Norwegian Utøya shooter's manifesto

[Sea Skimmer]

Likely because he wanted as many people as possible to be able to read it, and English is pretty much the dominate language of the world, if you could only choose one. Certainly it has a huge sector of the internet.

[Tiriol]

The insidious thing is that much of the compiled works are not so far from mainstream thought. I know plenty of islamophobes who would agree to the majority of his manifesto.

That is part of the problem right there. There is no such thing as islamophobia, all religions should be open to criticism. When the term islamophobia is used to silence critics of islam it simply drives people underground and things begin to fester to the point you get acts like this.

It seems that this guy felt that nothing was being done to protect his culture and that muslims were not integrating into Norwegian culture.

Sometimes it is best just to let people vent their views rather than forcinging them to keep them bottled up.

There IS such thing as irrational fear and hatred of Islam, just like someone might be irrationally, uncontrollably afraid of spiders, the dead or something similar. And if Norwegian society is in any way similar to Finnish society, this guy had plenty of opportunities to vent his frusfrations with Islam and muslim immigrants and find many sympathetic ears - not just in bars and other similar places, but even in political circles. But if he truly wanted to preserve his precious culture by fighting against muslims and immigrants, he has chosen the worst possible way to do that. If anything, his actions will only give strength to those whom he opposed to begin with and now everyone will get suspicious in Norway if someone starts to rant about muslim immigrants.

[Gil Hamilton]

What I find ironic is that if you substitute a few words, this could easily be a jihadist or a communist revolutionary manifesto. BTW why does the author use the English version of his name "Andrew Berwick"?

Wait... what? Have you read any of it? The thing is a long winded rant specifically against Muslims and Marxists. Which parts do you think can be word substituted into a jihadist or communist rant specifically?

[Norseman]

There IS such thing as irrational fear and hatred of Islam, just like someone might be irrationally, uncontrollably afraid of spiders, the dead or something similar. And if Norwegian society is in any way similar to Finnish society, this guy had plenty of opportunities to vent his frusfrations with Islam and muslim immigrants and find many sympathetic ears - not just in bars and other similar places, but even in political circles. But if he truly wanted to preserve his precious culture by fighting against muslims and immigrants, he has chosen the worst possible way to do that. If anything, his actions will only give strength to those whom he opposed to begin with and now everyone will get suspicious in Norway if someone starts to rant about muslim immigrants.

There's the Norwegian Progress Party which is sharply against immigration, but is also in favour of market liberalism and restricting the welfare system. A recent poll found that 58% of the Norwegian population wanted to stop or severely limit immigration. In short the peaceful, democratic processes of a functioning society was slowly giving him some of what he wanted. However some people are so lost in their Eurabian fantasy world that they are unable to see the slow movings of society, all they can see are the Islamic hordes flowing over their border. I've seen that happen to a lot of people who started out perfectly reasonable, all of them condemn this violence of course, but the effect is there.

[Simon_Jester]

It seems that this guy felt that nothing was being done to protect his culture and that muslims were not integrating into Norwegian culture.

Sometimes it is best just to let people vent their views rather than forcinging them to keep them bottled up.

Who, precisely, stopped him from saying exactly what he thought? He aired his views online before committing mass murder. He was perfectly free to publish his manifesto before committing mass murder. No one would stop him.

Now, possibly no one would care, and he would be called a contemptible fool. That's a risk any man takes in saying what he thinks, and far from the least of the risks he might face.

[Norseman]

There is a strong anti-immigration party in Norway. A few montsh ago the Norwegian version of the Financial Times published a big article warning about how Muslims would soon be a majority in parts of Oslo. 58% of the Norwegian population are quoted as wanting an end to immigration. Anti-immigration views can be freely and openly expressed, as can pro-immigration and pro-immigrant views. Radical Islamists and their opponents are both perfectly free to express themselves, often getting on national TV to do so. If this guy had wanted to air his opinions he could have done so and done so safely. Instead he chose violence.

[southdakotaboy1]

It seems that this guy felt that nothing was being done to protect his culture and that muslims were not integrating into Norwegian culture.

Sometimes it is best just to let people vent their views rather than forcinging them to keep them bottled up.

Who, precisely, stopped him from saying exactly what he thought? He aired his views online before committing mass murder. He was perfectly free to publish his manifesto before committing mass murder. No one would stop him.

Now, possibly no one would care, and he would be called a contemptible fool. That's a risk any man takes in saying what he thinks, and far from the least of the risks he might face.

Well there are those on the left side of the political spectrum that have a tendency to cry racism anytime people start to criticize Islam (look at the term Islamophobia).

Now as far as the term Islamophobia being correct as an irrational fear of Islam is it really correct. Last year in Oslo every single reported (and solved rape) was committed by a muslim (the following is a news report from Norway with subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSHKw5WakGw).

Now does this justify his violence, not at all. However does this start to make the view of many Norwegians that muslim immigration and immigration in general might need to be more controlled more understandable, absolutely.

[Eleas]

It seems that this guy felt that nothing was being done to protect his culture and that muslims were not integrating into Norwegian culture.

