Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bullockist wrote:
I was all ready to go off like a bomb on your statement, but then i looked up the figures.

Its like WOW isn't it?

Mainstream Media will not report it because it doesn't, follow their agenda...nor the governments agenda apparently.



Should we ignore them....no
Should we hate them...no
Should we help them....Sure
Do they need to come to our countries to cause problems....No, but they are.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
My wife has family in sweden. That country has been destroyed by "refugees". Rape, murder, general destruction.
And all because the people can't speak out against these animals that have flooded the country.

Citation needed?

Mostly Germany but one Sweden article. there was more when I searched Sweden Crime increase


http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6527/migrants-rape-germany

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/germans-forced-from-their-homes-to-make-way-for-muslim-migrants

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6668/germany-migrant-crime-wave

http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/germany-must-separate-christians-from-muslim-migrants-as-violent-attacks-surge.html/

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_iQusP9BY


the list go on and on.....

I'm sure these are just Cultural Misunderstandings.....Isolated Incidents

Jihadwatch ? Muslimstatistics ?

Sure look like impartial and objective sources.

Sweden and Germany are struggling to integrate so many, for sure. Which is why it would be nice if a few more countries (including my own) stepped up to help out a bit more instead of plugging their fingers in their ears.

Germany gets a lot of stick for it's leadership role in Europe, but France is practically signed out under Hollande and Britain basically pretends like it's not part of the club, so I dunno what Germany is supposed to do.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

bound for glory wrote:
My wife has family in sweden. That country has been destroyed by "refugees". Rape, murder, general destruction.
And all because the people can't speak out against these animals that have flooded the country.

Citation needed?

Mostly Germany but one Sweden article. there was more when I searched Sweden Crime increase


http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6527/migrants-rape-germany

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/germans-forced-from-their-homes-to-make-way-for-muslim-migrants

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6668/germany-migrant-crime-wave

http://pamelageller.com/2015/09/germany-must-separate-christians-from-muslim-migrants-as-violent-attacks-surge.html/

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls_iQusP9BY


the list go on and on.....

I'm sure these are just Cultural Misunderstandings.....Isolated Incidents

You get an F on your course in providing objective sources. Try again, taking into account that Sweden has one of the broadest definitions of rape in the world and that differences in internal reporting practices between police authorities in different countries make cross-country comparisons difficult even if one is doing it properly, which you aren't even near.

 Da Boss wrote:
Sweden and Germany are struggling to integrate so many, for sure. Which is why it would be nice if a few more countries (including my own) stepped up to help out a bit more instead of plugging their fingers in their ears.

Germany gets a lot of stick for it's leadership role in Europe, but France is practically signed out under Hollande and Britain basically pretends like it's not part of the club, so I dunno what Germany is supposed to do.

Why? That creates a heterogeneous culture with inherent increases in violence, crime, and breaking in the social cohesion. While it also creates distinct advantages, why do cultures that don't want that have to have it?

Because there's a genocidal war going on?

 Da Boss wrote:
Because there's a genocidal war going on?

Actually its a turf war. And? Whats new?

There are also similar conflicts in Libya (way to go there guys), and Central Africa with Boko Haram and Al Shabab. There is also a conflict in Ukraine, intertribal conflicts in Africa, the conflict in Burma, and Central America is a kill zone.

Your point is?

 Da Boss wrote:
Your point is?

Humans are evil. As a result we have horrific wars going on all the time.

Are you arguing Europe and the US have a duty to collect all refugees?

We have a duty to collect refugees who make it to us, yes.

There will hit some point where we have to say "Alright, we took as many as we could, but we can't take any more" if there is a flood like the one from Syria focused on one or two countries.

But that point comes a lot further along than the pitiful numbers that some of our EU "partners" have suggested.

Why do they have that duty? How is putting refugees in an alien environment without skills better for the refugees? What is the impact of the high percentage of adult males in the group have? How are they going to be employed and productive members of where they end up? What about the native populations there now?

Note I am not trying to be jerk, I am asking on a philosophical basis. As a Texan these things have massive impacts that you should be aware of and should not be blithely ignored, but discussed before you do the deed.

