The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Lawdeedaw.

Good point, but stupidity and lack of education often go hand in hand, and some cultures are tailored around preying on functional societies. The point is, a proper risk evaluation wasn't done when considering immigration. Ideology above all reason. Tragic really.

Populist opponents of liberal immigration laws use foreign aid as an alibi, but even that is ruled by ideology and opportunism. Only fair trade works. (not the hippie brand - actual trade with proper wages being the rule)>> ^hpqp:

You're amalgamating two quite separate things: terrorism and crime. The latter has everything to do with lack of education (including basic civic behaviour sometimes), of money, and/or is a result of immigration with purely criminal intent (yes, that exists too). The former, however, needs only nationalistic or, in this case, religious ideology to be its fuel. Most (if not all) recent Islamist terrorists have come from middle-to-upper class families, have usually been well educated and had no "criminal gain" (i.e. $$) to be made from their actions.
>> ^Smugglarn:
You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?
The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.
Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.
>> ^Yogi:
So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

You're amalgamating two quite separate things: terrorism and crime. The latter has everything to do with lack of education (including basic civic behaviour sometimes), of money, and/or is a result of immigration with purely criminal intent (yes, that exists too). The former, however, needs only nationalistic or, in this case, religious ideology to be its fuel. Most (if not all) recent Islamist terrorists have come from middle-to-upper class families, have usually been well educated and had no "criminal gain" (i.e. $$) to be made from their actions.

>> ^Smugglarn:

You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?
The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.
Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.
>> ^Yogi:
So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?

The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.

Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.

>> ^Yogi:

So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

This was really stupid. I was watching it live and a few MPs were really grilling the Murdochs, including the one who was interrupted by this pie attack. If you don't like Rupert Murdoch, let him be interrogated! All this did was give him sympathy because you just hit an 80-year old man in the face. Now, instead of the headlines being about some of the questions that were asked and their responses, they're about pie.

I'm glad it's closing.

You have to remember the kind of "journalism" this paper printed. Like the one with the woman with the extremely large breasts which she felt may have seriously injured someone else. In fact breasts, celebs and football were basically it's staple currencies. Job losses are always sad but we're not losing anything here. This was not a great paper. It was a reservoir of scummy journalistic practices. The current editor claims he ran a clean paper which is laughable.

Like many tabloids it practiced the "dark arts" with which they bent and broke the law to get stories. The Sun will replace it no doubt and I can only hope it won't be as bad. Murdoch claims the paper is "toxic" though it's been like that for many years. Hell you could claim The Sun is still toxic for their Hillsborough coverage.

This is a huge story and isn't being covered enough because Murdock owns a third of the press in this country. David Cameron is a scumbag for seeing no problem in hanging out with Brooks and attending NI's Eyes Wide Shut party. And he's still defending Coulson. Amazing. When you throw in the bent coppers this could be the most disturbing set of institutional corruption scandals we've seen since, oh, MPs expenses. As some one on twitter said, this is playing out like The Wire.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

@SDGundamX

You really don't seem to get it; you keep saying that Harris (and myself) are speaking of Muslims as a group, when what is being discussed, what you so blithely discard, is the motivation that the ideology of Islam provides for violent and unethical action. Where does sharia law come from? Islam. Why do certain populations fight to keep it in place? Because of their religious faith. Why is terrorism and suicide bombing depicted as religious martyrdom by certain religious leaders and a percentage of muslims? Because it has basis in the Qur'an.
Harris is not saying "be afraid of muslims", he's saying "beware the content and effects of Islamic ideology when put into practice".

I should have known that you would not be content with the evidence, because what you want me to show is something I do not argue (nor does Harris), i.e. that muslims are more prone to violence than non-muslims. Just because the effects of an ideology and its doctrines are not universally put into action by its adherents does not mean that it bears no effect. In Uganda, the MP responsible for the "Kill the gays" bill makes it very clear that his motivations are religious, but according to your (il)logic, because other countries with Christian populations do not punish homosexuality with the death penalty, this bill has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nobody is saying that religion is the only cause or aggravating circumstance in all these cases of violence and unethical behaviour, but it is definitely one to be reckoned with; and Islam, in this day and age, is the religious ideology that causes the most harm around the world. If you can't see that, fine, remain willfully oblivious to what is happening around the world, but don't think for a minute that the millions of muslims suffering because of Islam (yes, the majority of its victims are muslims themselves) are going to thank you for your culturally relativistic "respect".

You're right, still not a single study or report devoted to statistics.

Lots moe sensationalist stories, though.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^handmethekeysyou:
I tried googling this. Not a single report or study devoted to "
how many traffic stops per year result in shootings" on the first page. Unsurprisingly, many sensationalist news stories.>> ^MrFisk:
How many cars are pulled over in the U.S., in a year? How many result in a fatality to the officer? I'm trying to figure out if it's more likely they'll be shot, hit by lightning, or bitten by a shark.


Try googling "cop killed during traffic stop"

Nuts *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Controversial-British-MP-on-Lebanon-Hizbullah-Israel-Conflict

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by gwiz665.

Looks like a dupe unfortunately:
http://videosift.com/video/Controversial-British-MP-on-Lebanon-Hizbullah-Israel-Conflict

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.