Sometimes it is best just to let people vent their views rather than forcinging them to keep them bottled up.

Who, precisely, stopped him from saying exactly what he thought? He aired his views online before committing mass murder. He was perfectly free to publish his manifesto before committing mass murder. No one would stop him.

Now, possibly no one would care, and he would be called a contemptible fool. That's a risk any man takes in saying what he thinks, and far from the least of the risks he might face.

Well there are those on the left side of the political spectrum that have a tendency to cry racism anytime people start to criticize Islam (look at the term Islamophobia).

A complete non-sequitur. Let's just boil down your exchange to the essentials:

Simon Jester: "He could say whatever he wanted, he'd just be called a fool, so he was wrong in saying he didn't have free speech."
You: "But they'd call it islamophobia and racism!"

Utterly meaningless as a defense, and in fact only underscoring what Simon said.

Now as far as the term Islamophobia being correct as an irrational fear of Islam is it really correct. Last year in Oslo every single reported (and solved rape) was committed by a muslim (the following is a news report from Norway with subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSHKw5WakGw).

Oh, you fucker. You contemptible, lying little insect.

I'm from Sweden. This is a place fairly close to Norway, in many respects. One of them being linguistic similarity.

Which is why I'm able to tell, using nothing more than my own ears, that neither the words "muslim" nor "Islam" were even once used in that program. Not in the program, no. The YouTube tags, however, were rife with implications of their own. They were "Oslo Norway Nationalism racism Islam muslim rape multiculturism liberal disease cultural marxism Europe dieversity(sic)". In other words, they were straight out of the playbook of Breivik. Whoever posted this program, and you yourself of course, are quietly substituting the term "Muslim" for "any non-Norwegian."

The program, of course, didn't stint on its own spins, which made its facts highly suspect. Among other things, it claimed that "all women who were raped (in Oslo) were ethnically Norwegian". Of course, this would be an impossible claim to verify besides being ridiculous on the face of it, given that the immigrants and traumatized people spoken of in the clip would be utterly unlikely to report rape and (in many cases) wouldn't even have the words to do so. But it certainly seems to inflame the baser elements of the populace.

Now does this justify his violence, not at all. However does this start to make the view of many Norwegians that muslim immigration and immigration in general might need to be more controlled more understandable, absolutely.

It does illuminate how flimsy this sort of rhetoric really is in Oslo, yes, and what it hides. Kinda like lifting a rock and seeing what crawls underneath. "Ethnically Norwegian," indeed.

[Metahive]

Well there are those on the left side of the political spectrum that have a tendency to cry racism anytime people start to criticize Islam (look at the term Islamophobia).

That's irrelevant. You argued that people like Breivik were somehow not allowed to make their opinions known which is a fucking lie considering that that norwegian party that's openly anti-immigrant got 21% in the last elections.

Getting criticised for hysterical xenophobia does not equal persecution.

Now as far as the term Islamophobia being correct as an irrational fear of Islam is it really correct. Last year in Oslo every single reported (and solved rape) was committed by a muslim (the following is a news report from Norway with subtitles:

83 reported and solved rape cases in Oslo involving foreigners (of 86 total) in five years. For comparison, in 2008 alone Frankfurt am Main which has about as much inhabitants as Oslo and had about the same number of rapes.

Rape is a serious crime, but this carries overtones of tempest in a goldfish glass. I'd also like to add that these rapes were not in any way advocated, protected or defended by the left-wing parties, but indeed processed as usual by the police and the courts. Therefore taking that as some sort of plausible explanation why Breivik would go off and murder left-wingers is, you guessed it, horseshit.

[Zaune]

South Dakota Boy, if you can find a single argument against immigration that isn't A) easily debunked by even a brief glance at birth and death rates in Europe or B) a euphemism for "we hate [insert racist epithet here]" I'll personally buy you a case of beer.

[Simon_Jester]

Well there are those on the left side of the political spectrum that have a tendency to cry racism anytime people start to criticize Islam (look at the term Islamophobia).

That does not stop you from saying anything. I may call you an Islamophobe, or a contemptible little fool. In fact, I do call you those things.

None of that stops you from airing your opinions in a public forum, though if you play your cards right you might be stopped from airing them in this private forum which is someone else's property.

Incidentally, I also call you a goddamned liar. Police report here; thankfully someone translated for me:

"Gross generalisations about how Oslo's rapists are foreigners and predominantly muslim are both erroneous, inaccurate and unfortunate. Of the 152 known perpetrators who were reported in 2010, 3/4 have European citizenship, mainly Norwegian. Half have ethnic roots in Europe and again mainly in Norway. The remaining perpetrators had origins from various continents and countries. Besides Norway as the most common country of origin with 50 perpetrators, 9 were from Pakistan, 8 from Iraq and 7 from Lithuania, to mention the largest groupings. The ethnic profile of perpetrators varies within the differing crimes and types of rape, but the differences are so minute that it is the similarities that become apparent. For all types of rape except assault rapes European perpetrators are the majority, most of them Norwegian. The assault rapes, however, only covers 5 identified, unique perpetrators. They do have foreign origins, but 2 were very young (less than 18 years of age) and 2 were diagnosed with serious psychiatric conditions and can not be seen as representative of their ethnic culture."

