Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Bombing in [Oslo]

11819202123

Posts

  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Lots of weirdness. Reports from people at the Youth Camp said there was more than one shooter. Someone was mucking around on his FB page while the guy was on a rampage, before we got a solid identity on him.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • L*2*G*XL*2*G*X Registered User regular
    Casual wrote:
    L*2*G*X wrote:
    tldr: we shouldn't combat racism on it's home turf. Attacking the right because of Breivik does exactly that.

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Having government raise the issue of immigration makes people racists? There is no middle ground between Neo Nazism and unchecked immigration?

    Governments have been raising the issue of immigration in response to racist depictions of the issue. Focusing on these have made people think on the subject in racist terms, linking immigration to crime, exploitation of social security, terrorism, and eventual imposition of islamic culture. Reporting bias on these issues have made people racist, yes.

    The fact that the discussion is placed on the Neo-Nazi / Multicultural axis is indicative of how the cards have been stacked by media and the extreme right alike. Another example is the depiction of 'our' culture as both progressive and conservative, i.e. offering freedom to women whilst protecting religious traditions, this of course in contrast to the multicultural society that would enslave women to install another religion.
    Culture is defined as either European, Western, Christian, free, etc. or Islamic which is retarded, vile,... denying the schisms and differences inside 'both' cultures.

    What I'm saying is that to combat racism politicians will have to drop those subjects entirely and re-align themselves along different axis. Returning to the traditional socio-economical divide, declare on sustainability, etc. and just drop the subject of immigration altogether.

    In the past ten years we've seen that it's an extremely slippery slope and the right have won tremendously every time the center parties decided to take any sort of popular stance on the subject.

    Because at the end of the day at the core of the problem lie human rights. The perceived solutions for the 'immigration problem' all lie beyond what any democratic party can offer. It takes extremists to declare 'us' and 'them' and install the apartheid regime people have been convinced they want.

    Give it a few years for the war on Islam to wind down, the sensationalist (marketing driven) press to fold, and immigrants to secure their socio-economic status, and reasonable solutions might be put on the table again.





  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    L*2*G*X wrote:
    What I'm saying is that to combat racism politicians will have to drop those subjects entirely and re-align themselves along different axis. Returning to the traditional socio-economical divide, declare on sustainability, etc. and just drop the subject of immigration altogether.
    The fact that mainstream European political parties have been hesitant to talk about immigration, or to listen to the complaints of native Europeans when it comes to immigration, is a big part of the problem.

    By failing to address the issue in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    Ignoring immigration and dropping it from the public discourse in Europe will just lead to more guys like this shooter deciding to take matters into their own hands.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    either,or wrote:
    Since around 2008, terrorist attacks have almost exclusively been carried out by Islamic terrorists.

    That's not even remotely true of Europe.

    Unless I've seen bad data, yes, yes it is. Casualties are the only reasonable measure of the level of danger of different sorts of terrorism. Someone burning down an empty house might be terrorism, but it pales in comparison to fatality causing terrorism in importance.

    That said, I think this case does demonstrate that internal right wing elements continue to pose a threat to security and require combating just like international Islamist elements.

    Wicked Demiurge in most games. Solacus is my main in GW2.
  • NATIKNATIK Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    L*2*G*X wrote:
    What I'm saying is that to combat racism politicians will have to drop those subjects entirely and re-align themselves along different axis. Returning to the traditional socio-economical divide, declare on sustainability, etc. and just drop the subject of immigration altogether.
    The fact that mainstream European political parties have been hesitant to talk about immigration, or to listen to the complaints of native Europeans when it comes to immigration, is a big part of the problem.

    By failing to address the issue in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    Ignoring immigration and dropping it from the public discourse in Europe will just lead to more guys like this shooter deciding to take matters into their own hands.

    The subject should be discussed, though the way it has been discussed the last decade only breeds guys like this. It has been 10 years of dehumanization and demonization of not just muslims but anyone not ethnically and culturally western.

    It doesn't hit fringe extremists only either, the increased xenophobia affects all of society and leads to things like European countries now wanting to close their borders again, the French banning muslim headdress and guys like Anders Breivik feeling he and his country is threatened by traitors selling his nation to evil.

    The solution is not to ignore potential problems with immigration or integration but what we have been doing for the last 10 years most certainly isn't a workable solution either, it is just one that ends up with the progress and cooperation built over the last 30-70 years being pulled apart again because everyone is afraid of everyone.

