Trump

[SkStu]

I'm pretty sure the BBC, for instance, has never called him a paedo or said he's the spawn of Satan. Or any of those thing actually. Are they guilty by association?

They can't stand BBC which is definitely anti-Trump although from my perspective a little fairer in how they go about it. So I don't know if they're guilty by association or what. Spicer did include a number of "unfriendly" institutions in the informal gathering.

But, what happened is interesting...

- Friday Press Briefing was cancelled Wednesday or Thursday due to CPAC
- Instead Spicer schedules an informal gathering (they called it a gaggle) of friendly journalists (good dudes)
- decides to increase the gathering but doesn't invite the "bad dudes" due to space issues (hehe yeah).
- the bad dudes showed up anyway and were told they couldn't enter.

Kind of funny really. Also,
- the bad dudes baulked in january when Spicer suggested moving the press room to a larger location to accommodate the number of media outlets.
- the worst dude (Obama) did the same to right wing outlets (Fox and others) back in 2008/09.

Yet it's unprecedented and awful. Won't someone please think of the children!

[Charlie Darwin]

It's just a bit mad banning people who don't agree with you. Especially when you're the President. I don't know how anybody could see that as being remotely rational.

[SkStu]

No one gave a sh1t when Obama did it...

And is it a ban? This was not an official press briefing. Some outlets weren't invited. Cool kids only. I'm pretty sure they'll be back giving Spicer a hard time on Monday.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't give a **** about Obama now either, he's irrelevant to what Trump is doing. If people turned a blind eye to Obama doing it but criticise Trump (I don't know the details but assuming it's comparable) then they're misinformed or hypocrites. But it doesn't justify it or make it rational now.

[SkStu]

What is "it" exactly? Are you still calling this a ban? The worst you could call it was a snub. And a well deserved one.

Also, it's funny how when you point out that the actions of one administration, actions that the press and others call "unprecedented", was actually done by the previous administration then it doesn't count or is not relevant to Trump. It is f*cking relevant. It's the same behaviour. It's not unprecedented.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/presiden...with-fox-news/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...6156794&page=1

Regarding Sweden, this journalist - Tim Pool - has undertaken to go to Malmö, Gothenburg, Stockholm and other major cities to determine the truth. He doesn't appear to be anything other than independent so it might be worth following his journey. The first video was interesting.

[geysir]

Opening lines.
Person: Are you lost, What are you doing on this side of .... this is the Harlem of Malmo.
Pool: Oh is it , is it a bad area?
Person: Nah

Yet we have people scurrying around looking for this and that report to provide a rational context for race hate groups and to support
"claims that violent crime is rising rapidly and caused by recent immigrants to the nation".

There was one demonstration which ended in violence in Stockholm when 600 members of the Swedish/Scandanavian fascist/neo nazi Nordic Resistance took to the streets to demonstrate in celebration of Trump.
Norwegian neo-Nazis were also in attendance

The first point to their Political program
1. Immediately stop mass immigration, and as soon as possible initiate the repatriation of the majority of peoples that are not of North European descent. These should in the most humane way possible be sent back to their respective homelands or regions nearby.

[geysir]

Spend two years calling someone racist, hitler, pedo, rapist, say he fcked a 13 year old girl, say he molested a bunch of women, say he ****ed on hookers in Russia, say he's owned by Putin, say he's owned by Bannon, say he's the spawn of Satan, say he's a white supremacist and say he's anti-semitic.

Don't get invited to one informal meeting and it's the end of democracy and the world as we know it. FFS.

Not the end of the world, the Nazis etc were defeated.

[Real ale Madrid]

Don't get invited to one informal meeting and it's the end of democracy and the world as we know it. FFS.

Yeah because this is a totally isolated incident. FAKE NEWS.

[Charlie Darwin]

What is "it" exactly? Are you still calling this a ban? The worst you could call it was a snub. And a well deserved one.