And you said:

Now as far as the term Islamophobia being correct as an irrational fear of Islam is it really correct. Last year in Oslo every single reported (and solved rape) was committed by a muslim (the following is a news report from Norway with subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSHKw5WakGw).

So, what are you going to say for an encore, that rape isn't rape when committed by Norwegians and therefore doesn't count because it only matters when committed by Muslims?

Or some other bit of raving, gibbering bullshit?

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh my god, Simon, you disagreed with him and proved his statements wrong, you are silencing him and driving "people underground and things begin to fester to the point you get acts like this", mang!

It's like those people who bitch about wanting more free speech so they can espouse stupid nonsense, and when someone exercises that same free speech to call them fat (or asks them to provide their calculations and, when they fail to do so, call them a bunch of retards), these guys hide in their basements and cry their asses off and build fertilizer bombs.

What a bunch of fatties.


And turns out when people outright make fictitious claims of the evils of Islams or Mooslims, to the point of inventing imaginary crime statistics, okay. If you don't want to call that "Islamophobia" or "racist", then we can just call it (and you) fucking stupid.

[Julhelm]

South Dakota Boy, if you can find a single argument against immigration that isn't A) easily debunked by even a brief glance at birth and death rates in Europe or B) a euphemism for "we hate [insert racist epithet here]" I'll personally buy you a case of beer.

Well IMO there is something strange with the immigration policy when (muslim) refugees from backward places like Somalia and Afghanistan (they used to include Iraq a couple years ago) are handed permanent residence visas without background checks while it is not uncommon to read in the newspaper how the same migration board deports gay Iranians back to Iran, christian Iraqis back to Iraq and orphaned kids to Palestine where they will clearly be persecuted or otherwise end up in harms way. IIRC Sweden has been reported for human rights violations by the UN for this very reason several times.

At the same time my partner, and many of our friends who are immigrants from Asia and South America, can bear witness of getting no end of trouble from migrations, with blanket rejections, court appeals, multiple interviews, background checks and so on. These are all educated people with degrees and good resumes. I don't know about you, but I believe an immigration policy should prioritize and favor educated people from 1st world nations that can clearly contribute to the economy, and not refugees who in many cases have never seen the inside of a classroom, but at least here it clearly seems to be the other way around. I'll just quote my friend who's from South America (We were talking about how it took them over a year to process my partners visa):

Good to know Im not the only one that felt that the migration board was really off balanced. Ive been living here for 5 years now and almost every year is a new struggle. I sent my last renewal on November and they came back to me only last week. They said that they always processes for asylum first before any other case like my normal renewal visa.

So I'd like to think you can be critical about the non-transparent immigration policies without being critical of immigration itself, and without having to be branded an islamophobe or racist for doing so. Currently you cannot really do that, because the debate is so polarized and doing so pretty much means associating/getting associated with the extreme right and one might not want to do that. I sure don't.

I do wish people could stop reposting these ridiculous rightwing anti-islam videos all over the web.

[Zaune]

Well IMO there is something strange with the immigration policy when (muslim) refugees from backward places like Somalia and Afghanistan (they used to include Iraq a couple years ago) are handed permanent residence visas without background checks while it is not uncommon to read in the newspaper how the same migration board deports gay Iranians back to Iran, christian Iraqis back to Iraq and orphaned kids to Palestine where they will clearly be persecuted or otherwise end up in harms way. IIRC Sweden has been reported for human rights violations by the UN for this very reason several times.

At the same time my partner, and many of our friends who are immigrants from Asia and South America, can bear witness of getting no end of trouble from migrations, with blanket rejections, court appeals, multiple interviews, background checks and so on. These are all educated people with degrees and good resumes. I don't know about you, but I believe an immigration policy should prioritize and favor educated people from 1st world nations that can clearly contribute to the economy, and not refugees who in many cases have never seen the inside of a classroom, but at least here it clearly seems to be the other way around.

I sympathise with your partner and I'm not going to argue that immigration policy in a lot of the world is asinine, but with the greatest respect, did she leave her home country because she was inj danger of being tortured or imprisoned for her political views? You're making the same mistake as a lot of right-wing commentators and conflating immigration with political asylum. Immigration policy should be decided primarily by what's best for the economy. Which does not mean tightly restricting the number or social class of immigrant, I might add, not when birth-rates are below maintenance level in most of Europe and probably not much better in the US. Policy on political asylum is, or should be, a matter of fundamental human decency.

[Julhelm]

I sympathise with your partner and I'm not going to argue that immigration policy in a lot of the world is asinine, but with the greatest respect, did she leave her home country because she was inj danger of being tortured or imprisoned for her political views? You're making the same mistake as a lot of right-wing commentators and conflating immigration with political asylum. Immigration policy should be decided primarily by what's best for the economy. Which does not mean tightly restricting the number or social class of immigrant, I might add, not when birth-rates are below maintenance level in most of Europe and probably not much better in the US. Policy on political asylum is, or should be, a matter of fundamental human decency.

