Going out on a limb here, but maybe international politics is a bit more complex than the English papers make out?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Printable View
Going out on a limb here, but maybe international politics is a bit more complex than the English papers make out?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
I did not ask for proof, I asked for 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Anecdote is evidence but it is the lowest form of evidence and following the journey of some self appointed expert with a camera is supposed some sort of substitution for decades of methodical and educated research into compiling statistics and researching reasons for crime?Quote:
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.
I also read about the grenade attacks in Malmo. "Between January-August 2015, Malmö experienced 31 grenade attacks, which resulted in no deaths and minor injuries to a few individuals, that police attributed to conflicts between organized crime elements. Police made a concerted effort to stop grenade attacks, and none have been reported since then."
Sourced from an overview of crime in Sweden by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC) a US state department.
Crime stats in Sweden can be found here Bra
There are generations of a huge variety of immigrants settled in Sweden and the researched reasons for levels and type of crime and criminal types are detailed and meticulously compiled and are not much different than those existing in other countries.
As long as you persist in your attempt to provide a rational context for the claims made by race hate groups, violent neo-nazis and Trump, 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, I will continue to challenge.Quote:
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.
And when you reply in such a flippant, dismissive and nonsensical manner as you did, then yes I will mock your attempt.
You are persisting to use this guy.Quote:
Another interesting update from Tim Pool.
With that level of intelligence, one could extrapolate that the recent flow of Italian immigrants to the USA are responsible for the outbreaks of violence between Italian American crime gangs. or for that matter, recent immigrants (legal and illegal) from Ireland are a contributing factor to the criminal deeds of Boston Irish gangs.
You certainly are.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
More Fake News from the Frumpanzees.
I was just trying to be light hearted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
Fair enough, will take it back!
But this moron, is generally no laughing matter.
Well I'm not going to flog a dead horse here. You have it cased, the data is inscrutable and any attempt to hear from the people themselves is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Just one thing, Tim Pool quite clearly states he is the furthest thing from an expert and is going to Sweden and beyond to see where does the truth lie. He has made no conclusions. Usually independent investigative journalism is something that we would have celebrated not so long ago but you are calling for us all to accept, without question, the data that the Swedish Government provides. I hope you are not as naive in your own life. Data, the subsets for which they changed, despite your proclaimed "decades of methodical and educated research into compiling statistics and researching reasons for crime". It would appear that you are the self appointed expert on Swedish crime and the quality of data gathering and analysis.
All bow before the all knowing Geysir for fear he "mocks" you.
Are you really claiming that anecdotal evidence in a YouTube video should be taken as seriously as extensive data collected by a national government over several years? How should the Swedish government make its case then?
I'm not trying to mock you either, but videos like that linked aren't all that useful in determining whether a country has a crime problem or not. To paraphrase a documentary I saw recently, it's like looking at the night sky through a straw.
Look lads, I am loathe to continue this conversation as it clear how each side feels and I am not inclined to or equipped to present a convincing case on what crime is like in Sweden. What is beyond doubt is that Sweden takes their reporting very seriously and a lot of information is readily available. However, the only reason I presented a video (not as evidence by the way - the videos make no conclusion or imply any outcome, they're just straightforward interviews with citizens and elected officials who give their personal experiences - good, bad, indifferent) is because the very question that we are discussing here is almost impossible to answer as the most important data set is absent from the reporting that is available.
From a Washington Post piece that combats Trumps loose remarks, the following is stated:
So, long story short, we are all in a bit of an information vacuum when it comes to the answer to the question. The video only serves to add a first person perspective to the conversation that is carried out by someone with little to no skin in the game apart from doing his bit as an investigative journalist. I don't present the video to come to conclusions or "prove my point", just to learn more and satisfy my own curiosity and maybe peak the curiosity of others on here. I have no real problem if people decide to accept the data provided by the Swedish Government (who do have a lot at stake in this policy shift). That's fine too. I don't think the case is as black and white as some posters here would like to assert but, whatever, I would just like to have a grown up debate about the issues and not get called flippant, nonsensical, stupid or implied as racist.Quote:
What’s more, the Swedish police do not collect information on the ethnicity, religion, or race of perpetrators or victims of crime, which means there’s no evidence for claims that Muslim immigrants are committing crimes in record numbers. Nor is there any evidence to support the claim that Swedish authorities are manipulating the statistics, as the producer of the video [stu - the Horowitz video] alleges.
