Now, these are not terrorists, right? Just your average muslim refugees...

What is the same thing everywhere just is the same thing everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What is the same thing everywhere just is the same thing everywhere.

---

Bananas are the clock spring badger of fire extinguisher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

At face value, this means: Anyone who disagrees with me is an indoctrinated drone.

---

At face value it meant - disagree all you want, but please source if so.

I am against Islam... You have a problem with that?

Then by all means, tell me why.

Heck, I can fire the first shot... Muhammed was a ****ing pedophile. Shall we take it from there, or do you have some other entry you want to bring forward?

PS: Frags, please stop "defending" me... I have enough people misreading me as is... I really don't want your obscure way with facts to be a further hindrance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I nuanced that myselve mind you, IS wasn't there at the time, only the fight agaist Assad, no foul play, if you look for the post you will see me saying the same thing.

---

No need, I believe you. I stand corrected.

However, Geert Wilders literally said that 80% (more or less) sympathises with IS and referred to the poll. I remember this clearly, because the organisation that took the poll objected afterwards. He very rarely retracts his words, and AFAIK he didn't do so in this case.

It's debatable wether or not Geert did this deliberately. It's possible that he didn't read the poll correctly and then proceeded to make this bold statement, but since he's a politician with considerable weight I think that this would be almost as bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Heck, I can fire the first shot... Muhammed was a ****ing pedophile. Shall we take it from there, or do you have some other entry you want to bring forward?

---

Consummation at a young age was common at the time in many places, including Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Consummation at a young age was common at the time in many places, including Europe.

---

Sure... I 100% agree, from the sources I have read.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow though, do you mind to elaborate on why the **** we should listen to some pedophile from the Iron Age?

That it was common practise to be a pedo in his desert living iron age tribe is totally OK by me. But why the **** should we in the west in the year 2015 respect a damn iron age pedophile?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

No need, I believe you. I stand corrected.

However, Geert Wilders literally said that 80% (more or less) sympathises with IS and referred to the poll. I remember this clearly, because the organisation that took the poll objected afterwards. He very rarely retracts his words, and AFAIK he didn't do so in this case.

It's debatable wether or not Geert did this deliberately. It's possible that he didn't read the poll correctly and then proceeded to make this bold statement, but since he's a politician with considerable weight I think that this would be almost as bad.

---

Wouldn't surprise me if it was intentional, but it's simply not true, if it was intentional it's cheap. IS does has a bit of a cult-status among some muslim youths though, like motorgangs and gangster-rappers have here. I wouldn't trust the numbers if simply was asked what they think of IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Sure... I 100% agree, from the sources I have read.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow though, do you mind to elaborate on why the **** we should listen to some pedophile from the Iron Age?

That it was common practise to be a pedo in his desert living iron age tribe is totally OK by me. But why the **** should we in the west in the year 2015 respect a damn iron age pedophile?

---

You don't like religion. OK. Don't follow the religion.

There are other aspects of religion that people choose to follow such as moral codes pertaining to modesty and living righteously, and finding unity with others like yourself. I would think it has more to do with that.

"There are other aspects of religion that people choose to follow such as moral codes pertaining to modesty and living righteously, and finding unity with others like yourself. I would think it has more to do with that." Yeah, but this is true for all totalitarian ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Sure... I 100% agree, from the sources I have read.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow though, do you mind to elaborate on why the **** we should listen to some pedophile from the Iron Age?

That it was common practise to be a pedo in his desert living iron age tribe is totally OK by me. But why the **** should we in the west in the year 2015 respect a damn iron age pedophile?

---

If we reverse the situation, someone might ask why should we respect a weird guy who more than 2000 years ago told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Something that was created such a long time ago is bound to have weird aspects to us now. Being an atheist, I don't personally care for any of that, but it mustn't be used as proof that religions are inherently bad. I find religious nutjobs very disturbing, but I can respect people who find that religion offers some spiritual help, and are trying to make themselves a better person by following it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

PS: Frags, please stop "defending" me...

