View Full Version : Possibly the most pathetic display of racism ever.
HoreTore
08-06-2009, 09:38
Haven't seen a topic here about the gang war in Copenhagen, so i thought I'd start one...
For those who don't know about it, the situation is basically as follows:
A few years ago, Hells Angels and the other dominant gang(can't remember who, Bandidos perhaps?) in Copenhagen fought for control over the city. Hells Angels won, but the war bled them dry, as a lot of them ended up serving long prison sentences. This lead to a power vacuum, which a relatively small immigrant gang, mostly confined to one part of the city, saw as a chance to grow and dominate the city. As was said, was done. The immigrant gang took over more and more of Hells Angels' criminal activity, until finally, it all exploded in a full war this winter.
Now the fun stuff begins. You see, Hells Angels actually have a lot of support from the danish population. The reason? They're fighting mulims. You see, in the minds of some (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025840.php) nutjobs, Hells Angels are the heroic defenders of the white Dane against the muslim hordes trying to overrun the country....
So what are the Hells Angels up to then, what are the activities they're protecting? Well, it includes the following at least...
- Drugs. Importing, dealing, etc.
- Human trafficking, for prostitution.
- Extortion.
- Torpedo activities.
- Robbery.
- Smuggling.
- Petty theft.
And let's not forget that their Norwegian chapter is responsible for the only terrorist attack on Norway ever...
Honestly, who in their right mind is capable of supporting such a group? How is it possible to say "yeah, that group of violent criminals is better than that other group of violent criminals"? I mean, the emergent gang is trying to take over Hells Angels domains, ie. they plan to be doing exactly the same as what the white danes in Hells Angels have been doing for decades...
I guess they have that rock&roll renegade born to be wild image going for them. White trash fighting muslim trash, fine with me provided keep killing eachother.
HoreTore
08-06-2009, 09:58
I guess they have that rock&roll renegade born to be wild image going for them.
If we're talking about 14-year old giggling schoolgirls*, fine, I'll accept that excuse. As for everyone else..... No.
*that includes my ex.... even though she was born 23 years ago.
InsaneApache
08-06-2009, 10:12
To ask the question means you've obviously not seen easy rider. :book:
@Horetore
Well people are idiots, myself included. I'd pick the Hell's Angel's over muslim gangs, it's scum but it's our scum, as we already have scum we don't need more scum. In the end the muslims are guests and should behave like guests.
Samurai Waki
08-06-2009, 10:27
Lived in So. Cal. long enough to know, that any, and all gangs are bad news (and bad for business... but great for us lawyer types!) it didn't really matter what race or nationality they were, some were local, others imported, but they make life hell for everyone.
Anyhow, Hells Angels aren't Danish, they're an extension of a similarly named group of neanderthals who once roamed the US and Canada in vast swathes, but ultimately, whether it be through leaders getting jailed, or some of them just getting bored with it, became something of a ghost. I'm not sure why the Hells Angels have continued to persist for so long in Europe, but turf wars are gonna happen, its almost unavoidable, nature of the beast, if they've consolidated their gains, and wiped out everyone else, some guys are going to have the great idea that they don't like the current leadership and are going to splinter, and you have the same situation all over again.
I'm not sure why the Hells Angels have continued to persist for so long in Europe.
Most people see them as a club of Harley Davidson enthousiasts, and for the most part that is true, it's hard to fight them. In Denmark we see their true nature.
@Horetore
Well people are idiots, myself included. I'd pick the Hell's Angel's over muslim gangs, it's scum but it's our scum, as we already have scum we don't need more scum. In the end the muslims are guests and should behave like guests.
And we have guests over and should behave accordingly. :juggle2:
You see in arabian and other countries it often is "Would you like some tea? We don't have much but you can have what you want! Here, take some of that food..."
In the western world it often is "GTFO my lawn!"
:shrug:
And we have guests over and should behave accordingly. :juggle2:
Of course. But immigrant crime pisses me of more than native crime, they have been welcomed in our society's it's abusing our hospitality. So if an immigrant shoots a Hells Angel it's 'good riddance', and if an Hell's Angel kills a criminal immigrant it's 'hehe good riddance'. That's a double standard, but that is how it is.