But the majority of asylum seekers here are economical refugees rather than political or religious ones. It's hard to see the logic when we give asylum to the kind of fundies who persecute minorities while deporting the minorities back to where they can be persecuted. If we're going to provide asylum, I would rather see it given to gays, women and religious/ethnic minorities that are in real danger. But to do so requires background checks and at least a modicum of verifying their claims. Not handing out permanent residence visas as a matter of SOP.

I would like to see immigration regulations relaxed because we do need more people here, but it needs to be done for legit immigrants with legit papers who can make a positive contribution.

Also I don't see how large numbers of low- or uneducated asylum seekers-cum-immigrants (You have to agree there is a net difference between the Somali and Afghan refugees today and the Iranian or Vietnamese refugees of the 70s/80s in terms of education and craftiness. For Somalis in Sweden, the amount work is a staggering 18%. In the US the same figure is 60%, which would indicate we do tend to get the bottom of the barrel) can benefit the economy as a whole. Because they have little to no education they are less likely to find and therefore less likely to be able to stimulate the economy by consuming and more likely to be stuck on welfare or turn to crime - neither of which benefits society or economy.

If there was any real sensible debate around this the extreme right wouldn't have a platform from which to hijack it with their hate. As it is now, if you are concerned about immigration and it is a huge issue for you, by default you only have the extreme right wing parties to vote on with all the bad luggage they bring. Unfortunately a lot of conservatively-inclined folks aren't don't think the extra mile before they vote.

[Zaune]

But the majority of asylum seekers here are economical refugees rather than political or religious ones. It's hard to see the logic when we give asylum to the kind of fundies who persecute minorities while deporting the minorities back to where they can be persecuted. If we're going to provide asylum, I would rather see it given to gays, women and religious/ethnic minorities that are in real danger. But to do so requires background checks and at least a modicum of verifying their claims. Not handing out permanent residence visas as a matter of SOP.

I would like to see immigration regulations relaxed because we do need more people here, but it needs to be done for legit immigrants with legit papers who can make a positive contribution.

Also I don't see how large numbers of low- or uneducated asylum seekers-cum-immigrants (You have to agree there is a net difference between the Somali and Afghan refugees today and the Iranian or Vietnamese refugees of the 70s/80s in terms of education and craftiness. For Somalis in Sweden, the amount work is a staggering 18%. In the US the same figure is 60%, which would indicate we do tend to get the bottom of the barrel) can benefit the economy as a whole. Because they have little to no education they are less likely to find and therefore less likely to be able to stimulate the economy by consuming and more likely to be stuck on welfare or turn to crime - neither of which benefits society or economy.

If there was any real sensible debate around this the extreme right wouldn't have a platform from which to hijack it with their hate. As it is now, if you are concerned about immigration and it is a huge issue for you, by default you only have the extreme right wing parties to vote on with all the bad luggage they bring. Unfortunately a lot of conservatively-inclined folks aren't don't think the extra mile before they vote.

I don't even know where to start...

And what exactly is an "economic refugee" anyway?

[southdakotaboy1]

To reply to several of you at once.

As far as the youtube video goes here is a better set of statistics:

Oslo rape statistics shock
Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.
AVJonathan Tisdall
The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.Larsen said that since this was the initial study examining ethnic make-up there were no existing figures to put the numbers into context. "Meanwhile, it is our general experience that this is an increasing tendency. We note this by the number of time we need to use interpreters in the course of an investigation," Larsen said.
Aftenposten Interactive's Norwegian reporter

Now looking at who are the non western immigrants to Norway:

The five largest immigrant groups in Norway are in turn Polish, Swedish, Pakistanis, Iraqi and Somali.[6]

So the three largest non western groups come from muslim nations, two of which have been racked by war and other types of violence and civil strife. Common sense would dictate that you would do some serious rethinking on your nations immigration policy when faced with these facts.

On a side note several poster have perfectly illastrated my point my point on how the left tries to shut down any discussion of these kinds of topics. Without any knowledge of me or my beliefs several posters used foul language and personal insults in their replys to my posts, that is their right, instead of calmly and rationally presenting their case. It doesn't have to be the Government that always works to silence speach through laws. By using profanity and personal insults as a form of intimidation they tried to brush the main idea of reforming and addressing potential problems with immigration under the table. I think it was Jedi Master that pointed out that the left has so poisoned the well that all or almost all moderates are by default driven to the far right.

The danger of this is that there will be an over reaction by the left who will use this as a chance to silence any opponents of multi culturalism and will in turn cause a backlash by people on the right. Here in America we faced our own homegrown terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. The left in this country assumed that it would cause the collapse of the right as a political movement, because the left then over reacted and the right has been a major force in this country ever since.

Sorry here are my sources:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local ... 190268.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway

[Julhelm]

I don't even know where to start...
And what exactly is an "economic refugee" anyway?