---

oki

any examples? just asking, I dare you to find them Rainman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

If we reverse the situation, someone might ask why should we respect a weird guy who more than 2000 years ago told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

---

Not only that:

Quote:

---

The Gospel According to
St Matthew
Chapter 21

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

---

In modern terms one can call it gang robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

No need to get emotional.

You views are subjective. A more appropriate term would be myopic. You constantly complain about how Islam is an evil problem and cite countless anecdotes and second hand narratives. You take in events and fit them to support your views. You seem to be incapable of really dissecting issues and rely on generalizations and circumstances and posit them as undisputed fact.

Most of the arguments you've had over the years boil down to meme-like constructs where racists try to "prove" the inferiority of blacks by posting pictures of mudhuts somewhere in the middle of African tribeland and then post a marvelous European baroque structure from its period, completely ignoring the horrid squalor most citizens lived in during that time period.

Point is, its seems to me that you aren't seeing the big picture.

---

Show me where I and when I did that, because your mind seems to be playing tricks on you. It isn't there. You might think you have seen it, but you can't have. It's not real. If I did that I would get an instant ban. Which I don't have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

In modern terms one can call it gang robbery.

---

That's more a prediction, he knows how the man will react before it happens, further evidence that free choice is a myth.

Quote:

---

That's more a prediction, he knows how the man will react before it happens, further evidence that free choice is a myth.

---

Well, you know, the Calvinist types used this sort of Biblical evidence to reason that all human action was an explicit part of God's plan.

From Letter 2 of Voltaire's Letters to an Englishman:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaker

“When thou movest one of thy limbs, is it moved by thy own power? Certainly not; for this limb is often sensible to involuntary motions. Consequently He who created thy body gives motion to this earthly tabernacle. And are the several ideas of which thy soul receives the impression formed by thyself? Much less are they, since these pour in upon thy mind whether thou wilt or no; consequently thou receivest thy ideas from Him who created thy soul.

---

Though you can see some of the incoherence and ambivalence, it's a remarkable sentiment for the Early Modern era.

I mean, compare that second sentence to Nietzsche:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beyond Good and Evil

The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"—will encounter a smile and two notes of interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"

17. With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds—namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Well, you know, the Calvinist types used this sort of Biblical evidence to reason that all human action was an explicit part of God's plan.

From Letter 2 of Voltaire's Letters to an Englishman:



Though you can see some of the incoherence and ambivalence, it's a remarkable sentiment for the Early Modern era.

---

Remarkable because the BBT ultimately says the same thing?

I also have the ability to find e.g. names in my brain even if they won't come right away. It is a process where the conscious checks for incoming names and sends them back into the void with corrections until the right name pops out of the void. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's more a prediction, he knows how the man will react before it happens, further evidence that free choice is a myth.

---

Anyone will react similarly if his chattels are taken. So you don't have to be a prophet to predict such a reaction. Yet what I meant was that the property of a stranger is alienated against his will and the reasons for it might as well be called red herring/apple sauce. It is a crime, whether 2000 years ago or now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Show me where I and when I did that, because your mind seems to be playing tricks on you. It isn't there. You might think you have seen it, but you can't have. It's not real. If I did that I would get an instant ban. Which I don't have.

---

Really, you know what you are doing. You aren't really the only one doing it anymore since there are others like KAV and at least two others make alarmist posts whenever an attack involving Muslim extremists occurs. None of you seem to like each other, however, so I can't claim collaboration. In fact, it sometimes seems like you are having a competition regarding who is "red-pilled", much like the little episode that took place about half a dozen posts up.

I'm still not fully sure whether you have a greater problem with immigration or integration or just Islam, but it seems to fall into the latter most of all. It suggests that you are claiming a conspiracy by Islam as a whole to destroy the West, much like fundies in the West believe that gays spend all day trying to make straight couples miserable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Really, you know what you are doing. You aren't really the only one doing it anymore since there are others like KAV and at least two others make alarmist posts whenever an attack involving Muslim extremists occurs. None of you seem to like each other, however, so I can't claim collaboration. In fact, it sometimes seems like you are having a competition regarding who is "red-pilled", much like the little episode that took place about half a dozen posts up.