Here in Quebec they are the scourge of God. At least they were. We had a big police operation a few months back that hit them really hard, and their Boss of Bosses was sent to jail for a long time a few years back. But before that they pretty much ran the province and did as they pleased and they were hyper-violent. And a lot of people thought it was just fine.
But then they set off a car bomb in a residential district - an attempted hit -and it killed an 11 year-old boy and everything changed. They didn't care that they killed the kid, but the public was seriously peeved and not long after the cops started smacking them down. Now their bunkers are seized and bulldozed and there are ongoing mass arrests.
Personally, if I was in charge, I'd disappear these *******. There's no reason we have to tolerate them.
Crazed Rabbit
08-06-2009, 18:28
A couple years back, the police in my home county did a big raid on the Banditos around here. There hadn't been a lot of violence, just accusations of smuggling and the like. The leader of the group was only made to promise not to enter the county any more at the end of it so it seems they didn't have much.
But before that, in my hometown, I saw a poster urging donations to their legal defense fund in a restaurant (not a bar).
As for the preference of one gang over the other, it might be just "better the devil we know" than racism for some (not all) people.
CR
So....basically a group of criminals is beating on another group of criminals. The bystanders support criminals of their color. I don't see a problem here, it's just human nature.
Kadagar_AV
08-06-2009, 20:37
Hells Angels have moral codes not shared by muslim gangs.
I've ran into HA on a few occasions, they always treated me with respect and I have had no problem drinking some beer with them.
The muslim gangmembers I've met though... Don't even get me started.
I think it makes perfect sence that people support HA in this case.
HoreTore
08-06-2009, 21:15
Hells Angels have moral codes not shared by muslim gangs.
Oh come on. Either you're on a trip here, or the Hells Angels you've got over there are saints compared to the ones we have here. They certainly have absolutely no respect for "civilians".
And every gang or criminal has their own moral codes. That's a universal thing, part of the whole "gang experience". It differs from gang to gang, yes. But the gentleman ganger is a complete myth. They're all complete scumbags.
So....basically a group of criminals is beating on another group of criminals. The bystanders support criminals of their color. I don't see a problem here, it's just human nature.
So it's human nature to support murderers, rapist and human traffickers? :inquisitive:
So it's human nature to support murderers, rapist and human traffickers? :inquisitive:
Oh, get off your high horse already. It's human nature when confronted by two evils to pick the lesser one. Hell's Angels are the devil they know, while the muslim gang is the devil they don't know. That's all there's to it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2009, 22:16
Oh, get off your high horse already. It's human nature when confronted by two evils to pick the lesser one. Hell's Angels are the devil they know, while the muslim gang is the devil they don't know. That's all there's to it.
Bingo, I'm much more confident about judging when an Englishman will nutt or knife me, with an Arabian I have no idea. Also, even the hardest gangs have men with families. The more local ties the mob has, the better off you are. Foriegn mob doesn't care at all.
It's human nature when confronted by two evils to pick the lesser one.
I think HoreTore's point is that you don't have to pick - you can, like most public figures would, condemn both kinds of law-breakers. That otherwise decent people identify with one set of villains is, I would agree with the OP, pathetic even if it is "human nature". Pathos and the human condition are scarcely strangers.
I suspect it relates to:
The more local ties the mob has, the better off you are.
Race aside, there can be a surprising amount of support for local mobsters - I am thinking, for example, of some East End villains in London who were held up as local heroes in some pubs etc. I've never really understood it, as the celebrity criminals are invariably rather stupid and dangerous predators. I guess they prey only on a relatively few unfortunates, so the rest can indulge in fantasies about them as heroes without too much risk of being proved wrong.
I was wondering whether people rather side with criminals of the same colour because, if anyone is going to be racist, it is likely to be criminals and hence you are safer with your "own". That might be true if you accidentally stray into the wrong neighbourhood - even a racially blind mugger tends to target the confused newcomer. But because people tend to stay among their own, I am pretty sure criminals tend to prey more on their own communities (black on black crime in the US etc).
Hells Angels have moral codes not shared by muslim gangs.
I really don't care for the moral codes of the likes of the Hell's Angels, they are the scum of the earth. They can keep their beer, they might not hate me but I don't like them.