Also, it's funny how when you point out that the actions of one administration, actions that the press and others call "unprecedented", was actually done by the previous administration then it doesn't count or is not relevant to Trump. It is f*cking relevant. It's the same behaviour. It's not unprecedented.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/presiden...with-fox-news/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...6156794&page=1

I don't think you understand that I don't care about Obama. I didn't defend him before and I'm not defending him now. If Obama pulled down his pants and **** on the floor of the Áras I'd still criticise Trump if he did the same.

[SkStu]

Opening lines.
Person: Are you lost, What are you doing on this side of .... this is the Harlem of Malmo.
Pool: Oh is it , is it a bad area?
Person: Nah

Yet we have people scurrying around looking for this and that report to provide a rational context for race hate groups and to support

Yeah, one random guy speaking off camera. Case closed.

I don't think you understand that I don't care about Obama. I didn't defend him before and I'm not defending him now. If Obama pulled down his pants and **** on the floor of the Áras I'd still criticise Trump if he did the same.

Obviously, that's your own prerogative Charlie but I want you to understand and acknowledge what I am saying. There is a huge level of hypocrisy when people use language like "unprecedented", "nazi", "ruining freedom of speech", "damaging to democracy" to talk about what happened to certain media outlets yesterday and yet refuse to apply the same standard or level of outrage to the actions of the previous administration when it is pointed out. Or, at least, back off from the stupid narrative when it is pointed out.

[geysir]

Yeah, one random guy speaking off camera. Case closed.

For Trump and his apologists. one random guy speaking off camera is proof positive.
You fell for that one.
This Trump love, muslim/refugee hate is dulling your senses.

Provide solid evidence for the claim which you are attempting to provide a rational context for, that the recent flow of emigration and refugees in the last 2 years into Sweden is responsible for an alleged rise in serious crimes in Sweden.

[SkStu]

It is difficult to find the proof you require, Geysir, since the Swedish government stopped tracking the nationality/ethnicity of criminals back in, I think, 2010. This data gap makes anecdote/observation more important and I have already tried to provide non partisan sources to reasonably portray whether or not there are issues. I also linked to Tim Pool who is over there and I will be following his journey to satisfy my own curiosity and desire for information. Gatestone Institute has a list of a number of serious crimes committed by refugees and immigrants in Sweden too but I didn't bother posting that as, even though it seems factual, it is too right wing a source for the many on here who agree with open border policies.

With regards to the first paragraph of your post, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make but I do note that you took a dig at my intelligence and tried to cast me as hating Muslims. Thanks for that. Sound.

Another interesting update from Tim Pool.

[ifk101]

Another interesting update from Tim Pool.

It's interesting that nobody has corrected him on the pronunciation of the "no-go" area he's visiting or that Zlatan comes from there. That beanie hat intrigues me as well - what's he hiding under there?

[Wolfman]

Why are people standing up for Frump? It's one thing being one of the dimwits in the US electorate voting for this pr*ck, but why would anyone outside there respect this paranoid narcissist?
Especially his hateful attitude and policies towards minorities.

Not withstanding the many faults of Obama and past US regimes, not to mention the rest of the planet!

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

The quote from one person is "some merit".

The claims that the recent spike in arrivals of emigrants/refugees have coincided with a spike in crime in Sweden have no merit. Not unless one is willing to blindly take on board the propaganda from the white shirted, bald headed, race hate nazi groups like Nordic Resistance, who peddle the highly emotive claims that there is a huge rise in rapes of beautiful blue eyed blondes by leering emigrants/refugees.
There is some rise in reported rapes over the past 2 years due to extending the criteria for reporting a rape and an improvement in the facility for reporting rape.
For example In the UK Reported rapes in England and Wales double in four years

What Trump in effect is doing, is enabling race hate nazi groups all around Europe, by repeating their lies, their hate, their racism, he is muddying the lines between fact and propaganda to favour the propaganda of hysteria and fear.

It's not just "one person" though, is it?

He's on the frontline, so he presumably knows what he is talking about.

There is not just a rise in sexual crimes against Western women. There have been numerous sexual crimes against adults and children in migrant camps.

Donald Trump denigrated constantly through the duration of the Oscars.

Denigrated by the same people who gave Roman Polanski, a convicted child rapist, a standing ovation.