Someone whose primary motive for asylum is not fleeing from persecution as such but from poverty? Simply being born in a 3rd world shithole is not grounds for claiming political asylum. Sure it sucks to be them but simply shifting poor-off, unproductive people from one place to another is not a solution - that's just shifting the problem from Mogadishu to Rosengård or whatever Detroit-like ghetto these people will invariably end up in.

It is so that immigrants or refugees or muslims or whatever you want to try and pin me as being intolerant against (yeah whatever) are not a monolithic block. Some groups (as mentioned in my earlier post) tend to be more productive and successful as immigrants than others and I believe these groups should be the ones encouraged to settle here. That Somalis in the US as a group are more successful than Somalis in Sweden is indication enough that we aren't getting the best and brightest of them here.

You said yourself that immigration should be based on what's best for the economy. I think educated, driven people are best for the economy, and if one is crafty or entrepreneurial they can probably show this even if formal papers might be lacking. This is what background checks and interviews are for. Make less red tape for people who marry abroad, come here to work or seek to move here through legal means and whose primary aim is to be productive and contribute to our society.

But this is really taking the thread off-topic so let's just agree to disagree. I'm in no mood for a giant flamewar.

[Simon_Jester]

South Dakota Boy, if you can find a single argument against immigration that isn't A) easily debunked by even a brief glance at birth and death rates in Europe or B) a euphemism for "we hate [insert racist epithet here]" I'll personally buy you a case of beer.

Well IMO there is something strange with the immigration policy when (muslim) refugees from backward places like Somalia and Afghanistan (they used to include Iraq a couple years ago) are handed permanent residence visas without background checks while it is not uncommon to read in the newspaper how the same migration board deports gay Iranians back to Iran, christian Iraqis back to Iraq and orphaned kids to Palestine where they will clearly be persecuted or otherwise end up in harms way. IIRC Sweden has been reported for human rights violations by the UN for this very reason several times.

So I'd like to think you can be critical about the non-transparent immigration policies without being critical of immigration itself, and without having to be branded an islamophobe or racist for doing so. Currently you cannot really do that, because the debate is so polarized and doing so pretty much means associating/getting associated with the extreme right and one might not want to do that. I sure don't.

Yes. This is a common problem in much of the developed world- legitimate issues get co-opted by political radicals.

A hundred years ago this lent itself to red-baiting: people trying to ensure better rights for workers were in danger of being called communists as a way of discrediting them, especially after the October Revolution in Russia. Today, someone who wants to change immigration priorities to make it easier for skilled workers and refugee demographics like gay Iranians to enter and remain in the country risks being called a fascist.

But the blame for this rests in large part on the fascists themselves, for trumping up the issue to the point where any position other than absolute permissivity winds up associated with their camp by default, and then making such a flimsy case for their own extremist ideas that any kind of immigration reform looks like unsupported gibberish because of its association with the bullshit made up by the far right..

On a side note several poster have perfectly illastrated my point my point on how the left tries to shut down any discussion of these kinds of topics. Without any knowledge of me or my beliefs several posters used foul language and personal insults in their replys to my posts, that is their right, instead of calmly and rationally presenting their case. It doesn't have to be the Government that always works to silence speach through laws. By using profanity and personal insults as a form of intimidation they tried to brush the main idea of reforming and addressing potential problems with immigration under the table. I think it was Jedi Master that pointed out that the left has so poisoned the well that all or almost all moderates are by default driven to the far right.

Nonsense. I haven't tried to shut down discussion. I've just called you a fool and a liar, because I think you have said things which are foolish, and which are lies. You have a perfect right to say the same to me, if you can catch me in lying and foolishness.

If you feel intimidated by the fact that I think you're a lying fool, then what are you doing engaged in public discourse in the first place? It's not like real politicians don't have to deal with people shouting "You lie!" at them, or with members of the political opposition thinking they're idiots.

If you don't like being called a lying fool, you are free to tell the truth and show that you are thinking clearly.

As far as the youtube video goes here is a better set of statistics:...

I do not have time to research this, especially since the best sources are in a foreign language. Maybe it isn't such rank bullshit as the previous 'source' you used. But I'd like to ask a few obvious questions.

The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.

So, what happened to "every rape committed by a Muslim" again? Did you lie about that, or were you referring to a different set of rapes? Also, where are those statistics taken from? Police reports? Who compiled this study, and what are their credentials?

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.

Do you mean that rape charges increase by 40% every year in Oslo? Because in that case they'd be something like thirty times higher now than they were in 2000. Or were you cherrypicking the worst year on record for one-year increase in the rate of rape charges, as if it had anything to do with your claim about the racial makeup of rapists in Oslo?

And that "nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution" suggests an obvious reason for the frequency of charges to increase: women are more likely to report a rape than they were ten years ago (let alone twenty or thirty). Why does this have anything to do with the racial makeup of the people committing the rapes?

Now looking at who are the non western immigrants to Norway:

The five largest immigrant groups in Norway are in turn Polish, Swedish, Pakistanis, Iraqi and Somali.[6]

So the three largest non western groups come from muslim nations, two of which have been racked by war and other types of violence and civil strife. Common sense would dictate that you would do some serious rethinking on your nations immigration policy when faced with these facts.