HoreTore
08-07-2009, 08:05
I think HoreTore's point is that you don't have to pick - you can, like most public figures would, condemn both kinds of law-breakers. That otherwise decent people identify with one set of villains is, I would agree with the OP, pathetic even if it is "human nature". Pathos and the human condition are scarcely strangers.
:2thumbsup:
Anyhow, Hells Angels aren't Danish, they're an extension of a similarly named group of neanderthals who once roamed the US and Canada in vast swathes, but ultimately, whether it be through leaders getting jailed, or some of them just getting bored with it, became something of a ghost. I'm not sure why the Hells Angels have continued to persist for so long in Europe, but turf wars are gonna happen, its almost unavoidable, nature of the beast, if they've consolidated their gains, and wiped out everyone else, some guys are going to have the great idea that they don't like the current leadership and are going to splinter, and you have the same situation all over again.
Actually in Canada the Hells Angels were the only coast to coast criminal organization. Biker gangs ARE organized crime here.
Actually in Canada the Hells Angels were the only coast to coast criminal organization. Biker gangs ARE organized crime here.
Ya, the hells angels havent dissapeared, in the states there are still loads of HA.
Samurai Waki
08-07-2009, 21:28
Yeah, but the Hells Angels in the US have been effectively neutered, since the Early '90s when The States they would pass through, started throwing every cop that could muster at them. Sorta put a damper on their recruitment, and trouble making.
Actually in Canada the Hells Angels were the only coast to coast criminal organization. Biker gangs ARE organized crime here.
I read that there were only 200 full patch Hells Angels in Canada. The problem is they have thousands of groupies and wanabes and hangers on doing their dirty work.
Mafia, triades, Yakuza work the same way. Only a few full members and hordes of wannabes. There is a true crime series that History Television runs to meet their cancon about Hells Angels. Showed the locations of every chapter in every province once. There was at one point around 1998 that there was a Hells Angels branch in every major city from Halifax to Vancover.
Of course the real story, that even some politicians have realized, is that ever since the police cracked down on the big hash trade in Christiania the violence has escalated...
It is not even worth big headlines anymore when someone gets shot. But maybe it will start a proper debate about the whole idea of illegal hash. When even rightwing politicians start talking about a model similar to the Netherlands something is up.
CBR
Seamus Fermanagh
08-08-2009, 04:45
Is it too much to hope that this gangwar will result in a "dead tie?"
"Our nativist scum are better than you interloper scum" was tried in the 5 points awhile back. The answer is they're all a waste.
LittleGrizzly
08-10-2009, 06:34
Whichever one brings in the best weed have my support...
Actually scrap that they both bring weed in (I assume) so they both have my support, anyone not involved in either bringing in the drugs or selling them inside those gangs are scum...
The drug guys are scum as well but scum providing a useful service for those who like to enjoy themselves without turning into an incoherent violent idiot (alcohol)
But supporting one group of criminals over another becuase they share your skin colour is at best silly at worst racism... when they stab me i will bleed all the same...
Kralizec
08-10-2009, 11:05
I think it's probably because many people have romantic notions about Hells Angels, while having the right idea about the foreign gangs. I wouldn't call that racism or xenophobia, just ignorance.
HoreTore
08-10-2009, 21:44
Bingo, I'm much more confident about judging when an Englishman will nutt or knife me, with an Arabian I have no idea. Also, even the hardest gangs have men with families. The more local ties the mob has, the better off you are. Foriegn mob doesn't care at all.
You're confusing "foreign gang" and "immigrant gang". The immigrant gang in question here are just as local as any other danish gang.
You're confusing "foreign gang" and "immigrant gang". The immigrant gang in question here are just as local as any other danish gang.
How "danish" are these guys culturally? Are there any Danes in the house who can answer this?
HoreTore
08-10-2009, 21:52
How "danish" are these guys culturally? Are there any Danes in the house who can answer this?
Anything from a third to first generation immigrant.
Anything from a third to first generation immigrant.
That describes literally nothing at all.
Samurai Waki
08-10-2009, 22:20
How "danish" are these guys culturally? Are there any Danes in the house who can answer this?
You're basically asking "how long do you have to live in Denmark, to be considered Danish?" I don't know if you're ever going to get a reliable consensus.
Yeah, but is having a stamp that says "danish" in your passport enough to be considered of danish culture? :inquisitive:
Actually in Canada the Hells Angels were the only coast to coast criminal organization. Biker gangs ARE organized crime here.