[DannyInvincible]

I came across this excellent letter to the Guardian yesterday and, although it relates specifically to the pathologised black, Asian, Muslim and ethnic minority residents of Moss Side in Manchester, it touches on and challenges some of the more rectionary opinions being aired generally in this thread in relation to "radicalisation being the main cause of terrorism", "immigrants being to blame for rising crime rates" and "no-go zones": https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...side-residents

Your article (Nine terror suspects all from same small area of city, 25 January) characterised Moss Side in Manchester, “formerly known for gang culture”, as now a breeding ground for “jihadis”.

For years, Moss Side has tried to resist harmful labels which often decontextualise the history of fraught relations, defined by racism and profiling, between the police and local people – whether it is the disproportionate stop-and-search and criminalisation of young black men (the latter through the controversial joint enterprise laws), or the harassment of Somali cafes on Claremont and Princess Road.

The article’s use of the “gang” and “terrorist” labels reflects the criminalisation of black and Asian Mancunians. A recent study found that BMEs were overrepresented on Manchester’s “gang database” (89%) yet only represented 23% of those who had committed serious offences, and that many of those on the gangs list were not even members of “gangs”. The gang label is devoid of value, though not devoid of damage. Young black men are acutely aware of the perception portrayed by the media and its detrimental impact.

As for the Asian/Muslim population, the sentiments of one of the interviewees who said “It is telling that one of those quoted in the article says that what is pulling these youngsters toward terrorism is something he does not understand”, is telling. The government’s misunderstanding has been to claim that radicalisation is the main cause of terrorist violence. Often known as the “conveyor belt theory”, it states that extreme interpretations of belief systems offer the best explanations for why people commit acts of violence. This has been largely discredited by most mainstream academics as it ignores the role of structural violence: racism, poverty, vulnerability, foreign interventions etc – often the products of state policy.

Your article ignores the underinvestment of social and public services in the community. Moss Side is often presented as responsible for many of society’s ills, and your article pathologises its residents. It oversimplifies what causes terrorism and “gang violence”, castigating an area with a rich spirit and fantastic people who have to continually answer the charge of its imagined criminality.

Some further academia (UK-focused) on the matter generally; A Decade Lost: Rethinking Radicalisation and Extremism (January 2015): http://www.claystone.org.uk/wp-conte...calisation.pdf

Executive Summary

• An official narrative holds that terrorism is caused by the presence of extremist ideology. Extremism is defined as opposition to British values. To prevent terrorism, according to this narrative, the government should intervene to stem the expression of extremist opinions and demand allegiance to British values.

• Over the last decade, this narrative has been repeatedly promoted by government ministers. Yet, as an account of what causes terrorism, it does not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. A growing body of academic work holds this position to be fundamentally flawed.

• Policy based on this narrative is at best partial and at worst counterproductive. A better account of the causes of terrorism would acknowledge that radical religious ideology does not correlate well with incidents of terrorist violence and that terrorism is best understood as the product of an interaction between state and non-state actors.

• The factors which lead someone to commit acts of terrorism are complex and cannot be reduced to holding a set of values deemed to be radical. There is little evidence to support the view that there is a single cause to terrorism. Accepting this analysis has significant implications for the development of policies to reduce the risk of terrorism.

• Rather than a broad policy that seeks to criminalise or restrict extremist opinions, a better approach is to focus on individuals who can be reasonably suspected of intending to engage in a terrorist plot, finance terrorism or incite it. The best way of preventing terrorist violence is to widen the range of opinions that can be freely expressed, not restrict it.

• In light of this more authoritative understanding, the government should end its Prevent policy. This will help to avoid nurturing a new generation of antagonised and disenfranchised citizens. Ultimately, Prevent-style policies make Britain less safe.

[mark12345]

Created out of thin air? If that is so, why have we been reading about upsurge in crime in Sweden in the English newspapers for two years now.

[mark12345]

End of the day - reports about upsurge in crime in Sweden are either true or they are not true.
With all the information available at our fingertips and the undoubted smarts of the posters on here, there should be no problem in coming up with the truth, one would think.

[tetsujin1979]

they're not true.

[SkStu]

they're not true.