Explosions in Stockholm

jugger0

wes wrote: »

Interesting, when another terrorist in Sweden was shooting immigrants, you posted the following in reply to me on the topic:



You then reply with the following to me:



Seems to be a pretty blatant double standard to terrorism imho.

How was that guy a terrorist? he's just responding to a threat he probably sees everyday... put yourself in his shoes, if thousands of muslims invaded dublin and went into a crime frenzy wouldnt you be pissed? maybe a family member was attacked by one of these "people". The govenment isnt going to do anything...

wes

Morlar wrote: »

Here is another imperfect report published in 2010 with data compiled from court cases during 2009 :

Well, let highlight some other parts of the same article:

http://www.thelocal.se/28580/20100825/
Sweden Democrats publish report on rape

Published: 25 Aug 10 16:39 CET

The Sweden Democrats presented a report on Wednesday showing that of 114 convictions for rape in 2009, 48 percent involved men born outside Sweden.


"This sample is less than half of the court rulings last year," said Klara Hradilova Selin at The National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) which compiles official statistics on crimes committed and reported in Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats have gone through 114 district court rulings from 2009 in cases of rape or aggravated rape. 48 percent (or 55 cases) of the convicted rapists were born outside of Sweden, with 39.5 percent of the total born outside of Europe.

The 55 convictions constitute an over representation of overseas-born as a group. There were 648,426 overseas-born males registered as resident in Sweden in 2009 of a population of 9.34 million.

According to Brå statistics men account for 98 percent of all rapes in Sweden.

According to the Sweden Democrats the over-representation is due to cultural differences, and that the view on rape and on women varies significantly between cultures. But Brå dispute that any conclusions can be drawn from the statistics.

"There were 253 court judgements last year, there were 6,000 rapes reported to the police and the Sweden Democrats have chosen 114 cases," said Klara Hradilova Selin to The Local.

Selin also rejected the Sweden Democrats claim that there is something of a "wave of rapes" sweeping Sweden, with the country enduring the highest incidence of rape in Europe.

The comparison can not be done, according to Selin, the definition of rape differs too greatly among countries. Since a 2005 law change Sweden has one of the broadest definitions of rape in an international perspective.

Sweden Democrats' party leader Jimmie Åkesson has meanwhile rejected the argument that it is irresponsible for a politician to draw conclusions from such a small sample.

"I think that it is a reasonable limitation. It confirms the same pattern in other reports which, for example Brå has done, and confirms also patterns seen in some foreign countries," Åkesson told news agency TT.

But Klara Hradilova Selin argues that it is impossible to draw any general conclusions over rape from Brå statistics.

"There simply aren't any statistics which indicate the actual incidence of rape - it is the crime with the highest degree of hidden statistics and most cases are not even reported," she told The Local.

The Sweden Democrats have identified the incidence of rape as the "key equality issue of the election campaign" and argue that tighter controls on immigration would help to address the issue as well as placing a ten year trial period for new citizens.

They further propose to raise the penalties for rape and spend 1 billion kronor ($134 million) annually on measures to rebuild risk areas, adding cameras and improving lighting.

TT/Peter Vinthagen Simpson
news@thelocal.se

They chose a very small sample, and therefore I think it reasonable to find the conclusions questionable. The question has to be asked, why did they not look at all the cases? Why such a small sample? There data has huge problem with it, and the people making the claims also make it double questionable.

wes

jugger0 wrote: »

How was that guy a terrorist? he's just responding to a threat he probably sees everyday... put yourself in his shoes, if thousands of muslims invaded dublin and went into a crime frenzy wouldnt you be pissed? maybe a family member was attacked by one of these "people". The govenment isnt going to do anything...

The fact that you deny he was a terrorist is just digging a deeper hole for yourself. He attacked random people, he did not go hunting for Osama, he just randomly shot people. That is what makes him a terrorist. He is no different than the guy who tired to blow up random people. It is sickening that anyone would defend either terrorist, but the only terrorist being defended is the crazy who shot people.

prinz

biko wrote: »

Indeed it's very sad when people get used by organisations. But I wouldn't lump this guy in with lone kids in Finland, Columbine, other schools who simply kill everyone because they are filled with teenage rage or similar selfish reasons..

Their personality traits often coincide. Introverts, anti-social, loners.. The same type of people are often recruited into right and left extremist groups etc. The only difference is the lone gunmen/women convince themselves that killing is the only way out whereas the suicide bombers and others often are duped into it by others.

biko wrote: »

Suicide bombers are a different kettle - organised and motivated to cause maximum destruction. We still more info on Taimour Abdulwahab but since he was probably radicalised in Luton and spent time in Iraq to prepare I would not say he was alone in this.

