Breaking CNBC Stockholm Attack

Dropped my Jaw when I sat and listen to 20 minutes of "Right wing extremism" yesterday on this terrorist attack.
There's the liberals for ya.

 

Sweden and the US both feature democratically elected representative governments (though Sweden is a Constitutional Monarchy).

Democratically elected representative governments imperfectly reflect the will of their citizenry (at least that of those who vote for the whoever prevails in their elections). But we need to recognize candidates are politicians and often manipulative, dishonest and demagogic, so the citizens don't often get what they voted for.

Sweden and the US have governments which only generally reflect the views and aspirations of a majority of their voting populations, to the degree their elected representatives appear to adopt and pursue them.

This is the best system so far developed, proportional representation, organic laws, constitutional conventions, minority inclusion, recall and impeachment procedures and other devices have been applied in different ways to improve Swedish, US and similar systems, but ultimately democratic societies prefer the stability of periodically renewed governments over a system that would make it easier to oust a government that inadequately reflected the citizenry. Thus elected representatives know they do have some latitude.

The citizenry is generally unaware of the quality and quantity of competing interests their elected representatives confront, there is always a need for some compromise and this will moderate what gets delivered.

Nobody in Sweden voted for whoever was elected to specifically welcome jihadees, just like nobody in the US voted for Trump to bomb a Syrian air base. Swedes probably voted for a humanitarian leader, just as people in the US sought one who would make their country great again. As their representatives try to accomplish their goals and confront the inherent difficulties, they'll compromise and tackle the unpredictable problems arising in ways that sometimes don't reflect what a majority that voted for them would want done.

 

Sure. We made these signs for you too.

 

If I was a betting man, and I am, I would have to throw in that the candlestick people, the florists and the stuff animal people are behind much of it. They seem to be the only winners. Use to be a time when someone attacked your country there would be a "call to arms". Now there is a "call to a vigil". Everybody shows up at dusk and light their candles and maybe sing a couple songs and then go home. Ahh! We feel better now. Problem solved.

 

It is all because of the occupation and the Swedes exectute disproportional force.

 

Gutless traitorous politicians of any countries who turn a blind eye to muslim terrorism are to blame, AND the mushbrained people who voted them into power are also to blame.
"Which is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?"- Obi Wan Kenobi
Thank God half of America had the good sense to vote tough guy Don into the White House..

 

The significance of Islamic fundamentalism in this terrorism is not intelligently discussed. I think more Muslims are sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism than the critical left will admit. I've seen surveys and reports recording alarming levels of support for homophobia, misogynism, sharia and jihadism.

Such views are premised in Islam, perhaps erroneously or falsely, but it is the religion and not extraneous sources lefties suggest; colonialism, marginalization, discrimination or poverty. Deference to religious views prevents more careful consideration of the levels of support for Islamic fundamentalism.

We ought to regard Islamic fundamentalism as we do Nazism, ban advocacy for it, make it a crime.

 

It is really true, the future war will be against an idealism that is spread throughout the internet all around the world

It will be interesting as we see tougher cracking down type countries deal with the issue and see what works better in the long run.

I sadly do not know if this is a war we can win

Guy is a obvious terrorist coming from a country that is over 90% Muslim, sounds like you may be more confused.

If you guys would fight as hard against the % of Muslims that screw everything up you would more likely get more support. Instead you take all your anger out on those who point out facts and refuse to answer interesting questions like "Why do such a high % of muslims in some way support terrorist actions."

It is just getting worse and worse for your religion and unless you guys do something internally you can expect that sentiment to grow.

 

And why?

 

You must have, yes. We have our own language.

 

Well yes, either them or the Mormons but that goes without saying.

 

I don't own a TV set and find video online unbearable (the buffering and lengthy infomercials) rely on the written word since I like to discuss this and haven't figured out how to cite video. I'mso disengaged with TV thought when I saw reference to "MSM" here you guys were referring to another TV broadcaster like MSNBC.