Same in Australia. We have Hells Angels, Gypsy Jokers, Nomads, The Finks, Rebels, Commancheros and Bandidos. With the Commancheros, Finks, Nomads and Rebels at war with the Bandidos, Hells Angels and Notorious. They all are generally mix-race gangs, but Notorious is mostly Arabic/Pacific Islander/other Middle Eastern and the Gypsy Jokers and Finks are predominantly white.
There are also numerous South-East Asian and Chinese gangs in Sydney and still quite a few Italian families in Melbourne.
There is a disturbing rise in Middle Eastern gangs in the Sydney's Inner West, with four major gangs Dlasthr (The Last Hour or Assyrian Kings), the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Asesinoz MC and Brothers For Life (BFL). Dlasthr is more organised, etc, while MBM, Asesinoz and BFL are involved in petty crime and Islamic extremism. They rival the Bra Boys, who are mostly white surfers, but they do have some high-profile rugby-league players in their ranks.
So I guess Horetore we have a similar situation to what y'all in Scandinavia have. And my 2 cents, the reason white-Australians here will support the white gangs, despite them all being involved in crime, is that the Middle Eastern gangs here are based around Islamic extremism, anti-Australian acts and violence against whites. :shrug:
Kadagar_AV
08-11-2009, 04:42
It all boils down to this, from where I am from:
There will ALWAYS be crime... Heck, I wouldnt smoke weed if it weren't! Now, what group do I support...
A) Hells Angels... These guys have the same basic belief system as me... I mean, YES they are criminals... Some of them are totally out of controll. But the main majority of them follow the common inofficial rules as are upheld by society at large...
B) Some Arabic gang... These guys rape women for dressing as whores (you know, they are not dressed like ninjas in skirts) and their prefered victim of robbery (and violation) is white men...
How could I EVER choose between them?
Get real.
LittleGrizzly
08-11-2009, 05:00
A) White scum
B) Black scum
How could you choose between them... good point!
Kadagar_AV
08-11-2009, 05:04
A) White scum
B) Black scum
How could you choose between them... good point!
Thank you for your contribution to the debate. You CLEARLY rocked my world.
LittleGrizzly
08-11-2009, 05:15
You CLEARLY rocked my world.
I get that a lot....
Megas Methuselah
08-11-2009, 09:34
It all boils down to this, from where I am from:
There will ALWAYS be crime... Heck, I wouldnt smoke weed if it weren't! Now, what group do I support...
A) Hells Angels... These guys have the same basic belief system as me... I mean, YES they are criminals... Some of them are totally out of controll. But the main majority of them follow the common inofficial rules as are upheld by society at large...
B) Some Arabic gang... These guys rape women for dressing as whores (you know, they are not dressed like ninjas in skirts) and their prefered victim of robbery (and violation) is white men...
How could I EVER choose between them?
Get real.
:inquisitive:
Why would you need to voice your support for either group? The only side you should be on is the law, and that places you against both of those groups of criminals. To do otherwise (by your argument, anyways) is only a sign of both racism and ignorance, things which our world certainly doesn't need anymore.
Why would you need to voice your support for either group? The only side you should be on is the law, and that places you against both of those groups of criminals. To do otherwise (by your argument, anyways) is only a sign of both racism and ignorance, things which our world certainly doesn't need anymore.
Makes perfect sense to me, if the Hell's Angel's don't affect my life, but arab gangs do, I would be more positive about the Hell's Angels. I don't really care about organized crime, it's the shadow-ecomomy, I do care about granny's being robbed.
Yeah, but is having a stamp that says "danish" in your passport enough to be considered of danish culture? :inquisitive:
This is the great question of the age.
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
Of course, as ever, none of you see the historical parrallels. The development of fascism in the early 20th century was due to the creation of new, potentially disparate nations. When Germany and Italy were created out of the various smaller states they had to impose an ideal of nationhood. Everything had to branded with the mark of the new nation. Germany still has Bundes-everything. The side-effect of this is it left a large number of people with questionable loyalty. Catholics (to Rome), Gypsies and Jews.
The answer to the age old question is very simple, that freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins, where that is different for every culture but ignoring said rule is asking for trouble. There, I just saved the world.
