Swedish celebrity chef Anders Vendel 'beaten for looking like Donald Trump' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51377111]He still demanded his transfer didnt he? There: Also I cant find your quote here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Olofsson[/url][/QUOTE] Lifetime expulsion from Sweden - not exaclty something you can decide for the government to put on you yourself you know. Look in Swedish wikipedia on him. [QUOTE=Big Bang;51377119]This was voluntary extradition, not deportation.[/QUOTE] Still lifetime expulsion.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51376923]Deporting citizens is fascism and you can't dress it as anything else. There is absolutely nothing to gain from deporting citizens. I left the most dangerous city in the planet, I come from a place of horrific violence. If where I'm from defines who I am, or more specifically, how likely I am to commit rape or murder then lock me up because that would make me one of the most dangerous individuals in Sweden. But I know what you mean, because what you're trying to say is just how you don't like Muslims, it has nothing to do with where they're from, it has to do with an irrational fear. You have a problem with Islam, you are prejudiced against Islam as per exactly what you said, and to be fair, you don't [I]have[/I] to like Islam, that's fine too, you can complain about it all you want but if that makes you think that all Muslims should be eliminated from Sweden because they're dangerous and can't mingle with Christians, that makes you xenophobic. This society needs to make amends with its two parts, this irrational fear will make it worse. I'd also like to note, that none of you give two shits about chef Anders Vendel, this is just a vehicle for controversy.[/QUOTE] Deportation being fascism makes no sense at all considering their antithesis (let's say so even though they are both socialist) communists did so on a far grander scale. You are completely bending what I said. I said I acknowledge that situations can make people bad and even gave you two examples of that in recent history. So that means I'd like to judge on a personal basis, if possible. You say it has nothing to do with where they're from, it has to do with irrational fear. Ok, If someone would base their views and make decisions based on statistics that wouldn't be irrational to begin with. Claiming it is prejudiced, irrational or xenophobic is just an "argument" to make me back off and concede to your moral high ground. I told you I know muslims CAN cause problems, not that they MUST. This is when I said that those following the Medina quran and Muhammad's perfect example in his latter years are problematic. The concept of abrogation makes latter verses take superiority, he spent years in Mecca preaching coexistence and women's rights, and got nowhere in followers. I would [I]love and respect[/I] them, if they all followed that. Too bad he had to go mental and jihad everyone against him. Also, non-muslims are not human anymore, so all that earlier love stuff doesn't apply to them. He got all the arabian peninsula like that. Hmmm, I wonder what's better for his personal power, violence or love. In conclusion, thanks for proving my point. I'm talking to you about the root issue in their religion and you blasted me for being irrationally afraid. Having kid gloves on when talking about Islam [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as4m-dDubjg"]won't do any favors[/URL] for those who come to Sweden to contribute positively, yourself included, and yes, if they happen to be following the latter parts of Islam, which I described, then I want them to be removed without mercy. Try this, ask a muslim: if you were transported back in time to when Muhammad lived, would you follow his perfect example and commit jihad. Should tell you everything you need to know about their moral compass, if they happen to say yes.