Which fact is more important- that most immigrants to Norway from outside of Europe are coming from Muslim nations (whether or not they're Muslim- Iraqi Christians have been emigrating in large numbers for some time now)? Or the claim from this study that an increase in rapes in Oslo is due to Muslim immigrants?

Because I'm pretty skeptical of the second 'fact,' and I don't see how on Earth you could justify "rethink immigration policy" from "most immigrants to Norway who aren't from Europe are Muslims."

The danger of this is that there will be an over reaction by the left who will use this as a chance to silence any opponents of multi culturalism and will in turn cause a backlash by people on the right. Here in America we faced our own homegrown terrorist attack in Oklahoma City. The left in this country assumed that it would cause the collapse of the right as a political movement, because the left then over reacted and the right has been a major force in this country ever since.

Oklahoma City was not taken as a "chance to silence" the American right-wing. It just revealed that there was a murderous lunatic fringe to the American right wing, one so profoundly repulsive to any civilized mind that people reacted away from it.

This had basically no effect on American attitudes toward issues like taxes, government spending, abortion, and so on, which are far more important to the left/right divide than any deranged fantasy on the lunatic fringe about the imminent takeover of America by Black Helicopter New World Order goons.

[Big Phil]

I think some of you collapsing from the vapors in righteous indignation are missing the forest for the trees. If immigrants or Muslims represent 14% of the population of Oslo but are committing two-thirds of the reported rapes, that's kind of a bad thing.

Besides which, it misses the core issue: that Muslims and non-western foreigners are apparently overrepresented in the population of rapists in Norway. That's a bad thing, and no amount of ad hominem attacks and ranting against southdakotaboys supposed racism change that fact. Either his facts are wrong, in which case they should be able to be disputed, or his facts are correct. If his facts are correct, or even mostly correct (two-thirds is still WAY over-represented) then you need to acknowledge that.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2007/ ... -much.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... orway.html

[Eleas]

On a side note several poster have perfectly illastrated my point my point on how the left tries to shut down any discussion of these kinds of topics. Without any knowledge of me or my beliefs several posters used foul language and personal insults in their replys to my posts, that is their right, instead of calmly and rationally presenting their case. It doesn't have to be the Government that always works to silence speach through laws. By using profanity and personal insults as a form of intimidation they tried to brush the main idea of reforming and addressing potential problems with immigration under the table.

Utter nonsense.

Your views aren't being suppressed at all. You're shouting aloud about having been silenced. This is an oxymoron. Me (and others ITT) pointing out the fact that you're lying doesn't equate to you being silenced. Actually being silenced -- that is, being prevented from saying things in reality -- equates to being silenced.

The danger of this is that there will be an over reaction by the left who will use this as a chance to silence any opponents of multi culturalism and will in turn cause a backlash by people on the right.

Of course. Because you say so. With, presumably, your own definitions of the concepts of "being silenced" (=facing disagreement from the lefties) and appropriate backlash (=shooting the lefties, perhaps?).

Simon is ably addressing the rest, and as you didn't even bother to address the fact that you were caught in an obvious and self-serving lie, I see no real need to do a point-by-point refutation.

I think some of you collapsing from the vapors in righteous indignation are missing the forest for the trees.

Oh, goodie. It's gonna be one of those posts.

If immigrants or Muslims represent 14% of the population of Oslo but are committing two-thirds of the reported rapes, that's kind of a bad thing.

If southdakotaboy begins his point with an obvious lie and the report itself contains further errors, then the veracity of both is suspect. He did, and it does.

Besides which, it misses the core issue: that Muslims and non-western foreigners are apparently overrepresented in the population of rapists in Norway. That's a bad thing, and no amount of ad hominem attacks and ranting against southdakotaboys supposed racism change that fact.

Sanchez, after your various episodes even you should be well acquainted with the concept of the ad hominem. It equates to "attack the man, not the argument." In this thread, the man is attacked because the argument he presented was itself dishonest. Thus, it is no ad hominem, merely an insult.

If he wants to shift the goalposts, he should first acknowledge that he's doing so.

Either his facts are wrong, in which case they should be able to be disputed, or his facts are correct. If his facts are correct, or even mostly correct (two-thirds is still WAY over-represented) then you need to acknowledge that.

And if he lies -- and he did lie -- it is perfectly appropriate to castigate him on that point, and so far he seems unwilling to acknowledge the fact.

[southdakotaboy1]

On a side note several poster have perfectly illastrated my point my point on how the left tries to shut down any discussion of these kinds of topics. Without any knowledge of me or my beliefs several posters used foul language and personal insults in their replys to my posts, that is their right, instead of calmly and rationally presenting their case. It doesn't have to be the Government that always works to silence speach through laws. By using profanity and personal insults as a form of intimidation they tried to brush the main idea of reforming and addressing potential problems with immigration under the table.

Utter nonsense.

Your views aren't being suppressed at all. You're shouting aloud about having been silenced. This is an oxymoron. Me (and others ITT) pointing out the fact that you're lying doesn't equate to you being silenced. Actually being silenced -- that is, being prevented from saying things in reality -- equates to being silenced.