Furunculus
08-11-2009, 13:56
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
Of course, as ever, none of you see the historical parrallels. The development of fascism in the early 20th century was due to the creation of new, potentially disparate nations. When Germany and Italy were created out of the various smaller states they had to impose an ideal of nationhood. Everything had to branded with the mark of the new nation. Germany still has Bundes-everything. The side-effect of this is it left a large number of people with questionable loyalty. Catholics (to Rome), Gypsies and Jews.
No, to use an old English saying; "do whatever you want, just don't scare the horses", i.e. its not my business to interfere in your life, just make sure you don't interfere in mine.
Every right up to the point it interferes in someone else's life. eg, british jews. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but who cares, because they live there lives without imposing that view on others.
Then for example you have the millions of ME/muslim immigrants the UK is trying to 'assimilate'. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but find themselves the object of distrust from the native population, because that native population perceives a noisy grievance culture from the newcomers which is forcing the natives to adjust their lives to accommodate a griping minority who really ought to be grateful they got citizenship and quietly set about making themselves British, i.e. the italicized English idiom above.
Some of us see those exact problems in the attempt to forge a federal europe.
The answer to the age old question is very simple, that freedom ends where someone else's freedom begins, where that is different for every culture but ignoring said rule is asking for trouble. There, I just saved the world.
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
In other words your freedom to do what you want ends where my freedom to make you do what I want begins. :2thumbsup:
Every right up to the point it interferes in someone else's life. eg, british jews. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but who cares, because they live there lives without imposing that view on others.
Then for example you have the millions of ME/muslim immigrants the UK is trying to 'assimilate'. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but find themselves the object of distrust from the native population, because that native population perceives a noisy grievance culture from the newcomers which is forcing the natives to adjust their lives to accommodate a griping minority who really ought to be grateful they got citizenship and quietly set about making themselves British
The actual examples of natives having to adjust their lives are remarkable thin on the ground, and yet remarkably prevalent in the media. I certainly have never had to adjust my life in any way shape or form. Nor has anyone I know or met. However all have read the stories in the newspapers.
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
In other words your freedom to do what you want ends where my freedom to make you do what I want begins. :2thumbsup:
Yes but I think I said it better, more compact.
Kadagar_AV
08-11-2009, 15:19
:inquisitive:
Why would you need to voice your support for either group? The only side you should be on is the law, and that places you against both of those groups of criminals. To do otherwise (by your argument, anyways) is only a sign of both racism and ignorance, things which our world certainly doesn't need anymore.
I do not support either group. However, with my support or not, they are there. And if I have to choose between them, I'd go with HA.
They do not interfere in my everyday life, arabic gangs do.
Furunculus
08-11-2009, 16:21
The actual examples of natives having to adjust their lives are remarkable thin on the ground, and yet remarkably prevalent in the media. I certainly have never had to adjust my life in any way shape or form. Nor has anyone I know or met. However all have read the stories in the newspapers.
this would be one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 08:53
this would be one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
So.....
How have you changed your life because of it?
So.....
How have you changed your life because of it?
Well maybe he can be prosecuted for insulting someone's imaginary friend?
this would be one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
Yeah it's really put a crimp on my day now that I can't:
Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred
:inquisitive::laugh4:
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 10:05
Well maybe he can be prosecuted for insulting someone's imaginary friend?
This was about someone having changed their behaviour because of immigration.
I'm very curios as to what situation Furunculus would have said something before, where he now kept his mouth shut because of this law.
This was about someone having changed their behaviour because of immigration.
Go to an enriched area and ask the locals how immigration have changed their behaviour, preferably in pink :yes:
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 10:19
Go to an enriched area and ask the locals how immigration have changed their behaviour, preferably in pink :yes:
I already live in what you call an "enriched area", Frags.
Actually, I've lived in two such places. For 19 of my 22 years.
Furunculus
08-12-2009, 10:32
So.....
How have you changed your life because of it?
perhaps, as a fan of the English common-law approach of making few laws and applying them rigourously, i object to yet more laws banning things that don't need to be banned.
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 10:40
perhaps, as a fan of the English common-law approach of making few laws and applying them rigourously, i object to yet more laws banning things that don't need to be banned.
So in other words;
No, immigration haven't changed your life.