By the way, I agree that Trumps remarks were ill-advised and, generally, inaccurate and unsubstantiated when it comes to "last night in Sweden". I do not accept that this means that there is no issue to be discussed.
I will leave it there on this issue unless I get baited successfully again. :)
If you are suggesting he is indepedent, it is more arguable he is not - he is not in Sweden at his own expense, although he stated he was planning to travel to Sweden regardless..... I am finding his adventures and the persons he has chosen to interview as quite curious. He has certainly succeeded in finding outspoken individuals on the subject on immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
'Trump’s Use of Navy SEAL’s Wife Highlights All the Key Ingredients of U.S. War Propaganda': https://theintercept.com/2017/03/01/...ar-propaganda/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald
A different take: I would also Note that MKH is a young widow with kids.
http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/0...-trump-or-you/
I don't know if anyone has any interest in watching these videos but this is his most recent and I feel it is worth watching if you're willing to be open minded about the Sweden data. He's produced a video every day he's been there.
Irish journalist Phillip O'Connor is based in Stockholm and tweets a lot about this - https://twitter.com/philipoconnor
Disclaimer - Phil's a friend of mine
I'm sick to death of bloody Sweden.
In that case, visit. You're likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
A nice back-alley stabbing would do me fine at this point. Politics, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Why do you feel this is worth watching? He has committed himself to producing a video each day and this video is just filler imo. My understanding is he is there to prove a connection between the current upswing in crime and the recent increase in immigration. He has yet to do so. He talks of others skewing crime statistics but is that not what he is doing? Look at statistics on those suspected of committing crime. That's down significantly in 2015 on 2012 recordings. Does not mean a smaller pool of "criminals" are increasing their "criminality activities"? Shouldn't there be a significant rise in new suspects to align with the influx of new immigrants?Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Additionally is it possible recent immigrants are also victims of this new crime wave? He does mention hate crimes are up .....
Seriously Danny?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
You didn't think before posting that, did you?
You should take it back in the name of all that's good and decent.
What's your issue with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Agreed. But the point is that there was talk of this violence before Donald Trump ever came on the scene. And now, all of a sudden he is being blamed for fermenting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
All sense of reason goes out the window when you can no longer rely on the media for truthful reporting, and I fear we have arrived at that juncture now.
Bottom line is - Donald Trump was a real estate mogul and TV celebrity as late as two years ago. Everyone thought fondly of him including millions of Democrats.
Now, two years later there are folks comparing him to Hitler. In all seriousness, what has this man, who has employed thousands of immigrants and minorities, done in two years to deserve that type of hate speech?
Not paid them?
Called an entire nation rapists?
Mocked a journalist with a disability?
Been a sex predator?
A narcissistic and pathological liar?
Given Breitbart and assorted hate-mongers a platform?
Reality TV is artifice: we're just seeing the bits of Trump that didn't fall on the cutting room floor.
Pointing out the reality of what Trump has said, done or said he will do is remarkably ineffective. For some reason a whole host of the worlds population just shrug their shoulders and rationalise it all, usually as a media conspiracy.
Interesting. Even after illegally wiretapping his political rival, Obama and the DNC were unable to find anything to take Trump down.
Pathetic really. Obama is the one who was the biggest threat to democracy and individual rights. Scum.
Interesting times ahead.
SkStu, you might feel it's ok for your hero to make accusations without evidence, but it's not ok here. We have rules, and one of them is that we're required to provide evidence for our accusations -- there is no evidence for the accusation you've parrotted above, and until there is you won't make it again.
This is not /r/The_Donald. I won't put up with that sh*t here. Reel it in or I'll toss you out. I mean it. You've had your fun, either get serious or get out.
Toss me out then. I'm not doing this on a wind up or to have fun and to suggest this, just because you don't agree with me or because Obama isn't in jail yet, is disingenuous to the max. Last I've seen throughout this forum is that reasonable speculation is allowed and I don't know why this is any different.
The possibility of wiretapping is being covered by many outlets and is being given credibility by some and being countered by others. My thoughts on Obama's character and integrity are well covered here, I don't think he is above illegal activity. He has previous on wiretapping (Merkel etc). That's my bias. Sorry that doesn't align with your opinion.
Anyway, ban me if you think it's for the best.
