait, did you say you're a refugee who used to live in Israel? No, you can't come back, you're of the wrong race and we've already gotten rid of you once! (My apologies for the blatantly partial website - but the collection of quotes I've linked to is fairly good)

 

Most of the discrimination of Arabs in Israel are centered on homogeneous Arab communities, which systematically receive community services of lower quality (if at all - this situation is worst in the Negev) and from which land is confiscated by the state in order to be used by Jewish communities. Schools in Arab communities also receive less funding.

 

As an Arab living in a modern, mixed Arab-Israel community I don't think you're subject to a lot of discrimination at all. Arab women have lots of rights in Israel they don't have in the non-secular Arab states. On the other hand, mixing with Arabs is frowned upon by the right-wing elements of Israeli society. Like I've linked to before, over 50% of Israeli Jews believe that interracial marriage is equal to national treason.

 

One example of the systemic discrimination in courts is the famous case of the State of Israel vs. Ashgoyev in which a Jewish settler had shot a Palestinian boy protesting when his land was taken over by a Jewish settlement. The settler got a surprisingly low sentence of six months in prison, which the judge motivated with the nationalities of the involved. Of course I think it's good that he went to court at all, which is not to be taken for granted, but the precedent set there is sickening.

[Rostere]

Here's one point which Netanyahu is likely to address when Obama makes his trip to Israel.

 

Previous Israeli governments have demanded Pollard's (an Israeli spy) release from prison from both the Clinton and Bush Jr., demands which have been rejected. This has led to accusations of anti-semitism in these administrations, accusations which are also echoed by some American politicians in Congress.

 

What do you think, will Netanyahu demand Pollard's release again, and will this stall the talks for peace?

[TrashMan]

 

 

 

You have a very strange definition of "destroying Israel". If I wanted to abolish slavery in the United States in 1780, would that constitute "destroying the US" lessening the power of the White voting majority? I think it's also very strange how you think Jewish racial identity of Israel is so important. If anything, you as an American would know that a state based on a certain race is a bad idea. The absence of an American race does not mean that the US is worse off than other countries, I'd rather say the opposite. Do you think Hispanic migration to the US is "destroying" the US? When/if Hispanics achieve a voting majority, is the US "destroyed"? If Catholics become a voting majority? That's what a lot of Americans with rhetoric similar to yours claimed during the last part of the 19th century. 

 

I really don't see anything really wrong with a state based on a certain race.

As long as they aren't putting up that state in others poeple territory, whocares.

People have every right to want to perserve their race or stick with their own race/religion/whatever.

 

It's not wrong. It's not right. It just...is.

[Walsingham]

 

All you're doing is re-entrenching well established lines. It's the mechanics of the situation which define what is going to happen, not moral opinions.

 

Neither side can deliver a lasting peace strategy, ergo no lasting peace. 

 

I should add that there are dozens of equally worthy and far more interesting conflicts raging worldwide. Take an interest in them.

 

There are lots of similar ongoing conflicts I'm also very interested in, such as Tibet, Chechnya, Sinkiang, West Sahara, Kurdistan, and so on, which all can be adequately explained by knee-jerk nationalism and/or oil politics. There are several unique aspects to the Israeli/Palestinian one which exists in none of the above mentioned conflicts.

• The unlikely illegal mass immigration of one people to a completely foreign land (on the basis of religion!). If you would have asked me about establishing a Jewish state in Palestine around 1900 when the Jewish population was about 1%, I would have laughed and called you insane
• The lack of consensus on the conflict in media
• The absence of "heroes" or movements which I personally would give my support without many objections
• The pretty extreme one-sided support of Israel in the US
• The schizophrenic nature of Israeli society, which is ever-changing and contains many different groups with completely different goals

All of these points make the conflict unique and if not interesting to discuss, interesting to follow.

 

Well, that's an interesting perspective. But I have to query why you are interested at all in conflict? 

 

I don't pay any attention to this issue because I don't believe it's going to change. You should infer that I need to know when things are going to change. I have a practical interest. 

