Swedish village at war with migrants housed in emergency center.

We know the migrants are not terrorists in the normal way so lets refer to them as financial terrorists putting a strain on everything they get involved in with no intention of settling and becoming decent integrated citizens of said country.

A form of terrorism in my book. They know they are not helping and are doing their best to fox things up for the host nation they enter.

What do ats think.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

I don't know how you could do something like this. But it's clear that countries with mostly muslims doens't quite function when given democracy, and a longer leash. (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.)

But I am for stricter rules generally. So for my point of view it should be applied to the country as a whole, and all of it's population.

originally posted by: chewi
We know the migrants are not terrorists in the normal way so lets refer to them as financial terrorists putting a starin on everything they get involved in with no intention of settling and becoming decent integrated citizens of said country.

A form of terrorism in my book. They know they are not helping and are doing their best to fox things up for the host nation they enter.

What do ats think.

Sounds reasonably.

Syrian refugees within a 3-year span, only 10% were integrated succesfully. The rest 90% lived off of welfare aid.

a reply to: TechniXcality

I've read those statistics before, the radicals who justify terrorism are still in the minority. All these statistics prove is as you mentioned the radical views are quite 'wide spread'.

Doesn't justify the actions of the Swedes xenophobes to spit and shout insults at children.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Something like 30% of Muslims worldwide are Islamic extremists, in the minority yes but we are talking about multi millions of people larger than the United States who are in fact Islamic extremists, and out of this an even smaller minority who will strap bombs on themselves and wage jihad. Here's the thing, this is a doctorine that has a straight arrow from the book.

no not all Muslims are terrorists but some are, so it begs the question, because people like you always want to turn war into a civil rights argument, how many islamic extremists/terrorists are acceptable in your world?

the west has a right to not wish to import middle eastern Islam, which if you read that statistics something like 40% - 50% in some middle eastern countries are Islamic extremists, sorry man your wrong they need to stay where they are and the west needs to help them there. I am all for helping people who need help, I am not for importing Islamic extremism in droves into the west, ultimately we will end up paying for this choice.

a reply to: SBargisen

I don't know how you could do something like this. But it's clear that countries with mostly muslims doens't quite function when given democracy, and a longer leash. (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.)

Uhm...okay...not sure what I did.. All I asked was for you to clarify.

But I am for stricter rules generally. So for my point of view it should be applied to the country as a whole, and all of it's population.

So are you saying your "proposal" for tougher a immigration policy would only be applied to the entire population of Muslims coming out of Muslim dominated countries? So would you apply the same policy to Caucasian or Asian Muslim converts if they emigrated from lets say Indonesia?

a reply to: TechniXcality


Yup. This kinda underlines what you wrote:

"Support for Sharia law in one form or another by the Muslim community:

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Holland and Sweden, collectively: 65%

Austria specifically: 73%

Canada: 62%

UK: Ranging from 30-40%

Southeast Asia: an average of around 78%, with Malaysia specifically at 86%

South Asia: an average of 88%, with Afghanistan at the top with 99%

Middle East and North Africa: an average of just over 70%, support ranging from 29-91%

Sub-Saharan Africa: an average of over 61%, with the numbers ranging between 37-86%

Central Asia: an average of over 18%, with only 12% of Turks supporting it

Southeastern Europe: an average of more than 22%"


Source

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Would apply to every immigrant.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

And I never said it was justified to spit on children in fact if you read on the first page I condemend those actions try again, I'm getting tired of you and people like you turning everything into a civil rights diatribe, I know your agenda and it's very clear. I know what you tell yourself about the world and the excuses you make, it's obvious you should work to hide your agenda better, now it may work in your every day life around the sheep. Here you will get called on it and it will be seen through.

originally posted by: chewi


What do ats think.

I think ats has gone to the dogs, with right wing hate speech the norm these days.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Something like 30% of Muslims worldwide are Islamic extremists, in the minority yes but we are talking about multi millions of people larger than the United States who are in fact Islamic extremists, and out of this an even smaller minority who will strap bombs on themselves and wage jihad. Here's the thing, this is a doctorine that has a straight arrow from the book.

I concur.

no not all Muslims are terrorists but some are, so it begs the question, because people like you always want to turn war into a civil rights argument, how many islamic extremists/terrorists are acceptable in your world?