 LethalShade wrote:


Sure look like impartial and objective sources.

I have previously stated....
That they need help and even said we should help, and they should not be hated. Just not in our countries. That's my belief.

Truth is a three edged sword: Right, Left, Truth. Liberal media is all unicorns and rainbows, conservative media is all doom and gloom. I may not be in the middle where truth lies, but I'm far closer than anyone who refuses to see danger in "migration" or ignores the problems that are occurring because of it.

If increased rapes of native women, beating of native people (teen boys mostly) and Christian refugees, Increased crime by "migrants", forced displacement of native people by their own government to make room for "migrants" is acceptable. Then keep on keeping on.

I got it. Its ok to ignore the safety and rights of native citizens and to place Christian refugee in harms way all for the sake of being politically correct and feeling good about yourselves.

Peace out I'm done here!

Refugees who exhibit criminal behavior should be swiftly expelled, of course. However refugees as a whole should still be allowed in.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You get an F on your course in providing objective sources.

Find me a 100% unbiased source and I'd gladly read it. I watch the news at night so I got the liberal side. I look on line and find the conservative side. last time I check there were no unbiased middle news sources. So I have to attempt to interpret the middle

Sorry now I'm done

 LethalShade wrote:
Refugees who exhibit criminal behavior should be swiftly expelled, of course. However refugees as a whole should still be allowed in.

They won't be if history is a guide.

Ah, I see where you are coming from with this now, Frazzled.

Hmmm. Well, yes, it is a big problem. And it does not have a perfect, neat solution.

I think saying no to everyone on principle is not the solution though.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ah, I see where you are coming from with this now, Frazzled.

Hmmm. Well, yes, it is a big problem. And it does not have a perfect, neat solution.

I think saying no to everyone on principle is not the solution though.

Then how do you address these concerns?

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You get an F on your course in providing objective sources.

Find me a 100% unbiased source and I'd gladly read it.

The fact that no one is completely unbiased does not mean that we should look to the worst possible sources imaginable. Again, you can't just claim that the high incidence of rape in Sweden is due to immigration and then just stubbornly keep repeating it when people point out that the sources you linked were biased as gak and that your methodology is off by so much that you risk hitting Papua New Guinea instead of Sweden. There's no argument to be had if you cannot adhere to even the basics of proper sourcing and methodology.

Hi there,I'm back^^

Wow, I didn't think the thread would be that kind of thread.

To Morikun (I'm speaking english for everyone to understand):
Hi, Morikun, If you are the Morikun I think you are, I very surprised and pleased (Temple de Morikun ?) !
So,
In fact, I am very curious of what others countries think about France, their biases etc... I often read english/american news on the Internet to have their point of view (I had this idea following the riots in 2005 when I saw a US news covering this issue).

When I made this thread, I wanted to be really objective and just to know what the other countries had heard about the FN and France, as it is a contested party on the verge to lead a big country.
I even put a quote of Marion Marechal LePen I consider a bit "extreme", attacking EVERY muslim and not just the extrem ones.
But I agree with you, I may have lost objectivity and diverted my own topic.

I beg you to believe I didn't intended to make the pub/advertise for the FN on a non-French forum, I mean, they can't even vote ^^
Nevertheless, I will be more cautious in the future.

It is a bit overpowered to compare the FN to the KKK, the FN is totally legal, when the KKK is openly racist, and thus, illegal in France.

And, unfortunately, I'm only on this forum^^


About the refugees Crisis: I think this thread highlights why the extrem are winning in Europe: people, with the same arguments which are being said here, are afraid. Afraid of loosing their jobs to people willing to work for cheapers, afraid of being raped by "uncivilized outlandish", afraid to loose their identity...
And the Europeans elites have the exact same arguments than these on Dakka Dakka: there isn't any problem, we HAVE to take all of them etc...

It is a total lack of understanding, and the only parties to speak the same language than the people, on this issue, are the extrem.


Maybe we have done with this thread, I mean, it seems we have said everything about France, FN and illegal immigration ?