    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Pat Buchanan continues to be a sack of shit.
    But, awful as this atrocity was, native-born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.

    That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.

    Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.

    With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe’s nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come – from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia – have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.[...]

    As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    No shame whatsoever in agreeing with a mass murderer. Astounding.

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    either,or wrote:
    Since around 2008, terrorist attacks have almost exclusively been carried out by Islamic terrorists.

    That's not even remotely true of Europe.

    Unless I've seen bad data, yes, yes it is. Casualties are the only reasonable measure of the level of danger of different sorts of terrorism. Someone burning down an empty house might be terrorism, but it pales in comparison to fatality causing terrorism in importance.

    That said, I think this case does demonstrate that internal right wing elements continue to pose a threat to security and require combating just like international Islamist elements.

    Terrorist Attacks in Europe, 2011:

    Muslim
    Jan 14 - Car bomb - Dagestan, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - 14 casualties
    Jan 24 - Bombs - Domodedevo, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - 217 casualties
    Jan 26 - Bombs - Khasayurt, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - 10 casualties
    Feb 14 - Suicide bombings - Dagestan, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - 28+
    Feb 19 - Armed assault - Kabardino-Balkaria, Russia - Caucasus Emrirate - 4
    Mar 2 - Shooting - Frankfurt, Germany - Lone wolf - 4
    Mar 9 - Bombing - Moscow, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - none
    Mar 11 - Bombings - Moscow, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - none
    May 3 - Bombing - Moscow, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - 1
    May 4 - Shooting/bombing - Kastamonu, Turkey - Kurdistan Workers Party - 3
    May 9 - Shooting - North Caucasus, Russia - Unspecified, but I think we can probably guess - 9
    May 12 - Shooting - Dagestan, Russia - Caucasus Emirate - 1

    Non-Muslim
    Jan 20 - Bombs, Ukraine - Unknown - no casualties
    Feb 26 - Suicide bombing - Moscow Russia - Unknown - 1
    Apr 2 - Car bomb - Omagh, Northern Ireland - Dissident republicans - 1
    Apr 9 - Shooting - Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands - Lone wolf - 23 casualties
    Apr 11 - Bombing - Minsk, Belarus - Unknown - 214+
    May 11 - Grenades - Derry, Northern Ireland - dissident republicans - 0
    July 22 - Stuff - Norway - Breivik - 172

    Okay. So. Based on this, more Muslims carried out terrorist attacks in Europe, or at least European nations, than non-Muslims, with 291 casualties compared to 411. Except it's debatable whether Caucasus Emirate is an Islamic fundamentalist group or a separatist group, really. Similarly, the Kurdistan Workers Party is a separatist/communist group... Turkey obviously being already Muslim. If we throw in the United States, the tally is 291 to 431. Add in Mexico, it's 291 to 695 (the cartels have been busy).

    hippofant on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    Modern Man wrote:
    By failing to address the issue in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    The Sweden Democrat asshats are already going "This could have been prevented if we had only been allowed to take our debate to the public!"

    By "debate" they mean "this is what needs to be done".

    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • jakobaggerjakobagger LO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTORED Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    L*2*G*X wrote:
    What I'm saying is that to combat racism politicians will have to drop those subjects entirely and re-align themselves along different axis. Returning to the traditional socio-economical divide, declare on sustainability, etc. and just drop the subject of immigration altogether.
    The fact that mainstream European political parties have been hesitant to talk about immigration, or to listen to the complaints of native Europeans when it comes to immigration, is a big part of the problem.

    By failing to address the issue in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    Ignoring immigration and dropping it from the public discourse in Europe will just lead to more guys like this shooter deciding to take matters into their own hands.

    If you think immigration is an un-addressed issue in European political discourse, you are as ignorant of our politics as you believe Europeans to be of American ditto. In many, many, countries all parties but the leftiest lefties are fishing votes by fear-mongering and painting Islam and immigration as the great threat. Eg. Switzerland banning minarets, France banning religious headdress (aimed at the hijab more than yarmulkes, quite obviously), Denmark closing the borders, Rotterdam banning the use of foreign languages in the street etc etc.

    bgg / steam / goodreads / Bnet: Bygasto#2537
  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    jakobagger wrote:
    Rotterdam banning the use of foreign languages in the street etc etc.

    That's a thing that happened!?

  • jakobaggerjakobagger LO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTORED Registered User regular
    815165 wrote:
    jakobagger wrote:
    Rotterdam banning the use of foreign languages in the street etc etc.