The danger of this is that there will be an over reaction by the left who will use this as a chance to silence any opponents of multi culturalism and will in turn cause a backlash by people on the right.

Of course. Because you say so. With, presumably, your own definitions of the concepts of "being silenced" (=facing disagreement from the lefties) and appropriate backlash (=shooting the lefties, perhaps?).

Simon is ably addressing the rest, and as you didn't even bother to address the fact that you were caught in an obvious and self-serving lie, I see no real need to do a point-by-point refutation.

I think some of you collapsing from the vapors in righteous indignation are missing the forest for the trees.

Oh, goodie. It's gonna be one of those posts.

If immigrants or Muslims represent 14% of the population of Oslo but are committing two-thirds of the reported rapes, that's kind of a bad thing.

If southdakotaboy begins his point with an obvious lie and the report itself contains further errors, then the veracity of both is suspect. He did, and it does.

Besides which, it misses the core issue: that Muslims and non-western foreigners are apparently overrepresented in the population of rapists in Norway. That's a bad thing, and no amount of ad hominem attacks and ranting against southdakotaboys supposed racism change that fact.

Sanchez, after your various episodes even you should be well acquainted with the concept of the ad hominem. It equates to "attack the man, not the argument." In this thread, the man is attacked because the argument he presented was itself dishonest. Thus, it is no ad hominem, merely an insult.

If he wants to shift the goalposts, he should first acknowledge that he's doing so.

Either his facts are wrong, in which case they should be able to be disputed, or his facts are correct. If his facts are correct, or even mostly correct (two-thirds is still WAY over-represented) then you need to acknowledge that.

And if he lies -- and he did lie -- it is perfectly appropriate to castigate him on that point, and so far he seems unwilling to acknowledge the fact.

But I did acknowledge that the youtube figures given were not the best. If you go back to third post( I think) I clearly states that I have found and was going to use a different source for my point. As far as the youtube video I will readily admit to being somewhat lazy in my research in so much as I had seen this discussed on another forum and was simply googleing from memory of that discussion and I should have paid closer attention to the first source, my bad.

However to address my second point about silencing criticism, how does throwing around charges of racism and liar and other personal insults help advance any discussion. What it does do is harden people into more extreme positions which in turn leads to more tension and violence in the end.

Being polite and respectful of others costs you nothing and goes along ways towards making others more open to your point of view even if they disagree with it.

[Big Phil]

If immigrants or Muslims represent 14% of the population of Oslo but are committing two-thirds of the reported rapes, that's kind of a bad thing.

If southdakotaboy begins his point with an obvious lie and the report itself contains further errors, then the veracity of both is suspect. He did, and it does.

A quick Google search that I conducted myself found all the same propaganda as southdakotaboy, but I also found some other sites with less fantastic data that suggests that non-Western muslims are over-represented in rapes in Oslo (14% of population vs. 65% of rapes). His exact numbers, and the thinking that got him there, might be racist claptrap, but even if the number is 65% instead of 100%, that's still BAD.

Besides which, it misses the core issue: that Muslims and non-western foreigners are apparently overrepresented in the population of rapists in Norway. That's a bad thing, and no amount of ad hominem attacks and ranting against southdakotaboys supposed racism change that fact.

Sanchez, after your various episodes even you should be well acquainted with the concept of the ad hominem. It equates to "attack the man, not the argument." In this thread, the man is attacked because the argument he presented was itself dishonest. Thus, it is no ad hominem, merely an insult.

Sounds like you're butt hurt about some argument we've had in the past. Why don't you grow the fuck up and get over it because you're the only one clinging to some imaginary hurt.

If he wants to shift the goalposts, he should first acknowledge that he's doing so.

That's between you, him, and the moderators.

Either his facts are wrong, in which case they should be able to be disputed, or his facts are correct. If his facts are correct, or even mostly correct (two-thirds is still WAY over-represented) then you need to acknowledge that.

And if he lies -- and he did lie -- it is perfectly appropriate to castigate him on that point, and so far he seems unwilling to acknowledge the fact.

But are the facts WRONG? The facts that I've independently found lean toward southdakotaboy's position, even if the exact numbers he quotes are wrong.

If Muslims are 14% of the population, does it really matter if they're committing 65% or 100% of the rapes? It does not, because the larger, more important point, is that they are over-represented in that category of crime. IF that data is true, it doesn't matter if southdakotaboy is an asshole or a liar, because the numbers speak for themselves.

[Eleas]

A quick Google search that I conducted myself found all the same propaganda as southdakotaboy, but I also found some other sites with less fantastic data that suggests that non-Western muslims are over-represented in rapes in Oslo (14% of population vs. 65% of rapes). His exact numbers, and the thinking that got him there, might be racist claptrap, but even if the number is 65% instead of 100%, that's still BAD.

The thing is, as the stated quotes from the May 2011 rape report (Voldtekt i den globale byen) indicate, assault rapes are in the minority, and the majority of rapists in Oslo 2010 were in fact Norwegian. The source he originally presented conflates the concepts of rape and assault rape. As for the other sources, the linchpin (the Aftenposten article) seems to disagree with the police report to which it presumably references.