I already live in what you call an "enriched area", Frags.
Don't we all, two Turkish bakers and a kebab-shop :laugh4:
Have some patience.
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 10:46
Don't we all, two Turkish bakers and a kebab-shop :laugh4:
Have some patience.
I don't have the exact numbers anymore, but I believe it's around 40% immigrants.
I don't have the exact numbers anymore, but I believe it's around 40% immigrants.
Like I said, have some patience, the negative effects are already beginning to show in Oslo, and it's going to get worse. Like everywhere.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece <- quality!
Furunculus
08-12-2009, 12:11
So in other words;
No, immigration haven't changed your life.
no, but then i'm not poorly skilled and living in poor inner city area and subsisting on a poorly paid job, in short i'm not one of the million odd people who are affected enough to have voted BNP.
no, but then i'm not poorly skilled and living in poor inner city area and subsisting on a poorly paid job, in short i'm not one of the million odd people who are affected enough to have voted BNP.
So you admit that immigration hasn't made you change your life at all.
BNP votes went down at the last election. It was just that turnout dropped markedly for all the other parties in the wake of the expenses scandal.
You're hanging in the breeze here old boy.
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 12:38
Like I said, have some patience, the negative effects are already beginning to show in Oslo, and it's going to get worse. Like everywhere.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece <- quality!
Haha!
"It's beginning to show"? Because of 72 rapists? With thousands of immigrants living in oslo? Plus the gazillion poles working here?
Are you serious?
Oh, and since when did "non-western" mean "muslim"...? You are aware that latino's, christian africans(sub-saharan), eastern euro's and asians are all grouped in that term, right...?
Furunculus
08-12-2009, 13:10
You're hanging in the breeze here old boy.
I don't really care, my response to your questions i still deem perfectly adequate.
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
Of course, as ever, none of you see the historical parrallels. The development of fascism in the early 20th century was due to the creation of new, potentially disparate nations. When Germany and Italy were created out of the various smaller states they had to impose an ideal of nationhood. Everything had to branded with the mark of the new nation. Germany still has Bundes-everything. The side-effect of this is it left a large number of people with questionable loyalty. Catholics (to Rome), Gypsies and Jews.
No, to use an old English saying; "do whatever you want, just don't scare the horses", i.e. its not my business to interfere in your life, just make sure you don't interfere in mine.
Every right up to the point it interferes in someone else's life. eg, british jews. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but who cares, because they live there lives without imposing that view on others.
Then for example you have the millions of ME/muslim immigrants the UK is trying to 'assimilate'. They look funny, they keep themselves apart, the east funny food, have a funny religion, but find themselves the object of distrust from the native population, because that native population perceives a noisy grievance culture from the newcomers which is forcing the natives to adjust their lives to accommodate a griping minority who really ought to be grateful they got citizenship and quietly set about making themselves British, i.e. the italicized English idiom above.
Some of us see those exact problems in the attempt to forge a federal europe.
i object to the fact that i have to listen to the whining from both hand-wringing liberals justifying the actions of their pet guilt and ME/muslims saying how their having a hard time.
i don't have to listen to jews making a fuss about how they deserve more, i don't have to listen to the village of Little Uppingly whine about they are disadvantaged, nor too do i hear any complaint from the million odd Poles frequenting these isles.
therefore some groups fail my don't scare the horses test, and others pass.
Haha!
"It's beginning to show"? Because of 72 rapists? With thousands of immigrants living in oslo? Plus the gazillion poles working here?
Are you serious?
These rapes hardly ever happen in the good parts of town safe the city centre, but mostly in enriched area's. Thousands of immigrants, that would be enough to populate a small village. Let's take your 40% and fill up the rest of the village with Nordish, now we have a tiny tiny town. With a lot of rape.
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 15:56
These rapes hardly ever happen in the good parts of town safe the city centre, but mostly in enriched area's. Thousands of immigrants, that would be enough to populate a small village. Let's take your 40% and fill up the rest of the village with Nordish, now we have a tiny tiny town. With a lot of rape.
WRONG
A lot/most of them happen in the area from Akerselva to Frogner, the really good part of town ~;)
"Thousands of immigrants" was just something I said because I don't really know the exact number.... But if the 14,3% the article states is correct, then it's it's around 71.500 immigrants in Oslo.