Sorry boys, i went to bed before you all started to mock my wife.

I can only repeat what her family members have told her.

bound for glory wrote:
Sorry boys, i went to bed before you all started to mock my wife.

I can only repeat what her family members have told her.

We're not mocking your wife, we're mocking the opinion that Sweden is collapsing. We had a 3.9% increase in GDP (2.8% per capita) the third quarter 2015 compared to the same period 2014, unemployment is going down, and an increase in GDP since 1993 of a whopping 50%, despite handling two economic crises and the refugee waves from the Balkans and now Syria and Afghanistan.

Source in Swedish, quoting the Swedish equivalent of the Census Bureau.

 godardc wrote:
Hi there,I'm back^^

Wow, I didn't think the thread would be that kind of thread.

To Morikun (I'm speaking english for everyone to understand):
Hi, Morikun, If you are the Morikun I think you are, I very surprised and pleased (Temple de Morikun ?) !
So,
In fact, I am very curious of what others countries think about France, their biases etc... I often read english/american news on the Internet to have their point of view (I had this idea following the riots in 2005 when I saw a US news covering this issue).

When I made this thread, I wanted to be really objective and just to know what the other countries had heard about the FN and France, as it is a contested party on the verge to lead a big country.
I even put a quote of Marion Marechal LePen I consider a bit "extreme", attacking EVERY muslim and not just the extrem ones.
But I agree with you, I may have lost objectivity and diverted my own topic.

I beg you to believe I didn't intended to make the pub/advertise for the FN on a non-French forum, I mean, they can't even vote ^^
Nevertheless, I will be more cautious in the future.

It is a bit overpowered to compare the FN to the KKK, the FN is totally legal, when the KKK is openly racist, and thus, illegal in France.

And, unfortunately, I'm only on this forum^^


About the refugees Crisis: I think this thread highlights why the extrem are winning in Europe: people, with the same arguments which are being said here, are afraid. Afraid of loosing their jobs to people willing to work for cheapers, afraid of being raped by "uncivilized outlandish", afraid to loose their identity...
And the Europeans elites have the exact same arguments than these on Dakka Dakka: there isn't any problem, we HAVE to take all of them etc...

It is a total lack of understanding, and the only parties to speak the same language than the people, on this issue, are the extrem.


Maybe we have done with this thread, I mean, it seems we have said everything about France, FN and illegal immigration ?

Just a note, while I can tell you are ESL (English as a Second Language) my complements on your ability to use English. I appreciate the many non-US posters who attempt the difficult step of posting in a different language - more brave than I am.

(I especially appreciate the British who attempt British to English... )

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The fact that no one is completely unbiased does not mean that we should look to the worst possible sources imaginable.

Really, I believe that I state that in an above post. Three edged sword and all. I see what the news say AND AMERCIAN NEWS IS WORTHLESS BECAUSE IT IS EXTREMELY BIASED, so I search on the internet I SEE BIASED CONSERVITVE NEWS or sources with alternate agendas. I see no trustworthy sources, so I am left to find a middle ground between: unicorns and Rainbows and Doom and Gloom.

The article for Sweden stated 77% increase in rapes committed by a 2% Muslim minority, and well we know that libtards will say its 0% or close to that or play it off as cultural misunderstandings. So, I need to at least assume; because I can't find an unbiased or better statistical source, that 30%-40% increase rapes committed by most likely...Muslims....Still a lot of fracking raping. You say Sweden has a loose definition of rape. So what are they varying degrees of sexual assault? Does that make it better?

To be honest if a source came up stating we tell only the fact and try to eliminate bias I'd find such a source refreshing and I have hopes that I'm wrong and they'd be able to show me proof.

we can argue till we puke, we do not have the power to stop anything. I said I was done and I made another reply sorry but this time I'm truly done. sorry to cause a flame argument.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
...we know that libtards will say...

You know, this is a great way to get people to ignore what you say.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
...we know that libtards will say...

You know, this is a great way to get people to ignore what you say.