I'm still not fully sure whether you have a greater problem with immigration or integration or just Islam, but it seems to fall into the latter most of all. It suggests that you are claiming a conspiracy by Islam as a whole to destroy the West, much like fundies in the West believe that gays spend all day trying to make straight couples miserable.

---

I actually do like Frags, heck I like most members on this board...

You don't have to go to "conspiracy theory" mode to be against islam.

I know how Sweden was before we had a lot of Muslims, and I know how Sweden has changed now when we have a lot of muslims. And honestly, I do not like it.

That has nothing to do with racism, conspiracies, or anything like that. I just openly state that I dislike Islam, and I do not want Islam around me. Surely that must be a perspective allowed to be had?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I actually do like Frags, heck I like most members on this board...

You don't have to go to "conspiracy theory" mode to be against islam.

I know how Sweden was before we had a lot of Muslims, and I know how Sweden has changed now when we have a lot of muslims. And honestly, I do not like it.

That has nothing to do with racism, conspiracies, or anything like that. I just openly state that I dislike Islam, and I do not want Islam around me. Surely that must be a perspective allowed to be had?

---

Of course it is, but I'm thinking you're equating things that shouldn't be equated. If there's a robbery, one might say "I don't want robbers around me". It would be wrong to say "I don't want blacks around", even if they assume (or even know for sure) that the robber is black.

Part of the problem is also that "they're different from us/they're worse than us" attitude, which discourages people to fit in the society and are instead encouraged to seek solace within their own social circle in which they are accepted.

I've traveled around, and visited a lot of western countries during the 90's, and I personally felt the bigotry, antagonism and sometimes even open hostility. And I'm a white, male Christian. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to understand how it must be for someone who doesn't have to speak before he is recognized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Anyone will react similarly if his chattels are taken. So you don't have to be a prophet to predict such a reaction. Yet what I meant was that the property of a stranger is alienated against his will and the reasons for it might as well be called red herring/apple sauce. It is a crime, whether 2000 years ago or now.

---

Doesn't the last part mean that the man will let them have the ass if they tell him that the lord needs it?
Is that a typical reaction? And how is that against his will if he is willing to part with it for the lord?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I know how Sweden has changed now when we have a lot of muslims. And honestly, I do not like it.

That has nothing to do with racism, conspiracies, or anything like that. I just openly state that I dislike Islam, and I do not want Islam around me. Surely that must be a perspective allowed to be had?

---

You're saying that you don't understand why you should tolerate Muslims who have screwed up your neighborhood. What you should be asking is why your country, and so many others, are so massively incompetent when it comes dealing with immigration integration. You should be asking yourself why more isn't done to improve the places where these people live so that they would not feel such a strong need to immigrate. You should be asking why so many of these people turn to extremism when supposedly given so much opportunity to live splendidly.

I think the "Islam is a Swedish tradition" hugbox liberal muffin-head mentality is idiotic. I'm not simple enough to attribute all the problems to moon worshiping or shekel counting or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

You're saying that you don't understand why you should tolerate Muslims who have screwed up your neighborhood. What you should be asking is why your country, and so many others, are so massively incompetent when it comes dealing with immigration integration.

---

As a wellknown Dutch/Turkish collumnist rightfully putted it, 'a refugee leaves it's troubles behind, a colonist brings it with him'.

Sorry Kads you politily asked me not to defend you, but I am going to do it anyway, apoligies for that. Slap me later.

Sweden HAS changed Crossloper, and not for the better. You just can't expect Sweden to just deal with such an influx, it's just unreasonable to ask that from them. People who support that should try oxazipam first, or heroin, also makes you feel good, difference is that you are only destroying yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

You're saying that you don't understand why you should tolerate Muslims who have screwed up your neighborhood.

---

Well... The question is a little bit more complex than that. My main concern is actually that we have broken the wellfare state we used to have, as people these days just simply Do. Not. Trust. Their. Fellow. Swedes like they used to, when we were ethnically more homogenic...