What you said is not speculation or opinion, it is an unproven accusation presented as fact, both by Trump and you. I'll ban you from this forum if you do it again. I won't if you don't. Save the passive aggressive nonsense for Reddit.
And that's the other terrifying side of it. Believing whatever he says immediately, regardless of actual proof. The man could say he built the wall and his supporters would back it up. It's almost trite to quote Orwell, but God it fits: We've always been at war with Eurasia.<br>
It is fact. The Trump campaign was spied on by agents and organizations under the Obama executive (FISA x2). The only thing in dispute is the extent (illegal overreach) and what Obama did with the information (leaked etc). I'll refrain from drawing conclusions (definitive statements on illegality etc) but I'll continue to present speculation and express my opinion on issues. I've tried to be careful in what I've posted as I realize I'm in a minority on here but I'll try harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Here's a video from Fox News that articulates what is currently known/public about the wiretapping.
You literally just said it was illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
If you mean my initial post, I know, I was subsequently saying I'd refrain in future from drawing conclusion like that.
Is that ok?
The above is not evidence. I need evidence for your claim that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump by 6pm tomorrow or you'll be suspended from this forum for 1 week. Don't try to weasel-word your way out of it now, you made by the claim and reiterated it. If you make the claim again without evidence, that'll shortcut you out of here. Don't say you weren't warned.
Even if what Stu says is true, pretty unlikely there's proof especially in the public domain, but the bigger point is an unfetterered Frump appears as if he's going to be far worse to the rest of the world and every minority going in the US.
Which considering he supported his opponent as recently as two elections ago, marks out his staggering hypocrisy at the very least...
I'm not sure what constitutes evidence for the purposes of this charade but the following is a quote from a Guardian article dated January 11th which states:Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ussia-contactsQuote:
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
The "one report" mentioned in the quote above links directly to the following source:
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-f...ies-to-russia/
FISA Act operates under the oversight of the Presidents office therefore anything ordered by, say, the FBI is ordered by the President.
So if you accept the above, the following is known:
1) June - Obama administration applied for FISA warrant to place surveillance on Trump and campaign. Denied.
2) October - Obama administration applies for FISA warrant and, according to the sources in the Heat St article above, is granted permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia, presumably this does not exclude Donald.
So to go back to my subsequent posts, the only question is the extent to which the warrant, if the sources are correct, was used or abused and what happened with the information gathered.
Bear in mind that "unnamed sources" are sufficient to allow most accusations against Trump be published by media outlets so I would expect that I would be held to the same low standard of evidence.
That's as maybe. Why would you want to stand up for him in the first place?
I don't think this makes any sense at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Depending on what they want to investigate, the FBI could apply for warrants to a number of different courts. If the FBI wants to investigate what they believe to be foreign spies operating inside the USA, they apply to a FIS court.
I don't see the logic behind the argument that an FBI request for a warrant to a FIS court is on somehow on behalf of the presidential administration.
"The FBI doing it is the same thing as the Obama administration doing it" doesn't make much sense to me at all.
Because America is disgusting and decades of interventionist policy has led to carnage across almost very continent. I think Obama and Clinton pulled the wool over everyone's eyes on a number of big issues and made the world a worse place. Trump ran on a platform of America First and Draining the Swamp and I think he deserves a chance to see what he can do in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
I am not really standing up for him (this started as me being anti-Obama, DNC and Clinton) - I don't think he's an angel and I don't think he's the devil. I agree with some of his policies and I disagree with others. He's ridiculously transparent with his thoughts but he's also a buffoon. I also don't believe everything the mainstream media pushes, I can see their agenda clearly and so I just want to consider other points of view and I think everyone should do the same.
Anyway, Dahamsta ban or not, it would probably be best for me not to post on here anymore. It's difficult to have a conversation about him without getting backed into a corner or painted as something I'm not. It's tiring! :)
It doesn't make sense?Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Why?
The FBI must go to the FISA court to request a warrant. A judge either approves or denies it. That's the way it works.
I know how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
Where and how does the presidential administration fit into this process to the point that there is a legitimate argument that the FBI doing it is the same thing as the Obama administration doing it?
Why would you want to stand up for him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
Because he's the only presidential candidate ever (I stand to be corrected) who stood on an anti-drug platform. And he's following through on that promise.
Have you witnessed first hand the drug problem in America?