I may well be wrong, and if so, I welcome correction.

Sounds like you're butt hurt about some argument we've had in the past. Why don't you grow the fuck up and get over it because you're the only one clinging to some imaginary hurt.

Honestly, I'm not. I was pissy because you went in acting like a smarmy douche. If you don't want me alluding to you being an idiot, then don't dismiss what others are saying in words an inch shy of calling us pussies. Please.

That's between you, him, and the moderators.

Point taken. I'll rein it in.

But are the facts WRONG? The facts that I've independently found lean toward southdakotaboy's position, even if the exact numbers he quotes are wrong.

If Muslims are 14% of the population, does it really matter if they're committing 65% or 100% of the rapes? It does not, because the larger, more important point, is that they are over-represented in that category of crime. IF that data is true, it doesn't matter if southdakotaboy is an asshole or a liar, because the numbers speak for themselves.

That's a good point. What about the dichotomy of assault rape vis a vis regular rape? Do the numbers really speak for themselves? The most recent source seems much less indicative of such a problem.

But I did acknowledge that the youtube figures given were not the best. If you go back to third post( I think) I clearly states that I have found and was going to use a different source for my point. As far as the youtube video I will readily admit to being somewhat lazy in my research in so much as I had seen this discussed on another forum and was simply googleing from memory of that discussion and I should have paid closer attention to the first source, my bad.

Allright. I went overboard with the insults, and I shouldn't have. I apologize.

However to address my second point about silencing criticism, how does throwing around charges of racism and liar and other personal insults help advance any discussion. What it does do is harden people into more extreme positions which in turn leads to more tension and violence in the end.

Perhaps. Thing is, the only one claiming that "non-norwegian" meant "muslim" seemed to be you, and that's not a very honest position to take IMO. It may harden people. What it does not do is actually silence the criticism. You're not actually prevented from speaking or threatened into submission. You're not going to town hall and noticing your opponent brought guns to the discussion. You're not being singled out as groups for extermination in the common rhetoric. No leading politician is calling in not-so-oblique terms for your death.

People may be assholes in discussion. I may well be one. But I'm not silencing you. There's a difference.

Being polite and respectful of others costs you nothing and goes along ways towards making others more open to your point of view even if they disagree with it.

Point taken. I guess my objectivity was shaken by the event at Utøya and it spilled over somewhat into this thread. For that part of my vitriol, I apologize.

[Simon_Jester]

I think some of you collapsing from the vapors in righteous indignation are missing the forest for the trees. If immigrants or Muslims represent 14% of the population of Oslo but are committing two-thirds of the reported rapes, that's kind of a bad thing.

Besides which, it misses the core issue: that Muslims and non-western foreigners are apparently overrepresented in the population of rapists in Norway.

I've been trying to call his facts into question. Remember, he started with "all rapes in Norway were committed by Muslims," and only then fell back to "well, most rapes in Norway are committed by Muslims.

This calls his credibility into question- where is he getting his facts from? Are the sources that report this reliable?

I am simply too busy to do deep research on this to winnow out the truth from the lies right now.

I do not consider that to be an ad hominem: when someone has tried to pass off a blatant lie as if it were true before, one must carefully consider the merits of any "facts" which they present after being caught in the lie.

But I did acknowledge that the youtube figures given were not the best.

Then why did you give them at all? You came out and said, point blank: "Last year in Oslo every single reported (and solved rape) was committed by a muslim (the following is a news report from Norway with subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSHKw5WakGw)."

That was your second post.

Only after being called on this utter bullshit did you go looking for a source that claimed something less obviously and easily refuted. If no one had called you on it, so far as I can tell, you would have kept proceeding on

Which casts your credibility into doubt. Are you really asserting that "only most" rapes in Oslo are committed by Muslims, and for some bizarre reason you chose to say "all" the first time you mentioned the issue? Or are you just trying to present whatever assertion would support you the best if it were true, regardless of whether or not it actually is true? If the statistics you gave us this time around prove to be bullshit, will you go hunting for yet another set that support your argument but with slightly lower numbers?

Now, if this were some subtle flaw you could easily have overlooked, I wouldn't mind. But you started out with "all rapes in Oslo were committed by Muslims." It's hard for me to see how you could have held that position seriously without either gross indifference to the truth, or a bias so powerful that it prevented you from even considering whether such an extreme claim might, after all, not be true.

However to address my second point about silencing criticism, how does throwing around charges of racism and liar and other personal insults help advance any discussion. What it does do is harden people into more extreme positions which in turn leads to more tension and violence in the end.

I'm not accusing you of racism. I'm only accusing you of lying because you said things that are so obviously not true that any intelligent person should have been able to spot them.

You presented a very extreme, highly unlikely claim* as if it were absolute fact, when even a brief investigation reveals that it's nonsense. If you weren't lying, then what were you doing?

*Seriously, ALL rapes in an entire city committed by Muslims? NOT ONE Norwegian man committing rape?