A wellfare state works kind of like a shield wall... You need to trust the guy to the left and right of you to do his job, or the whole shield wall collapse. That is what I have seen happen to Sweden as we choose to become a multi-cultural nation who no longer even try to assimilate the (mainly muslim) immigrants.

Quote:

---

What you should be asking is why your country, and so many others, are so massively incompetent when it comes dealing with immigration integration.

---

Why?

Seriously, why is that the question I should have to ask? I find the answer quite simple, integration is hard because different cultures work, think and act differently. You think I stopped using Snus (Swedish tobacco you put under your lip) just because I moved to Austria?

I prefer to just think that different people from different nations are different in different ways. Easy, no?

I also choose to think that some cultures are different from mine in a way that is grave enough for me to absolutely NOT want them around me, heck, I don't even want them in the same nation as me.

Quote:

---

You should be asking yourself why more isn't done to improve the places where these people live so that they would not feel such a strong need to immigrate.

---

How is that my responsibility? Or Swedens?

We have tried, and will keep trying, different methods to help poor nations. Most efforts have turned out to be completely ****ed up though... Heck, not even aid to Africa is an easy question, as it handled wrong easily can kill the local producers economically, and in the end worsen the situation... We had a quite interesting talk about that on these boards some years ago.

But regardless, I say again... It. Is. Not. Swedens. Resposibility. How. Other. Nations. Do.

Mmmmmkay?

Quote:

---

You should be asking why so many of these people turn to extremism when supposedly given so much opportunity to live splendidly.

---

Eh, why can't we just kick them out instead? Or rather not let them in, in the very first place?

It is a big world with a LOT of history... I do not think Sweden can "change" this anyday soon... All we can do is be a good example, and try to help when and where we can. What we have DONE, however, is to absolutely murder our own culture, and Sweden will very soon not be a positive example anymore (it isn't even today), Sweden will be a multicultural ****state with racial riots and low public safety, restricted wellfare, economicly drained... Yadda yadda...

I just tell it as I see it. I know how Sweden used to be, and I know how it is now. I don't like the way it changed, I don't like having muslims around me, or having to work with them, or having to stand behind them in the line at the food store, or whatever...

Why? Because i don't trust them to act like a Swede would, again, SHIELD WALL mate, we need the trust.

Quote:

---

I think the "Islam is a Swedish tradition" hugbox liberal muffin-head mentality is idiotic. I'm not simple enough to attribute all the problems to moon worshiping or shekel counting or whatever.

---

I'm not quite sure I get your point here...

But regardless, your MAIN point seem to be that there is some "white mans inherited guilt" and that we somehow should have some obligation to help ****ed up countries by accepting wave after wave of immigrants from them?

Know what, if Swedens population would have FLED everytime there was a problem, we would never have gotten what could have been the best functional state in the world (in the 60's-80's).

I was borne 1980, and again, the Sweden I grew up in is not the Sweden we now have. And it's not for the better, and yes, immigration is much to blame for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Part of the problem is also that "they're different from us/they're worse than us" attitude, which discourages people to fit in the society and are instead encouraged to seek solace within their own social circle in which they are accepted.

---

Don't you think that the new-comers do something to earn this attitude? I would say that they do something (which was probably quite OK back in their home country), then they get the attitude and then they are ostracized (or shunned) by the natives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Doesn't the last part mean that the man will let them have the ass if they tell him that the lord needs it?
Is that a typical reaction? And how is that against his will if he is willing to part with it for the lord?

---

The scripture doesn't say if the animal was taken by force or freely surrendered, yet if it was the former it was definitely what I said it was. But if the book is so ostensibly meant to champion the commandments it should have specified the case for such ideas as mine not to pop up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I was borne 1980, and again, the Sweden I grew up in is not the Sweden we now have.

---

This is because Karlsson is not there any more. Instead of immigartion you should encourage more people to take their abode on the roof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

The scripture doesn't say if the animal was taken by force or freely surrendered, yet if it was the former it was definitely what I said it was. But if the book is so ostensibly meant to champion the commandments it should have specified the case for such ideas as mine not to pop up.