The complete opposite. There was a man, I think he was the Imam from Luton's Islamic Centre who had dealings with the guy while he was in Luton, on the news last nights, could have been on Channel 4 and was describing how the man would go from one extreme to the other more or less.. in terms of fundamentalism and jihadism.. back to normality.. and so on. It was obvious somebody was filling his head with nonsense and they need to be stopped. They didn't go to the police at the time, but that is perhaps understandable. Thank God or Allah or the FSM or whatever that it wasn't as big a disaster as it could have been.

jugger0

wes wrote: »

The fact that you deny he was a terrorist is just digging a deeper hole for yourself. He attacked random people, he did not go hunting for Osama, he just randomly shot people. That is what makes him a terrorist. He is no different than the guy who tired to blow up random people. It is sickening that anyone would defend either terrorist, but the only terrorist being defended is the crazy who shot people.

Pretty sure thats not the definition of a terrorist? the muslims have been nothing but a cancer on swedish society, the country has gotten worse with the rising muslim population, thats a fact that cant be denied. Id love to know how the swedes themselves feel sbout the whole situation, it is their country after all.

wes

jugger0 wrote: »

Pretty sure thats not the definition of a terrorist?

Well seeing as both men tried to kill random people, and one is being called a terrorist, it is only reasonable to call them both terrorists.

jugger0 wrote: »

the muslims have been nothing but a cancer on swedish society, the country has gotten worse with the rising muslim population, thats a fact that cant be denied. Id love to know how the swedes themselves feel sbout the whole situation, it is their country after all.

Yes, yes keep on making excuses for your preferred terrorist. This is just getting more and more entertaining really.

jugger0

wes wrote: »

Well seeing as both men tried to kill random people, and one is being called a terrorist, it is only reasonable to call them both terrorists.



Yes, yes keep on making excuses for your preferred terrorist. This is just getting more and more entertaining really.

Your the one making excuses for muslims. I hope sweden sorts this mess out, such a shame to see a nice country going down the pan like this.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Yeah I kinda knew someone would pick up that the video is from the Christian Broadcasting Network. However it doesn't mean that they're wrong..

Its run by a rabid lunatic, so yes, it rather does.

biko wrote: »

Please feel free to contradict anything that you find in the video that's untrue or slanted.

One time only -

Protests against Israel have been going on since as far back as I can remember. Linking them to crime, anti-semitism and immigration is disengenous and typically underhanded.

The assertion that Malmo will be majority muslim in the future is unfounded, as is the assertion for Sweden being a majority muslim state.

"jihad" driving school? FFS. Christ help them if they're asked to go down to the Horn of Africa.

The quote about "The best Islamic state is sweden" is cherry picked from a man who thinks "that Western liberalism is the best basis for free religious expression"
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/03/sweden-best-muslim-state.html

Should we get somebody posting info from David Icke, Al Qaeda, and the like in this thread, I presume you'll be giving it the same scrutiny you expect others to give this rabble-rabble shite.

Nodin

Morlar wrote: »

Here is another imperfect report published in 2010 with data compiled from court cases during 2009 :

...A report published by the right wing anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-minorities in general party comes to such a conclusion? O the shock.

wes

jugger0 wrote: »

Your the one making excuses for muslims.

I think you will find I condemned both terrorists. Also, in this instance, I made if very clear that what the guy did was first and foremost wrong, and that the reasoning behind was inherently stupid as well. I would hardly class that as making excuses.

If you are talking about me questioning data, that I see issues with, that isn't making excuses as you put it, but rather simple evaluation of data and coming to conclusion based on that.

jugger0 wrote: »

I hope sweden sorts this mess out, such a shame to see a nice country going down the pan like this.

Well, seeing as you are more than happy to support a random crazy shooting people, I find that judgement rather questionable.

Nodin

jugger0 wrote: »

Your the one making excuses for muslims...........

As far as I can see, he's pointing out the misuse and abuse of statistics by the Swedish far right, thus he doesn't have to make excuses for anyone. You and 'Travis Bicklesen', however......

Manic Moran

Well seeing as both men tried to kill random people, and one is being called a terrorist, it is only reasonable to call them both terrorists.

John Allen Muhammed (The D.C. Sniper) killed random people, but his immediate goal was financial extortion, not political change.

I think the more appropriate American equivalent to the Swedish guy who went around shooting immigrants would be 'hate crime', much as homophobes and racists get charged with such a term when they go around selecting specific segments of the population.

NTM

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

John Allen Muhammed (The D.C. Sniper) killed random people, but his immediate goal was financial extortion, not political change.

True enough.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think the more appropriate American equivalent to the Swedish guy who went around shooting immigrants would be 'hate crime', much as homophobes and racists get charged with such a term when they go around selecting specific segments of the population.

I agree to a certain degree, but by targetting immigrants, the shooters was clearly trying to effect Anti-immigrant political change, e.g. scare the immigrants away, or seeing it as waging war against them, and as such I would call it terrorism. Either way, its pretty messed up that anyone would support such a thing.