    That's a thing that happened!?

    That was from memory, and looking around now I can't really find any source for it, so possibly it was shot down. It was certainly proposed, though. There have been a lot of similar proposals for banning foreign languages eg. in schools, for example in Sweden. The local Danish right wing populists Dansk Folkeparti, who have been third largest in parliament for a few terms, like to propose all sorts of small symbolic humiliations of immigrants (ie. Muslims), like banning halal meat or burqas. Also sometimes more substantial stuff: they are not part of the government but exert massive influence on it and were the reason that
    BBC wrote:
    The Liberal-Conservative government introduced what it described as Europe's strictest immigration laws in May 2002.
    .

    bgg / steam / goodreads / Bnet: Bygasto#2537
  • NATIKNATIK Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Indeed, immigration is plenty discussed, it's mostly just discussed in hateful "those people are destroying everything and the cause of all evil" ways instead of any kind of sober discussion since the far right is allowed to set the tone of the debate without much contest and where they are contested they are often attempted drowned out by people going "lalalala can't hear you" or the political equivalent of it, like Sweden which I don't think is going to help make guys like this understand the error of their ways.

    NATIK on
    steam_sig.png
  • jakobaggerjakobagger LO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTORED Registered User regular
    Right, I don't think ignoring it is going to work, but right now the political climate is such that quite hateful, bigoted things are said by respectable, mainstream parties and pundits. We need to make clear that it is not, in fact, alright to call Muslims cancer cells as one Danish MP did. These views and this rhetoric must be opposed lest they come to appear acceptable and mainstream.

    That's for the parliamentary right win populists, though. A separate problem, imo, is the growing outright fascism especially in Eastern Europe (cf. Jobbik and their militias in Hungary), but with smaller groups in Western Europe as well. I'm not really sure these people are within range of reasoned debate and fear that the only thing we can do about them is try to weaken or destroy their infra-structure and recruitment channels, by blockading and protesting their marches, rallies, concerts etc. Also in part to say "no, this is not alright, what you're doing and believing is not accepted by the mainstream".

    bgg / steam / goodreads / Bnet: Bygasto#2537
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    As long as no one in Europe takes a cue from us here in the States and start building walls all around their country to keep everyone out.

  • CabezoneCabezone Registered User regular
    Do you not realize that the United States takes in more legal permanent residents than the entire rest of the world?

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    Cabezone wrote:
    Do you not realize that the United States takes in more legal permanent residents than the entire rest of the world?

    False.

  • ZzuluZzulu Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    if you count Europe as a whole it receives a lot more than America

    but no one ever does~

    Zzulu on
    t5qfc9.jpg
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote:
    Feb 26 - Suicide bombing - Moscow Russia - Unknown - no casualties

    how are there no casualties in a suicide bombing?

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    Dunadan019 wrote:
    hippofant wrote:
    Feb 26 - Suicide bombing - Moscow Russia - Unknown - no casualties

    how are there no casualties in a suicide bombing?

    The bomb didn't kill anyone? Injuries are not counted as casualties.

    But more likely is that the perpetrator is not counted, only innocent civilians are.

  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    Zzulu wrote:
    if you count Europe as a whole it receives a lot more than America

    but no one ever does~

    The quote was against the "rest of the entire world". I can buy more than any other single nation, but not more than the rest of the world combined.

  • ZzuluZzulu Registered User regular
    We had an attempted suicide bombing here where the guy failed and no one died

    t5qfc9.jpg
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Urcbub wrote:
    Zzulu wrote:
    if you count Europe as a whole it receives a lot more than America

    but no one ever does~

    The quote was against the "rest of the entire world". I can buy more than any other single nation, but not more than the rest of the world combined.

    For Europe, I'd bet that the number is inflated by counting immigrants moving within Europe.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Dunadan019 wrote:
    hippofant wrote:
    Feb 26 - Suicide bombing - Moscow Russia - Unknown - no casualties

    how are there no casualties in a suicide bombing?

    Oop sorry, it's 1 casualty, the bomber. I've updated my counts. All these come from Wikipedia, btw.

    hippofant on
  • UrcbubUrcbub Registered User
    Bagginses wrote:
    Urcbub wrote:
    Zzulu wrote:
    if you count Europe as a whole it receives a lot more than America

    but no one ever does~

    The quote was against the "rest of the entire world". I can buy more than any other single nation, but not more than the rest of the world combined.