 

I'm not clear what yours is, though? Is it simply like watching an ant farm?

 

Come to that I'd be interested in hearing why everyone on this thread bothers to follow this issue.

[JFSOCC]

 

I really don't see anything really wrong with a state based on a certain race.

 

You're joking right?

Tell me you're joking.

 

Racial purity ideals have a rather sordid history. They are the cause of countless genocides across the planet. Not just in places where they were "in other people's territory"

[Zoraptor]

It depends on exactly what 'based on a certain race' means. There are plenty- just about all, really- countries in Europe which are based on the geographical lines of a 'certain race'- anglo saxons speaking english, celts speaking french, germans speaking german, bulgars speaking bulgarian, turks speaking turkish etc. There's no intrinsic problem with it as a concept, sometimes there are problems with the application, and the tendency to stick with and lionise what you know and are familiar with is certainly a key trait in humanity.

[TrashMan]

 

I really don't see anything really wrong with a state based on a certain race.

 

You're joking right?

Tell me you're joking.

 

Racial purity ideals have a rather sordid history. They are the cause of countless genocides across the planet. Not just in places where they were "in other people's territory"

 

No, I ain't kidding.

 

Every idea or desire can be a cause for evil deeds.

 

There is nothing evil about wanting to preserve something - evil comes from what you do to achive it.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Do you think Hispanic migration to the US is "destroying" the US? When/if Hispanics achieve a voting majority, is the US "destroyed"? If Catholics become a voting majority? That's what a lot of Americans with rhetoric similar to yours claimed during the last part of the 19th century.

Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous.

 

With your definition of words, of course I want the destruction of any state on the Earth which is built on the principle of favouring one race over others. It is my duty as a moral being to want that. I care about the well-being and democratic rights of individuals, not the right of a race to take over someone else's land in order to have a country controlled by them.

I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country. Edited March 10, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gorth]

 

Do you think Hispanic migration to the US is "destroying" the US? When/if Hispanics achieve a voting majority, is the US "destroyed"? If Catholics become a voting majority? That's what a lot of Americans with rhetoric similar to yours claimed during the last part of the 19th century.

Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous.

 

>With your definition of words, of course I want the destruction of any state on the Earth which is built on the principle of favouring one race over others. It is my duty as a moral being to want that. I care about the well-being and democratic rights of individuals, not the right of a race to take over someone else's land in order to have a country controlled by them.

I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country.

 

 

About time the Scania, Halland and Blekinge got liberated from Swedish occupation and freed from the cultural oppression exerted by the regime in Stockholm...

[Rostere]

 

 

All you're doing is re-entrenching well established lines. It's the mechanics of the situation which define what is going to happen, not moral opinions.

 

Neither side can deliver a lasting peace strategy, ergo no lasting peace. 

 

I should add that there are dozens of equally worthy and far more interesting conflicts raging worldwide. Take an interest in them.

 

There are lots of similar ongoing conflicts I'm also very interested in, such as Tibet, Chechnya, Sinkiang, West Sahara, Kurdistan, and so on, which all can be adequately explained by knee-jerk nationalism and/or oil politics. There are several unique aspects to the Israeli/Palestinian one which exists in none of the above mentioned conflicts.

• The unlikely illegal mass immigration of one people to a completely foreign land (on the basis of religion!). If you would have asked me about establishing a Jewish state in Palestine around 1900 when the Jewish population was about 1%, I would have laughed and called you insane
• The lack of consensus on the conflict in media
• The absence of "heroes" or movements which I personally would give my support without many objections
• The pretty extreme one-sided support of Israel in the US
• The schizophrenic nature of Israeli society, which is ever-changing and contains many different groups with completely different goals

All of these points make the conflict unique and if not interesting to discuss, interesting to follow.

 

Well, that's an interesting perspective. But I have to query why you are interested at all in conflict? 

 

I don't pay any attention to this issue because I don't believe it's going to change. You should infer that I need to know when things are going to change. I have a practical interest. 