WRONG
A lot/most of them happen in the area from Akerselva to Frogner, the really good part of town ~;)
Don't know the name of the area's, but I have family in Oslo and that is simply bull.
HoreTore
08-12-2009, 17:28
Don't know the name of the area's, but I have family in Oslo and that is simply bull.
Better call them back then.
Better call them back then.
No need, you speak fine english, I don't need to learn the Norwegian word for 'bull'
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 00:26
No need, you speak fine english, I don't need to learn the Norwegian word for 'bull'
"okse" ~:)
Wouldn't that be an ox? As in a castrated bull?
At least here we have "Bulle" and "Ochse" and they're different.
...
Google translate agrees with me. :sweatdrop:
i don't have to listen to jews making a fuss about how they deserve more, i don't have to listen to the village of Little Uppingly whine about they are disadvantaged, nor too do i hear any complaint from the million odd Poles frequenting these isles.
therefore some groups fail my don't scare the horses test, and others pass.
Really? I find that you just have to look at the Israeli flag funny to get shrieks of anti-semitism. And the news is cram-packs with nonsense about little-englanders under seige or our culture being eroded by these scary foreigners. My horses get scared daily by all this bollo.
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 12:27
Wouldn't that be an ox? As in a castrated bull?
At least here we have "Bulle" and "Ochse" and they're different.
...
Google translate agrees with me. :sweatdrop:
No. "Okse" is what you call a male cow of all versions. Or "kvegokse" if you're an agriculture geek.
If you want to specify further which kind of "okse" you're talking about, then it's "tyr" for an uncastrated one, "stut" for one that's castrated and under 2 years and just "okse" for one that's castrated and over 2 years.
Furunculus
08-13-2009, 12:29
odd, i don't see that.
so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.
again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 12:35
odd, i don't see that.
so we don't have a problem of over-immigration, i think there are quite a few people who'd disagree with you.
again, why are people so irritated by ME/islam in Britain, oh that's right, its just the media brain-washing them, they don't get to think for themselves and buy the shrieky red-tops even though they don't agree with anything they say. right.
Oh come on. We've been irritated by every single foreign group in our country.
Now it's Islam. Before that it was the eastern euro's and gypsies. Then it was the jews. For crying out loud, when there weren't any foreigners to whine about we simply whined about our own countrymen from other patrs of the country!
It's not long ago that there were signs on rental apartments in oslo specifying "no negro's or northerners".
Furunculus
08-13-2009, 13:02
oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.
I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
HoreTore
08-13-2009, 13:04
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"
The answer is that people are idiots.
oh right, you thought i said that ONLY ME/muslim people wind up Brits.............? Let me put you straight, i don't believe any such thing.
I was merely responding to Idaho's two questions:
By providing British answers to those questions and using those answers to provide examples of why some groups have less public acceptance than others.
I'm not saying those groups ARE worse, just positing a reason why some groups have such a tough time being loved by tabloid Britain (and by extension: tabloid reading Britain).
You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.
It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).
:book:
Seamus Fermanagh
08-13-2009, 21:26
... Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country....
Lot of truth here. May not apply to all cultures at all times, but I suspect there would be more immigrant/neighbor scapegoating than not throughout history.
Didn't the greeks deride the Macedonians as uncultured boobs even while Phillip was keeping his foot on their collective neck?
Furunculus
08-14-2009, 00:56
The answer to that is the same as the answer to "why were jews and catholics banned from Norway until 1860(-ish)?"
The answer is that people are idiots.
no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.
this question does not revolve around whether muslims are bad people.
the question revolves around whether they as a group are identified as a problem by a significant number of british passport holders, particularly, a problem appreciably greater than any other group which is why the issue stands prominent.
idaho asked;
The follow-up question is "Should people always behave in a way that the majority in a society feel happy and comfortable with?"
Then the question after that is "To what extent do individuals have rights of belief and expression?"
i provided an answer to that question, not to a broader argument about who is the most despicable form or criminal or anything else.
Furunculus
08-14-2009, 00:57
You seem woefully unaware of history. Pick a country and an era, and I will tell you the scape-goat immigrant group who were 'destroying' that country.
It's quite depressing how willing so many are to not only go along with this nonsense, but actively petition for greater intolerance (and inevitably violence).