---

Well, it seems pretty clear what is meant if you take the context of how Jesus behaves and what he preaches. If you only read that one part there may be misunderstandings but that can happen to you with any book that has a few hundred pages when you only read a few lines of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, it seems pretty clear what is meant if you take the context of how Jesus behaves and what he preaches. If you only read that one part there may be misunderstandings but that can happen to you with any book that has a few hundred pages when you only read a few lines of it.

---

His behavior does not always match what he preaches, like his attitude to his mother, whom he seems to be ashamed of and disregards her entreaties. Where is the "respect thy parents" stuff? Having this in view, his ass-confiscating trick doesn't seem so immaculate.

On the other hand, you could say, "God provides - for himself".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Well... The question is a little bit more complex than that. My main concern is actually that we have broken the wellfare state we used to have, as people these days just simply Do. Not. Trust. Their. Fellow. Swedes like they used to, when we were ethnically more homogenic...

A wellfare state works kind of like a shield wall... You need to trust the guy to the left and right of you to do his job, or the whole shield wall collapse. That is what I have seen happen to Sweden as we choose to become a multi-cultural nation who no longer even try to assimilate the (mainly muslim) immigrants.

---

Not the fault of Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Why?

Seriously, why is that the question I should have to ask? I find the answer quite simple, integration is hard because different cultures work, think and act differently. You think I stopped using Snus (Swedish tobacco you put under your lip) just because I moved to Austria?

I prefer to just think that different people from different nations are different in different ways. Easy, no?

I also choose to think that some cultures are different from mine in a way that is grave enough for me to absolutely NOT want them around me, heck, I don't even want them in the same nation as me.

---

You are assuming that they are all receiving the same opportunities that would allow anyone to succeed. They are not.

http://rt.com/news/stockholm-violenc...eak-fires-671/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charl.../swedens-riots
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...stockholm.html
http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/sweden/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

How is that my responsibility? Or Swedens?

We have tried, and will keep trying, different methods to help poor nations. Most efforts have turned out to be completely ****ed up though... Heck, not even aid to Africa is an easy question, as it handled wrong easily can kill the local producers economically, and in the end worsen the situation... We had a quite interesting talk about that on these boards some years ago.

But regardless, I say again... It. Is. Not. Swedens. Resposibility. How. Other. Nations. Do.

Mmmmmkay?

---

It is the responsibility of successful nations to encourage developing nations to develop further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Eh, why can't we just kick them out instead? Or rather not let them in, in the very first place?

It is a big world with a LOT of history... I do not think Sweden can "change" this anyday soon... All we can do is be a good example, and try to help when and where we can. What we have DONE, however, is to absolutely murder our own culture, and Sweden will very soon not be a positive example anymore (it isn't even today), Sweden will be a multicultural ****state with racial riots and low public safety, restricted wellfare, economicly drained... Yadda yadda...

I just tell it as I see it. I know how Sweden used to be, and I know how it is now. I don't like the way it changed, I don't like having muslims around me, or having to work with them, or having to stand behind them in the line at the food store, or whatever...

Why? Because i don't trust them to act like a Swede would, again, SHIELD WALL mate, we need the trust.

---

What would the criteria for kicking them out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I'm not quite sure I get your point here...

But regardless, your MAIN point seem to be that there is some "white mans inherited guilt" and that we somehow should have some obligation to help ****ed up countries by accepting wave after wave of immigrants from them?

Know what, if Swedens population would have FLED everytime there was a problem, we would never have gotten what could have been the best functional state in the world (in the 60's-80's).

I was borne 1980, and again, the Sweden I grew up in is not the Sweden we now have. And it's not for the better, and yes, immigration is much to blame for it.

---

First off, I think "white guilt" is a retarded concept. Second, no, you don't have to become a refugee nexus. Third, you seem to have been suffering from problems for a while now, none of it relating to Muslims:

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/en/Swedis...s-and-Reforms/

My point is that you are shifting blame on an easy target and ignoring a host of other issues. The integration issues are a symptom of steady decline that has continued for half a century.