 

I'm not clear what yours is, though? Is it simply like watching an ant farm?

 

Come to that I'd be interested in hearing why everyone on this thread bothers to follow this issue.

 

Why does anyone read the news? There's a lot of things happening all around the world which are either amazing or horrific, and sometimes they also have an actual impact on your life. I don't think anything I read about Israel/Palestine will change my life in a significant way, but I take it you also have a curiosity towards happenings in the world and don't always skip past the news which does not have a direct impact on yourself?

 

I would actually rather compare my personal interest in this conflict to an interest in history. Can I say with some certainty that you've read some WW2 history books? I consider the most interesting parts the ones where you were not sure who would win, the events which changed the war - the Battle of Britain, the arrival of Montgomery in North Africa, and Mussolini's catastrophic invasion of Greece which might have ended up costing Hitler a victory against the Soviets. When I read about these events I think for myself about how things could have played out differently, and exactly why things happened the way they did. I enjoy discussing these things with other people who are interested in history, and we can talk at length about differences in military equipment, strategy, politics and so on.

 

In very much the same way, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a war about human rights, a war with an outcome that is hard to predict. Instead of military equipment, there are human rights and UN agreements, instead of military strategy there are demographic changes, instead of battles there are elections. So you could say I'm observing a historical conflict in real-time.

 

It depends on exactly what 'based on a certain race' means. There are plenty- just about all, really- countries in Europe which are based on the geographical lines of a 'certain race'- anglo saxons speaking english, celts speaking french, germans speaking german, bulgars speaking bulgarian, turks speaking turkish etc. There's no intrinsic problem with it as a concept, sometimes there are problems with the application, and the tendency to stick with and lionise what you know and are familiar with is certainly a key trait in humanity.

 

Sure. But let's not discuss black and white when we are really discussing a continuous scale between black and white. You're right in that naming a country after a certain people which happen to live there is rather harmless. But after that there is a slope towards nationalism, ethnocentricity and even outright racism.

 

Suppose I live in a country with 75% Swedish and 25% Norwegians. I then go on to write to the constitution of my country, which I start off by stating "myCountry is a Swedish country..." while making no mention of any Norwegians at all. Still pretty innocent, right? But this means for example that I can prevent politicians from running for office if they claim that myCountry is also a Norwegian country.

 

The next step is to address Norwegians specifically in the law, in order to deny them rights offered to everyone else. For example, I could write that Norwegians from outside of myCountry who marry a Swede should be denied citizenship while this is normally offered for people of other nationalities, in order to keep all those filthy Norwegians from messing up the demographics of my country which I'd like to be 100% Swedish.

 

So while small traces of 19th- and 20th- century nationalism still exists in some European countries, I still consider these universally bad, even if they're only 1% bad and 99% harmless. To move further towards racial special treatment under the law is always a bad thing, no matter how harmless every small step might seem.

 

 

 

I really don't see anything really wrong with a state based on a certain race.

 

You're joking right?

Tell me you're joking.

 

Racial purity ideals have a rather sordid history. They are the cause of countless genocides across the planet. Not just in places where they were "in other people's territory"

 

No, I ain't kidding.

 

Every idea or desire can be a cause for evil deeds.

 

There is nothing evil about wanting to preserve something - evil comes from what you do to achive it.

 

If someone said to me that they like to preserve their cultural traditions under democratic law, I'd say go for it.

 

If someone said they like to live segregated and/or preserve racial purity under democratic law I'd just think they were very corny.

 

On the other hand, if you start to mess with the law to treat different cultures or races differently, you've crossed the line to "evil deeds" - see above.

 

 

Do you think Hispanic migration to the US is "destroying" the US? When/if Hispanics achieve a voting majority, is the US "destroyed"? If Catholics become a voting majority? That's what a lot of Americans with rhetoric similar to yours claimed during the last part of the 19th century.

Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous.