:book:
not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.
i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.
HoreTore
08-14-2009, 08:08
no, the answer is that in a representative democracy you answer to the wishes of the people, even if the people are idiots.
Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".
Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.
Furunculus
08-14-2009, 09:25
Nonsense! That would be called "a dictatorship of the majority".
Democracy, as we know it, relies heavily on the notion that minority rights are to be respected. If we start ignoring those, then sure, call it democracy all you want, but it will still be a different system than the one we have now.
nonsense, i refer only to the concept of not interfering with other people, as i explicitly stated in my response to Idaho, a concept enshrined in British lexicon ever since Henry VIII/Beatrice Stella Tanner coined the phrase:
"We do not care what you do as long as you don't frighten the horses."
that is the opposite of the tyranny of the majority, unless you choose to define it as oppressing the minorities right to interfere in the lives of everyone else...........? in which case i have just realised myself to be more authoritarian than previously recognised!
not at all, i am well aware of groups scapegoated as outsiders.
i merely suggested why some groups in Britain attract more opprobrium than other.
In the 1300s it was Jews.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.
Same old same old.
HoreTore
08-14-2009, 18:37
In the 1300s it was Jews.
In the 1500s it was Catholics
In the 1700s it was French
In the 1800s it was the Irish
In the early 1900s it was back to the Jews
In the late 1900s it was variously blacks, asians
In the 2000s it's muslims.
Same old same old.
You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....
It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....
I guess this is one aspect in which the good old Soviet Union was light years ahead of the rest of the world. In the good old USSR (at least in 1970s-80s) nobody gave a crap about ones racial/ethnic background and all religions received equal amount of hate from the state.
Azathoth
08-14-2009, 23:22
In the 1800s it was the Irish
Didn't they always hate the Irish?
You forgot the eastern euro's and different gypsy groups....
It's only 40 years ago since we stole gypsy children from their parents and put them in special camps to "remove their inferior culture" here in Norway....
Indeed I only picked the top few from a long and varied line in one country. People in all countries have spread the hate in all different directions over the years. Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"... :rolleyes:
Megas Methuselah
08-16-2009, 04:18
Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"... :rolleyes:
They're only sheep, bleeting sheep!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2009, 17:24
Indeed I only picked the top few from a long and varied line in one country. People in all countries have spread the hate in all different directions over the years. Some people on this board seem to think that it's "really different this time, honest"... :rolleyes:
There are reasons all those people were victimised, and they are actual reasons. That doesn't make it right at all, but it makes your point; it isn't different this time.
HoreTore
08-16-2009, 17:54
There are reasons all those people were victimised, and they are actual reasons. That doesn't make it right at all, but it makes your point; it isn't different this time.
So............
The Jews did control the world....?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2009, 18:07
So............
The Jews did control the world....?
No, they were deicides and often political dissidents. No one thought they controlled the world in 1300, they thought they killed children. Whether that was true or not is an entirely different issue.
What is true is that by refusing to even superficially convert they placed themselves outside of society.
Banquo's Ghost
08-16-2009, 18:21
No, they were deicides and often political dissidents. No one thought they controlled the world in 1300, they thought they killed children. Whether that was true or not is an entirely different issue.
What is true is that by refusing to even superficially convert they placed themselves outside of society.
I don't think you meant the above statements to be as categorical as they read.
For example: deicides? Even if one accepts the Christian deity, any one of the few hundred that may have called for His death were very, very long dead by the 14th century.
So I assume you were talking in the mindset of the times?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2009, 18:55
I don't think you meant the above statements to be as categorical as they read.
For example: deicides? Even if one accepts the Christian deity, any one of the few hundred that may have called for His death were very, very long dead by the 14th century.
So I assume you were talking in the mindset of the times?
Sorry, I forget that sometimes I'm not speaking with that as a given.
In the context of the time Christianity was the accepted norm, to the extent that anything else would be considered the "lunatic fringe", just a flat-Earthers and Creationists are today.
It is a matter of record that Jews were considered Deicides and child-murderers. What's more, the argument for deicide was logical given the assumptions of the time. That argument runs:
If they were alive at the time they would have given up Our Lord as a Heretic too.
At the time, that was considered important.
Today, Muslim extremism is considered important.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.