 

This is already the case, jihadism is that idealism and it is spread via internet. Western internet users don't perceive this because we don't access their sources, are not attracted by their argument and not invited to participate, this is a Muslim thing.

There could be an emergence of some global western, idealism, perhaps in reaction to this "new normal", the time is ripe for such a development, not a religious reaction since the west is too secular, but some sort of simple globalism that harkens back to the pre 911 notion the whole world can prosper through some sort of principle-based and progress-oriented development.

Before 911 the world seemed to be moving forward, countries were rising from third world destitution, environmental sensitivity was increasing, human rights were universalizing, then we suddenly stopped moving forward, the outside was a threat, governments were concerned with greater controls over our international interactions.

The advent of international jihadism throws a wrench into the mechanisms for globalized progress, this religious fanaticism needs to be countered with a shared spirit advocating progress instead of this medieval world view.

Restricting outsiders with dangerous alien views is a natural immediate reaction, but not a way ahead. We cannot be safe just keeping them out and this will limit our prospects. The solution is to engage Islamic fundamentalists in two ways; with overwhelming military force wherever possible, and with coherent, comprehensive economic and political constraints everywhere else.

This is not a war we can lose, and it is un winnable for them.

At some point Muslim theologians will have to develop a more intelligent response from their own faith, the alternative for them is just too brutal. They have seen where fundamentalism leads, it is not to progress and improvement, it leads to death and destruction, especially of Muslims.

It is a "Muslim thing", Islam's most revered figure was a religious, political and military leader all at the same time -this is their ideal, what they are told is the best way, what they believe their god has destined for them.

Their religious leaders need to delve into their own scriptures, the writings of their finest religious scholars and philosophers to come up with something better than Salafism, Qtubianism and Whahabbism. I think Sufism might offer a path, they need to overcome the literalist school, become more interpretive.

Muslims need to become more tolerant, death, destruction, poverty and suffering is all they'll get from jihadism. The world today is not like it was in the days of Mohamed, modern communications won't allow a global jihad, the effects of any partial conquest are too appalling for the rest of the world to stand by.

 

The Swedes are the biggest fools on the planet for welcoming the Religion of Peace.

It's national suicide.

 

I am Swedish and I have to agree with you. "Biggest fools"? I think so. "National suicide"? It sure looks that way.

See epilogue below >>>>>

 

EPILOGUE:

Let me make this as simple as I can, OK?

We (Sweden) have adapted the ‘multiculturalist’ philosophy as being the most humanitarian method of squashing ‘RACISM’ once and for all, thus proving beyond any shadow of doubt that WE ARE NOT RACISTS. Now that we’ve taken up the challenge and named the quality of failure (‘RACISM’) we are at the mercy of our own standard. So, dropping ‘multiculturalism’ (and/or admitting defeat in its implementation) is tantamount to being ‘RACIST’. Those are, after all, our own rules.

Now that everyone is up to speed, here is the consequence of the decision we face today: Give up multiculturalism and be labelled RACIST or …….. NATIONAL SUICIDE. For Sweden (the self-proclaimed “Prototype of a Modern Non-Racist Society”) the choice is no choice at all. We chose NATIONAL SUICIDE. Of course.

 

Well, the rest of the Western world isn't far behind you. You're leading the way, but we'll all end up in the same place.

 

Leading the way? Yeah, I think you're right. I don't see anyone ahead of us and when I look back all I see is hoards of frightened faces, huddled close together with terror in their eyes.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it many more times: its a question of how many people must be killed before people wake up to the truth about Islam.

 

It seems that those who were allowed entry into Sweden, and given some amazing benefits also, are the genuine 'racists'. The obvious difference is that your guests don' share the same angst in being called racist.

The idea that anyone could be prejudiced against Swedes must not have, until recently, occurred to any of them.

 

You sound like a NAZI. Are you or did you just word that too strongly?

 

Nonsense. The Nazis were good friends with Islam.

 

It turns out, there isn't very much downside to be called racist. The proper response is:

"So what?"

 

True. True - true.

They also realize that calling them racists would make us racists in our own eyes.

You should be lecturing at European universities.