 

>With your definition of words, of course I want the destruction of any state on the Earth which is built on the principle of favouring one race over others. It is my duty as a moral being to want that. I care about the well-being and democratic rights of individuals, not the right of a race to take over someone else's land in order to have a country controlled by them.

I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country.

 

 

Democrat plan for taking over? Do I detect the Global Left at it again?

 

If you're interested in how the Swedes would feel, why aren't you interested in how the Palestinians felt when they became a minority? Especially considering they aren't really a minority if the millions of refugees who were driven from their homes were allowed to return home.

 

Also, IIRC Sweden has the second highest percentage of foreign-born citizens in the EU. Also, we didn't have an official language until the current government pushed it recently. Besides ideas of freedom of speech and other democratic rights, if those can be called Swedish, I'd say there's nothing "Swedish" to keep, so...

[TrashMan]

 

No, I ain't kidding.

 

Every idea or desire can be a cause for evil deeds.

 

There is nothing evil about wanting to preserve something - evil comes from what you do to achive it.

 

If someone said to me that they like to preserve their cultural traditions under democratic law, I'd say go for it.

 

If someone said they like to live segregated and/or preserve racial purity under democratic law I'd just think they were very corny.

 

On the other hand, if you start to mess with the law to treat different cultures or races differently, you've crossed the line to "evil deeds" - see above.

 

 

Some people might want to perserve their culture..or language..or some species.. or a race... or the "nation" (as it ties to the culture)

It is sad when something is irrevocably lost to the world..and yet time and change lead to errosion of all things.

 

Unfortunately there are no perfect answers or methods. Perserving a culture is HARD and friggin impossible if you want to be "democratic".

 

Ironicly, the only constant is change...which means that the democracy, freedom and equality that you fight so strongly for today is also doomed to fail some day.

 

[Tsuga C]

Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous.

I give this book five stars, WoD. Though nearly a decade old, it's still very relevant today and deals with the subject you're debating with Rostere.

 

I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country.

This pretty well sums up what happens when you invite the Third World in mass--you de facto become the

with all of its crime and social pathologies. My opinion of the this filth and those supportive of them cannot be typed here for risk of a ban. Use your imagination, multiply by 10, and you'll be in the ball park of my disgust for all of those of this ilk, LibProgs and Third Worlders alike. Edited March 10, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Zoraptor]

Sure. But let's not discuss black and white when we are really discussing a continuous scale between black and white. You're right in that naming a country after a certain people which happen to live there is rather harmless. But after that there is a slope towards nationalism, ethnocentricity and even outright racism.

Not an inevitable slope though, (we = awesome) !== (you = suck). There's no need for me to think NZ = awesome ergo Swedes? who'd name a country after a pretty disgusting root vegetable anyway? In many cases in ex colonial areas having better demarcated countries based on actual ethnic divisions rather than where some 19th century toff with an immaculately waxed moustache happened to put his pen would have been immeasurably better.

 

It isn't that I think defining countries along ethnic boundaries is a good thing per se, I just don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, and you do have to live in reality some times rather than deciding that everything will be OK if we sit around the campfire and sing Kumbai Ya (sic). Personally I couldn't care less what the ethnicity of a NZer is, though to a certain extent that is the benefit of living in a 'new' country that has had most of the good learned experiences of old countries with a lot less (but certainly not none) of the bad history it was learned from.

[Rostere]

 

I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country.

This pretty well sums up what happens when you invite the Third World in mass--you de facto become the

with all of its crime and social pathologies. My opinion of the this filth and those supportive of them cannot be typed here for risk of a ban. Use your imagination, multiply by 10, and you'll be in the ball park of my disgust for all of those of this ilk, LibProgs and Third Worlders alike.

 

That is a very interesting video you linked to. However, don't get all carried away, things are not half as bad as they seem. It's always fun to see how Sweden is portrayed in other countries. Let me clear a few things up for you all.