If you come here and start shit, you should get thrown out head first, easy as

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51379727]You ARE irrationally afraid. What is a threat is the exploiters, like the afterschool center in Rinkeby, and not the religion itself, and those shouldnt be treated with kids gloves. But criticising the religion is irrational and goes nowhere. The average Muslim doesnt care about abrogation and scripture. Not until it is shoved into their skull by these people. The problem is entirely political and ideological, not religious. Thus you are irrationally afraid. I have lived among Muslims all my life. What makes an extremist isnt the religion itself. Only the religion cant make an extremist. The recipe is incomplete.[/QUOTE] It is the way you are being preached to that can make you an extremist or not.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51379727]You ARE irrationally afraid. What is a threat is the exploiters, like the afterschool center in Rinkeby, and not the religion itself, and those shouldnt be treated with kids gloves. But criticising the religion is irrational and goes nowhere. The average Muslim doesnt care about abrogation and scripture. Not until it is shoved into their skull by these people. The problem is entirely political and ideological, not religious. Thus you are irrationally afraid. I have lived among Muslims all my life. What makes an extremist isnt the religion itself. Only the religion cant make an extremist. The recipe is incomplete.[/QUOTE] Do you think the hate preachers get their ideology or at least the content they preach from void? It's undeniably a part of islam. The problem is entirely political and ideological, not religious. The average Muslim doesnt care about abrogation and scripture. Not until it is shoved into their skull by these people. So which one is it according to you? Why do you feel the need to come forward and defend all of islam and bizarrely at the same time seemingly acknowledge it has a problem when I'm identifying that problem myself, but not talking about muslims in absolute terms. You identify the hate preachers as the reason radicals exist. Fair enough, we should agree then, as I said remove those who prove to be regressive without kidding around. Frankly your post doesn't make much sense, how can a problem be solved, if hate of a subset is taken as hate of a whole. For example, I could see someone bringing up progressive values from early Islam as a shield for the whole. That's dishonest, progressive and regressive Islam are BOTH true at the same time.

[QUOTE=Omesh;51381129]Do you think the hate preachers get their ideology or at least the content they preach from void? It's undeniably a part of islam. The problem is entirely political and ideological, not religious. The average Muslim doesnt care about abrogation and scripture. Not until it is shoved into their skull by these people. So which one is it according to you? Why do you feel the need to come forward and defend all of islam and bizarrely at the same time seemingly acknowledge it has a problem when I'm identifying that problem myself, but not talking about muslims in absolute terms. You identify the hate preachers as the reason radicals exist. Fair enough, we should agree then, as I said remove those who prove to be regressive without kidding around. Frankly your post doesn't make much sense, how can a problem be solved, if hate of a subset is taken as hate of a whole. For example, I could see someone bringing up progressive values from early Islam as a shield for the whole. That's dishonest, progressive and regressive Islam are BOTH true at the same time.[/QUOTE] What are you even advocating for? You say you don't think that all Muslims are evil but you think the core of the religion incites hate and violence. Which one of the two is it? What makes some Muslims evil , and some not? How could a government tell apart which Muslims are radical and which Muslims are not if they have no prior criminal records and aren't in the INTERPOL's database? Do you just ban all Muslims?