That's the kind of thing that makes you think someone ignores "liberal" news which are "biased" simply because they don't say what someone wants to hear.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

The article for Sweden stated 77% increase in rapes committed by a 2% Muslim minority, and well we know that libtards will say its 0% or close to that or play it off as cultural misunderstandings. So, I need to at least assume; because I can't find an unbiased or better statistical source, that 30%-40% increase rapes committed by most likely...Muslims....

Bollocks. You came to that conclusion because it fit your worldview. The only thing you "had" to do was conclude that all you had was far-right sources bashing immigration and that you thus didn't really have a clue. You could have searched on Wikipedia to get the same answers I gave you, with multiple sources. You'd even find some sources in there supporting your claim about immigrants and rape, so the fact that Wikipedia is doing a better job of arguing your point in two minutes than you are really ought to tell you that you're missing something.

bound for glory wrote:
Sorry boys, i went to bed before you all started to mock my wife.

I can only repeat what her family members have told her.

Nobody mocked your wife, what we mocked was the use of the "I have an X" argument, to justify whatever comment you made. As it's kind of a bad precursor to an argument and doesn't exempt you from what you followed it up with.

@ All : excuse my very bad english please.

@ Godardc :

To Morikun (I'm speaking english for everyone to understand):
Hi, Morikun, If you are the Morikun I think you are, I very surprised and pleased (Temple de Morikun ?) !

Yes, I'm the Morikun you think I am.

In fact, I am very curious of what others countries think about France, their biases etc... I often read english/american news on the Internet to have their point of view (I had this idea following the riots in 2005 when I saw a US news covering this issue).

Sure. This is always intersting to know about how we'are seen in foreign countries. I won't arguing about that. We can even learn a lot from them (and sometimes more than we could expect).

When I made this thread, I wanted to be really objective and just to know what the other countries had heard about the FN and France, as it is a contested party on the verge to lead a big country.
I even put a quote of Marion Marechal LePen I consider a bit "extreme", attacking EVERY muslim and not just the extrem ones.
But I agree with you, I may have lost objectivity and diverted my own topic.

I beg you to believe I didn't intended to make the pub/advertise for the FN on a non-French forum, I mean, they can't even vote ^^
Nevertheless, I will be more cautious in the future.

Really ? Maybe you would have been more objective starting not wearing Marion Maréchal-Le Pen aka the 3rd leader of the FN as your avatar ? If you love blond women to put them as your avatar, I think there are plenty of pics (with clothes or not) which can match your choice.

The FN is (and has been) always contested because he NEVER promotes French Republic Values and he has never been "the first" in France. That's right Jean-Marie Le Pen (the 1st leader) reached the first round of the french presidential elections on the 2002/04/21 but he has been kicked down by Jacques Chirac by 82% of votes. This being said, the FN has always been "the third" in french elections (he could thank very much the poor turnout at elections years after years only).

You would have been very objective if you started by saying that this is the first turn of the regional elections and this sunday there is the second turn and as always, except (maybe) in the North region or PACA region, FN will be (fortunately) kicked down. You would have been very objective if you inform Dakka Dakka Users that your avatar is MArion Maréchal-Le Pen, the 3rd leader (to avoid getting only comments "wow dude she's cute indeed !!"). You would have been really objective if you told all the truth about FN (ok they want to exit from Europe... But the leaders are in european parliament with all the benefits attached) : they claim they're patriot but they hate foreigners...

I think your path is longer than you expect about being "more objective" you know ?

It is a bit overpowered to compare the FN to the KKK, the FN is totally legal, when the KKK is openly racist, and thus, illegal in France.

Oh dear !! Please : don't insult my intelligence please... And don't insult yours will you ? If it's right that KKK is not a political party, it is composed with a lot of lots of organizations : some are illegal... and other are absolutely well known and legal. More : in USA the freedom of opinion is higher than in France. That's why a guy can wear a KKK symbol without immediately being arrested.