 

One of the guys speaking is from "Sverigedemokraterna" a Swedish political party which used to have meetings in Nazi uniforms (they were born out of the Swedish branch of White Aryan Resistance). Shockingly, they are today staunchly "pro-Israel" and one of their representatives in the program is also a Jew. How he can justify for himself to join a movement with such obvious connections I might never understand. This in combination with your last sentence makes me worry a bit about you (Tsuga C).

 

The statement that "Muslims" are a core constituent of the Left is an outright lie. Muslims who are active believers are generally moral conservatives and therefore tend to vote for "Moderaterna" or "Kristdemokraterna" - parties to the right. There was actually a public outcry a while back when it was revealed that Moderaterna had an imam representative in local politics who had said some pretty unsavoury stuff about women's rights (out of the many political errors you could do in Sweden, never EVER mess with the feminists or you might as well end your political career right there). The Swedish Left would seem unconcievably irreligious and LGBTQ- friendly for an American, so I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could ever believe that orthodox Muslims would vote for them.

 

On the other hand it might very well be true that Arabs vote for parties to the Left consistently. That is because a lot of the refugees who come from the Middle East has historically been irreligious, socialist or even communist, persecuted in the countries they've fled from. For example, there have been demonstrations in the centre of Stockholm for the overthrowing of the Iranian government - both from supporters of the Shah and from anti-religious leftists (YES, I know Iranians aren't really Arabs BUT...)! A large part of the Arabs are also Assyriac Christians. So when you read about in the news how Christians are persecuted in Iraq and now Syria, many of them end up in Sweden. For example, out of the Iraqis who live in Sweden, a majority are Christians (unexpected, huh?). So, in Sweden, Arab does not at all equal Muslim.

 

Which brings us to another part of the video. About the only thing that is true in the video is that there are some pretty violent "pro- Palestinian" tendencies in Malmö. First, southern Sweden is pretty much the center for all forms of racism in Sweden, and in southern Sweden, Malmö is the capital of the leftists. But the guys you see in the video throwing stuff are obviously not neo- Nazis. There are also probably not many believing Muslims in that demonstration. My very qualified guess is that most of them are from AFA ("Anti- fascist front") and leftist Arabs, who still believes it's the seventies and they're members of the PFLP. In Sweden, if you're far- Left, you look at the RAF with really rosy glasses and the at PFLP too, by extension. To be honest I was surprised at the accounts of how lenient the police was on these far- left demonstrators, they've been quite tough on other occasions.

 

Really, an ironic explanation of what happens would be that we've got pro- Palestinian communists throwing rocks on pro- Israel fascists while policemen with neo- Nazi sympathies are looking at the whole mess, wondering what to do.

[Meshugger]

 

I'd say there's nothing "Swedish" to keep, so...

 

Interesting. Care to elaborate? Like what is typically Swedish? Or German, French, English, Japanese or Chinese? For example, should Scotland declare itself independent from the UK? Why or why not? 

 

It is still somewhat topic-related since it goes back on how you should identify an Israeli/Palestinian nationstate.

[Tsuga C]

The Swedish Left would seem unconcievably irreligious and LGBTQ- friendly for an American, so I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could ever believe that orthodox Muslims would vote for them.

 

On the other hand it might very well be true that Arabs vote for parties to the Left consistently. That is because a lot of the refugees who come from the Middle East has historically been irreligious, socialist or even communist, persecuted in the countries they've fled from.

And it would seem that you've answered your own question, correctly I might add. Another reason that they'll vote for the Left is because the Left is interested in showing its--*AHEM*--moral superiority through the enlightened values of tolerance and multi-culturalism. The Right would, quite sensibly, tell the damned Third Worlders to shape up or go back where they came from and that's not something that the Third Worlders care to hear.

 

Personally, I'd begin the mass deportations immediately and shoot dead any who resisted. These people have no interest in becoming Swedes--embracing your ways and mores; rather, they wish to intimidate and come to dominate Sweden. This is nothing less than an invasion by a hostile people and should be treated as such.

[JFSOCC]

Personally, I'd begin the mass deportations immediately and shoot dead any who resisted.

thank god you're not in control then.