The real question should be; should we tolerate religious extremism,zealotry and terrorism as a whole?
My answer to that is no, we should not. Islamic extremism should not be tolerated, much like christian extremism or god forbid Buddhist extremism. I'm sure you and I can both agree on that to some extent.

the west has a right to not wish to import middle eastern Islam, which if you read that statistics something like 40% - 50% in some middle eastern countries are Islamic extremists, sorry man your wrong they need to stay where they are and the west needs to help them there. I am all for helping people who need help, I am not for importing Islamic extremism in droves into the west, ultimately we will end up paying for this choice.

Yup I guess I'm wrong.

a reply to: aorAki

So... We aren't allowed to debate things happening right now in this world, because people might see it as "Right wing hate speech" ?

This is simply the outcome of a government that is out of sync with reality, One can push so far, eventually the breaking point is reached.
All the talk about racism,not getting the same chances is simply bull.
It is the same as here in the Netherlands, they segregate, dropout of school and expect that the government solve their problem which is poverty because they either live on welfare or earn a minimum wage with some easy job that doesn't require skills.

a reply to: earthling42

So true.

The politicians are busy trying to be politically correct.


In Denmark we have even given 100.000 danish kroner to immigrants from ME, if they returned to their native countries. Some accepted, and then returned to Denmark again. (100.000 danish kroner equals 14.235 $)

originally posted by: Metallicus
I guess people don't like having potential terrorists imported into their neighborhoods? Maybe the idiot politicians should have asked their constituency what they wanted. You know...those people that voted for them that they are supposed to be representing?

Don't like it, so set fire to immigrants cars and homes and throw rocks at them and spit on their children. That's civilized. Smart!

NOT. Is the opposite. If you don't agree, take your disagreement to the social medias. ACTUALLY be smart. Use reasonable non-prejudiced arguments people of all creeds can agree with. And if you're relaly smart maybe you can start getting the attention of government.

I admit this whole immigrnat thing would make me nervous. It makes me nervous and I don't evne live in Europe! But there's a clear boundary between disagreement or doubt and spitting on immigrants. If someone crosses that boundary they're making a conscious decision.

a reply to: TechniXcality

And I never said it was justified to spit on children in fact if you read on the first page I condemend those actions try again, I'm getting tired of you and people like you turning everything into a civil rights diatribe, I know your agenda and it's very clear. I know what you tell yourself about the world and the excuses you make, it's obvious you should work to hide your agenda better, now it may work in your every day life around the sheep. Here you will get called on it and it will be seen through.

What agenda do I have? What are you even talking about? I wasn't even referring to your comments on the matter of the Swedes. I was drawing a comparison from the statistics that you linked, that regardless of the statistical data on the Muslim extremist population that doesn't justify the Swedes actions. How you interpreted my statement is not my problem.

Seriously are you psycho-analyzing my statements?

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I admit this whole immigrnat thing would make me nervous. It makes me nervous and I don't evne live in Europe! But there's a fine line between disagreement or doubt and spitting on mmigrants.

Well. There's a reason why nationalistic politically parties are getting so many votes the last few years.

(English is second language, so hope it's called: "nationalistic politically parties", Do correct me if I am wrong.)

originally posted by: SBargisen

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I admit this whole immigrnat thing would make me nervous. It makes me nervous and I don't evne live in Europe! But there's a fine line between disagreement or doubt and spitting on mmigrants.

Well. There's a reason why nationalistic politically parties are getting so many votes the last few years.

(English is second language, so hope it's called: "nationalistic politically parties", Do correct me if I am wrong.)

I changed my post earlier after I realized "fine line" did not communicate what I was intending. What I meant to say is hte distinction between them is clear and if someone fails to heed it then they're committing crime.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

No, it doesn't justify spitting on children however it certainly justifys stoping this exodus dead in its tracks, and focusing our energy's cleaning up the Middle East, it would be a favor to humanity to do so. Now since the exodus is continuing the problems of a belief system ( where 3/10 on the lower order, and even higher % coming from middle eastern countries are Islamic extremists) will continue, so it's not a civil rights issue! This is a war and we are at war with Islamic extremism.

On your points about Christian or Buddhism extremists (which you should never answer a question with a question) of course, they cannot be "tolerated", however their numbers are significantly lower, so yes they are a threat and we must not "tolerate" them either. However "tolerating" (another civil rights word) is not what we are talking about, once again let's focus your thoughts, we are talking about a war and an elimination of Islamic extremism.

a reply to: aorAki
Sorry does that mean I am right wing and I am helping to send ats to the dogs. I didn't understand your comment.
If it meant that then I apologise for not having a politically correct response and will tone my replies down to satisfy the left wing people on ats who are the BACKBONE of this community.

???