    For Europe, I'd bet that the number is inflated by counting immigrants moving within Europe.

    Which would still count as permanent residents/immigrants as Europe is not one single nation.

  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    Zzulu wrote:
    if you count Europe as a whole it receives a lot more than America
    but no one ever does~

    Yeah well the UN gives 70 million of the worlds immigrants in Europe as opposed to 45 million in North America, but when you adjust for relative populations its about equal as percentage.

  • jakobaggerjakobagger LO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTORED Registered User regular
    Zzulu wrote:
    We had an attempted suicide bombing here where the guy failed and no one died

    Are you from Denmark too? Because it happened in Copenhagen as well. Lors Dukayev or something like that.

    bgg / steam / goodreads / Bnet: Bygasto#2537
  • JeanJean Soon to be papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    They're is something I just don't get.

    The killer in Norway say his goal is to weaken the Labour party but didn't he just handed them over their re-election on a silver platter?

    I mean they already were the most popular party in the country and now they're gonna get a ton of sympathy votes next election on top of that. How come the killer didn't tought of that? Did he really tought he would get sympathy for his cause by killing kids or than he would somehow bully people into not voting Labour?

    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    He's a fuckin' retard, that's why.

  • jakobaggerjakobagger LO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTORED Registered User regular
    Right wing extremists are not known for their intelligence or sense of reality.

    bgg / steam / goodreads / Bnet: Bygasto#2537
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Jean wrote:
    They're is something I just don't get.

    The killer in Norway say his goal is to weaken the Labour party but didn't he just handed them over their re-election on a silver platter?

    I mean they already were the most popular party in the country and now they're gonna get a ton of sympathy votes next election on top of that. How come the killer didn't tought of that? Did he really tought he would get sympathy for his cause by killing kids or than he would somehow bully people into not voting Labour?

    I think that most terrorism fails to achieve its stated aims. Sometimes that's because they don't understand how people think (self-defeating evil etc - terrorist have little empathy, and empathy allows you to understand people). I hope this will be the case here.

    Often it's because the stated aims are not the real aims. I think that a lot of terrorism aims to prolong conflicts which the leaders find politically or economically profitable, even if the footsoldiers think they're trying to win. I fear 9/11 may have been like this - I'm sure Bin Laden was very happy when we attacked Iraq, and anti-Muslim discrimination in the West helps foment terrorism.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    The kids he killed where the future leader and candidates of the party. The PM used to be a leader of the Youth party as the last Labour PM. Several cabinet ministers, mayors, mp's and political advisors used to be members.

    Thats the scary part. Not only did he kill kids with a bright future, but how many survivors are going to drop out in the aftermath? Its not going to stop the recruitment, but the party has lost a lot of kids that could have carried it forward in the years ahead. Political commitment in the young is a rare commodity these days. Thats why they where gathered there in the first place.

    Kipling217 on
    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    Oh I'd say he did some good damage over there.

    y6GGs3o.gif
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    I think Fox is probably happy they're no longer in the Glenn Beck business.


    Beck: Murdered youths were probably Nazis.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote:
    The kids he killed where the future leader and candidates of the party. The PM used to be a leader of the Youth party as the last Labour PM. Several cabinet ministers, mayors, mp's and political advisors used to be members.

    Thats the scary part. Not only did he kill kids with a bright future, but how many survivors are going to drop out in the aftermath? Its not going to stop the recruitment, but the party has lost a lot of kids that could have carried it forward in the years ahead. Political commitment in the young is a rare commodity these days. Thats why they where gathered there in the first place.
    Well, if you kill off enough members of an opposing political party, especially its leaders and future leaders, it tends to end up weakened. Fascist groups were very good at this in the inter-war years. In many parts of the world today, joining certain politicial parties can be hazardous to one's health.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2011
    The Rotterdam story is probably an extreme twist on a local right wing party campaigning on the removal of all information provided to the public in arabic. (Fliers about government services and citizen rights, and how to apply for various stuff). Perhaps possible with some hubbub about state funded translators in hospitals.

    I'd bet that in general, getting into Europe, getting asylum, or becoming a resident/citizen without 'first world' papers is far harder than getting into the US is though. We already have fences and such up in eastern europe, there is no such thing as birthright citizenship, it's a lot more difficult to work illegally here. With regard to immigration policy, the phrase "Fortress Europe" is often heard.

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • sainsain Registered User regular
    I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that Beck compares dead teens to the Hitler Youth, or that he had the nerve to use their deaths to toot his own horn.