In France ? The freedom of opinion is fortunately more restrictive : you can think what you think in your private life (if you want to support FN, I don't mind, it's up to you) but you can't show it in public... if it could hurt other peoples. I won't teach you that FN is all but tolerant : FN is openly racist : you can ask any followers : the excuses are known : they love France, they want it strong, they want a better life...etc etc etc... and just after this beautiful words, the solutions are always the same : no jews, no muslims, no mosques, no foreign people (except tourists who came in France to spend their money before come back home), no Europe... no ... no... etc etc etc...

Must I remind you all files were FN was prosecuted for racism ? Jean-Marie Le Pen is well known for its little words about nazis, gas chambers, supporting the Maréchal Pétain etc etc etc... And look at his friends : Alain Mégret, Alain Soral, Dieudonné... All this peoples are violent racists. Must I remind you all the guys near Marine Le Pen known for their nazi salute on facebook pages, their words against no-white peoples etc etc etc ??

Well, if you really dont think that FN is not openly racist it's very amazing indeed !! Keeping that in mind, maybe, after all, Donald Trump is a really good and gentle man, the perfect next President of the USA who would the perfect man for keeping peace in the world...

FN will never be the solution because he use hate, fear, violence (spoken or not) and lies.

You have the absolute right to speak about what you want but as long you'll wear such an avatar like yours and don't tell the entire truth (more than all to foreigners that are not awared precisely about FN, I'll never trust you when you tell me "I wanted to be really objective and just to know what the other countries had heard about the FN and France, as it is a contested party on the verge to lead a big country. "

Serviteur,

Morikun

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
The article for Sweden stated 77% increase in rapes committed by a 2% Muslim minority, and well we know that libtards will say its 0% or close to that or play it off as cultural misunderstandings.

I'm fairly liberal (or completely libtarded if you prefer). But I don't think something like that should be played down at all. However, one thing I've realized in my time here arguing on dakka is that statistics are incredibly untrustworthy. Even completely honest reputable studies can be presented in ways that support almost any argument.

For example: in many of the gun control arguments, people who are in favour of gun rights cite figures that say gun ownership is going up while crime is falling, thus proving that there is no connection between guns and rising crime (or even a negative correlation). People on the other side of the debate point out that while there are more guns than ever, they are being owned by fewer and fewer people, so in fact the number of households with a gun has been falling, along with crime, thus proving their side of the argument. So you see, the same figures are being presented differently to support diametrically opposing views.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
So, I need to at least assume; because I can't find an unbiased or better statistical source, that 30%-40% increase rapes committed by most likely...Muslims....

The words "assume", "can't find", and "most likely" aren't instilling a great deal of confidence in this argument. It doesn't even sound like you are that confident in it yourself, there seems to be an awful lot of uncertainty.

If we're going to start "hypothesizing" then I find a good rule of thumb is to look at people's motivations and agendas. Do they have something to lose or gain? Do they have a reason to lie? As a liberal, I find I have little reason to lie about refugees. I don't wake up in the morning and think "Hey! You know what would just make my fething day? A whole bunch of smelly refugees costing me money!". The reason I'm in favour of helping these people is because I don't want to turn my back on people who might really need our help. It's not just about "feeling good", because I don't feel especially good about it. Reluctantly, in fact, I know it's the right thing to do. It's like the man said: "do unto others", I wouldn't want people to turn their back on me if I were in their situation. I concede that it may bring social problems, it may mean I'm a little worse off than I was before, doing the right thing isn't always easy.

On the other side of the argument there is a lot of fear, there is racism, there are a lot of people who don't want to share, who think "the right thing" is looking out for themselves. I think those people have a lot of reasons to lie. If you want to start speculating on "who do I trust", right there is a big red flag.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
To be honest if a source came up stating we tell only the fact and try to eliminate bias I'd find such a source refreshing and I have hopes that I'm wrong and they'd be able to show me proof.

That's not really how arguments work. You made quite an extraordinary claim, which displayed all the hallmarks of fear-mongering (red flag). The burden of proof is now on you to persuade us (the reader) that what you said has any real merit. Otherwise you're just Chicken Little, saying the sky is falling.

There's also the compare violent crime fun. "Look, yours is higher" when "yours" reports far more things under violent crime than "theirs".