Oh my god. They've done it. This takes all rights away. - by Outlooker
Gingerbread Man on 24/10/2006 at 04:47
So, um... How's that "all rights taken away" thing going? Everything all Police State, then?
Bho on 24/10/2006 at 04:49
Quote Posted by Renegen
Perhaps you forget that Sri Lankans are not originally of swedish descent. The laws of nature say that when you park your ass in someone else's nest they'll get mad.
What I heard, second hand, was that a lot of the immigrants lived on welfare support, it's a really tough issue but when you have a bunch of tards running the circus you're not going to get an opera.. It seems in that example it's the sri lankans who are discriminating and isolating themselves culturally, the first stepping stone to a happy and successful assimilation and co-habitation with their swedish neighboors of course.
Either way a sociology professor saying Sweden should open up its job market isn't exactly the first person we should listen to. It's interesting that with all the problems today that immigration essentially failed in those countries.
Wtf are you talking about? The only thing I could read about Sri Lankans in that article is that the person who interviewed the robbers was Sri Lankan.
Gingerbread Man on 24/10/2006 at 05:00
One of the points he's making is that immigrant groups with rather extreme cultural differences to their new country tend to isolate and insulate instead of assimilating. That's becoming a bit of an obvious failing in Canada due to our insane official policy of Do Whatcha Like... In the absence of encouragement to assimilate (indeed, in the presence of encouragement to retain ethnic identity and distinctiveness) the majority of vastly-different immigrants -- oddly enough, the Sri Lankans are a prime example of this in Toronto -- tend to create little pockets of themselves, eschewing assimilation for a variety of reasons including, though not limited to, familiarity of language and lifestyle. With the end result being that they not only isolate and insulate, they start to piss everyone else off (not the Sri Lankans in particular, all the groups that do this) because they're seen as making no attempt to join in and lots of attempt to change things to the way they want them.
Which is true enough, for understandable as well as stupid reasons. Partly it's an easier transition, partly it's a feeling that they're supposed to do something along those lines because everyone lets them, and partly because if they didn't they'd be diluted to the point of alienation just like the rest of us around here.
Interesting footnote: I have no idea if anything I've just said is germane in the least.
Convict on 24/10/2006 at 07:53
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Of course, it's not an either/or situation between police state and Islamist theocracy ;). We can still retain all the trimmings of a full, open liberal democracy and remain relatively terror free - if we stop sticking our oar in where it isn't wanted.
So you were against Australian peacekeeping forces intervening in East Timor StD?
Bin Laden stated that Australia was a target because of it's intervention in East Timor (03/11/2001, 12/11/2002). Source :(
http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/terrorism/chapter6.html) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
SD on 24/10/2006 at 08:01
Quote Posted by Convict
So you were against Australian peacekeeping forces intervening in East Timor StD?
Why would I be?
ercles on 24/10/2006 at 08:10
Because Australia helping to settle out the area was interpreted as "sticking our oar in where it isn't wanted" by many
sparhawk on 24/10/2006 at 09:29
Quote Posted by Convict
I'm not that knowledgable about terrorists but I question if their motivation for suicide bombing is to get you give up freedoms. I might hazard some guesses including it being revenge/punishment/war thinking.
Maybe it's not the primary goal that they want these countries to give up their freedom. What they want to achieve is terror (it's even in the name :) ) because they probably think that this might help to free them (or some such thing) and probalby some revenege. However, if they see what kind of crappy laws are getting installed based on the fear of terrorism, they have definitley achieved the "cause terror and fear" part of their actions.
But actually I doubt that these "anti-terror" measurements are really ment to battel terrorism, because most of these laws are quite ineffective against that. If they would would truly want to battle terrorism, as this Bush idiot claims so often, he would start to think about what causes it in the first place. Yeah, I know. The thinking part is the hard part for Mr. Bush. but teh terrorist attacks are quite convenient for other interestes to get pushed through even though they don't help, at least people THINK they would help.
SD on 24/10/2006 at 10:13
Quote Posted by ercles
Because Australia helping to settle out the area was interpreted as "sticking our oar in where it isn't wanted" by many
As I understand it, Australia's peacekeepers were invited to East Timor. So you can hardly say that they weren't wanted by the country's administration.
Chimpy Chompy on 24/10/2006 at 10:32
Yeah but doing what a government requests isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with "oar stuck in where not wanted".
SD on 24/10/2006 at 11:16
True, but in cases where we've been invited to intervene by the local government, I don't feel that constitutes sticking oars in.
But let's not get bogged down in Convict's pathetic little game of semantics ;)