    Ugh.

  • DramDram Old Salt Registered User regular
    sain wrote:
    I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that Beck compares dead teens to the Hitler Youth, or that he had the nerve to use their deaths to toot his own horn.

    Ugh.

    There's people being idiots all over the place. Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, the Australian Christian Lobby. Something like this happens and everybody tries to twist it to suit their agenda.

  • L*2*G*XL*2*G*X Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    By failing to address the issue in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    I'd really like you to explain the logic behind that statement. It is just about the basis of every extreme-right wing argument, and the direct motivator of Breivik.
    For the moment allow me to strawman somewhat- not you, but the racist right as a whole.

    The biggest beef I have with that statement is 'the issue'. This refers to an interpretation of immigration that is both very specific and broad.
    'The issue' is immigration as directly linked to perceived crime, islamic culture, insecurity feelings, women's rights, unemployment and exploitation of social security... All of which are up for debate to say the least.

    No right-wing party has ever listened to the middle field that deals with these issues directly- excepting police if and where the police were prejudiced to begin with.
    They don't hear social workers, legal experts (regarding islamification), sociologists, media experts (regarding insecurity feelings), economists on these aspects of immigration.
    They never acknowledge other aspects of immigration.
    All they do is play on xenophobia.

    I think it is fair to restate your statement as follows: By failing to address xenophobia in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    This makes the statement much more honest. Not everyone sees immigration issues in the same light as the extreme right, and I think it's fair to make the distinction.

    Furthermore, since the main stream has been trying to address xenophobia by informing the public about their view on the above mentioned aspects, I think it is fair to say that:

    By failing to convince xenophobes in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have ensured the rise of radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    Now I'm starting to feel comfortable with the first part of your statement. But let's look at the second part. Because, in this view, either xenophobia is on the rise because people have not been convinced they have nothing to fear and therefore become xenophobe. option 1.

    Or, people have always been xenophobe and are now voting for only now appearing parties that have a xenophobe agenda. Option 2.

    Mark that I didn't say whether the xenophobes are right or wrong in their fears before. But now it becomes a really important point.
    If there really is an islamification of our society going on and if there really is a criminalization linked to immigration, then xenophobia is on the rise because people see what is going on and become xenophobic. Option 3.

    But if islamification is not occuring, and crime is not on the rise, then xenophobia is more likely rising because of people's perceptions.

    Option 2 is demonstrably untrue- racist parties have been around since the beginning of democracy.

    Option 1 and option 3 are two sides of the same coin. (edit: that coin being racism on the rise)

    So here it is important to split hairs.

    Islamification might be real or a pipe dream depending on your definition of it. Are muslim populations in europe rising? Yes. Will they take over? No. Clearly perception is in play.

    More importantly, are more muslims committing crime in europe? Yes. Are they more criminal than non-muslims with the same socio-economic status? No. Again; perception.

    You can keep this up till the cows come home, but I think you'll find that perception is the key. And it just so happens that the media have been more racist in their reporting, have been reporting more on crime (even though crime rates are dropping) etc. etc.

    More important is the shift from critical political journalism to publishing politician's statements. This allows parties to limit their debate to those issues they want to talk about. It allows xenophobe parties to use racist anecdotal reporting to their benefit.

    So:

    By failing to convince xenophobes in mainstream political discourse, European politicians have lost votes from a population turned xenophobe because of sensationalist media to radical right-wing parties and groups that are willing to discuss the issue, albeit in a radical manner.

    There. A link might be established between the sensationalist racist media and the political right, but I'm not convinced it will be found or is even required. Some media moguls have been making deals with politicians or are politicians themselves, and in some european countries the media are still under state control, but again this is not a prerequisite.

    It is well established that the media have created a biased perception of child abuse as perpetrated by 'child predators'- whereas the majority of child abuse happens by family members and caretakers. No politicians benefited from this crusade.

    On the other hand sensationalist media have also created a biased perception of European legislation, global warming, unemployment, social services, international finance. etc. etc. without clear political divide.

    Some have boosted racism in Europe for no other reason than it's visceral appeal, and others under control by right-wing politicians (though seldom extreme right wing politicians).

    Which bring us to my view of the situation:

    Radical right-wing parties and groups have profited of the xenophobia raised by right wing politics and sensationalist media

    But, as I stated earlier, I'd really like to see your explanation of the logic behind your statement.







    L*2*G*X on
Sign In or Register to comment.