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51381269]What are you even advocating for? You say you don't think that all Muslims are evil but you think the core of the religion incites hate and violence. Which one of the two is it? What makes some Muslims evil , and some not? How could a government tell apart which Muslims are radical and which Muslims are not if they have no prior criminal records and aren't in the INTERPOL's database? Do you just ban all Muslims?[/QUOTE] I'm beginning to think that you don't even read what I say or are incapable of understanding. Those questions are already answered. - What are you even advocating for? [QUOTE]In conclusion, thanks for proving my point. I'm talking to you about the root issue in their religion and you blasted me for being irrationally afraid. Having kid gloves on when talking about Islam won't do any favors for those who come to Sweden to contribute positively, yourself included, and yes, if they happen to be following the latter parts of Islam, which I described, then I want them to be removed without mercy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You identify the hate preachers as the reason radicals exist. Fair enough, we should agree then, as I said remove those who prove to be regressive without kidding around. Frankly your post doesn't make much sense, how can a problem be solved, if hate of a subset is taken as hate of a whole. For example, I could see someone bringing up progressive values from early Islam as a shield for the whole. That's dishonest, progressive and regressive Islam are BOTH true at the same time.[/QUOTE] Stop pretending that you want to solve the problem while at the same time shielding the whole when a subset is criticized. Stop denying it has anything to do with religion while contradicting yourself in the same post. Also, stop (not yet in this thread) bringing up Muhammad's hippie years to minimize criticism of vile teachings. Sorry, it would be better, if the chronology was reversed. - You say you don't think that all Muslims are evil but you think the core of the religion incites hate and violence. [QUOTE]I told you I know muslims CAN cause problems, not that they MUST. This is when I said that those following the Medina quran and Muhammad's perfect example in his latter years are problematic. The concept of abrogation makes latter verses take superiority, he spent years in Mecca preaching coexistence and women's rights, and got nowhere in followers. I would love and respect them, if they all followed that. Too bad he had to go mental and jihad everyone against him. Also, non-muslims are not human anymore, so all that earlier love stuff doesn't apply to them. He got all the arabian peninsula like that. Hmmm, I wonder what's better for his personal power, violence or love.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]For example, I could see someone bringing up progressive values from early Islam as a shield for the whole. That's dishonest, progressive and regressive Islam are BOTH true at the same time.[/QUOTE] Twisting my words again, I did not condemn all of it. Half of their religion does incite hate and violence, but it's quite different to the point that one could see Islam as a dualistic system. Did you take me saying "root issue in their religion" as meaning the core of their religion? Of course I won't criticize the good half. - Which one of the two is it? What makes some Muslims evil , and some not? [QUOTE]For example, I could see someone bringing up progressive values from early Islam as a shield for the whole. That's dishonest, progressive and regressive Islam are BOTH true at the same time.[/QUOTE] Both at once. The evil ones follow Muhammad's latter years example. - How could a government tell apart which Muslims are radical and which Muslims are not if they have no prior criminal records and aren't in the INTERPOL's database? Do you just ban all Muslims? I don't believe we were talking about prevention. You see, I prefer to attack the system instead of persons. Only thing that was mentioned was punishment after wrongdoing. Without apologism. Do you disagree? About bans, it would be completely within their rights to do so. Before you freak out, I already acknowledged that not everyone is evil, so a vetting system would be best. Of course, it would be difficult to preemptively detect radicals, but I'm sure Sweden could figure it out, if they had the will instead of [URL="https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6190/sweden-refugee-children"]pretending[/URL] to care. They could start by making the country unattractive to those who purely want to exploit their welfare system, enforce punishments and take the amount of people that the institutions could still clearly control (instead of anarchy, letting offenders go because it happens regularly and you don't want to justify your ideological opponents).

It feels like this discussion ignores over a thousand year of history between now and Mohammed. Also the ideological part being the one to blame, not the religion itself. We could say that the Crusades are a part of Christian beliefs, but that raises the question, where do we have Crusades now? It's part of an ideology that is no longer being followed, same with religious wars with muslims. Only a very small minority follow a religious war-like mentality. To adress the legal situation in Sweden as well, it's forbidden by the constitution to take away Swedish citizenship, good news is that the constitution can be changed and it should. Also there should be higher requirements for citizenship. It's like 10-15 years in the US, only 5 at most here. And we barely have any checks if you will fit in.

Jesus Christ I can't even reply to that post the formatting is absolutely terrible. The discussion is cyclical at this point. You can discriminate someone over their religion all you want but it goes against what Sweden stands for and against Swedish law, these people didn't choose to be born or raised Muslim. Being 95% Roman Catholic didn't make Venezuela any less violent anyway, gee, it's almost like if religion matters very little in this day and age and hating on Islam due to extremists just strengthens their resolve! By forcing our societies to become increasingly more draconian, more authoritarian, you're just letting the terrorists win. You're proving them right, you're showing them that yes, we do hate Muslims, yes, we're afraid, yes, the laws and the rights that we currently taken for granted are as flimsy as the paper they're written in. Allowing any country of the free world to deport and forcibly exile its own citizens would make us no better than the dictatorships we claim to be against, because while forced exiles can start with the Muslims, it won't end with them.

Don't make me laugh with cyclical. This sad discussion was just you replying to my posts and inserting points that you imagined I made. Interesting how you can't reply to my last post because of formatting. Maybe deconstruct my points instead of going into denial and talking about feelings. I said punish those who prove themselves to be regressive without apologism of Islam and stop shielding the whole of it when a subset is hated on. From your last post shielding is exactly what I see. Apparently enforcing order is showing we hate them all and is draconian. You know maybe it is holding everyone to the same standards or are they so fragile that they need kid gloves? You don't want Sweden to actually DO anything that could realistically help the problem. Venezuela is a failed state compared to peaceful Sweden. We've been over this. Well whatever, I am tired of explaining it to you.