I see that you have not a single link to support your claims. My claim is that you're lying and I'll back that up with links (you'll need Google translate, because they're in Swedish).

1) Proper treatment

Treatment is much cheaper for asylum seekers than for Swedes. In fact, many Swedish pensioners suffer in pain, because dental care is too expensive (Swedish state TV: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=5184766). Immigrants OTOH, illegal or not, will get their treatment payed by the tax payers: (official authorities article: http://www.1177.se/Stockholm/Regler-...ar-asylsokande). So, we deny out own pensioners the treatment that we almost give away (SEK 50:- = EUR 5:-) to foreigners.

Actually, in order to give foreigners more resources, some Swedes no longer get proper treatment of their conditions:

• Meeting places for the elderly and those with mental issues will be shut down.
• Home care visits for 75-79 year olds will stop.
• Less home care generally
• Fewer slots for the elderly at care homes.
• The elderly and handicapped will get less help to participate in activities

Link: http://www.sydsvenskan.se/2015-11-16...bloder-pengar-

2) Crowd them

According to official statistics 357812 (http://www.migrationsverket.se/Om-Mi...Statistik.html and http://www.migrationsverket.se/downl...+2000-2015.pdf) have arrived since 2012. That's more than 3.6% of the total Swedish population. As a comparison, Sweden's 3rd largest city, Malmö, has 280000 inhabitants. Even if we had duplicated our 3rd largest city in 3½ years, it would be crowded because we would lack space for 357k-280k = 77000 people. And we have not duplicated any large city in 3½ years, because building large cities takes more than 3½ years.

What's you suggestion for less crowding of a number of asylum seekers that is larger than our 3rd largest city - kick out the Swedes from our homes?

The route that Swedish municipalities are taking, is to let foreigners get priority in the queue system for apartments. So, people who have been waiting for many years for an apartment won't get one because of their Swedish nationality, while foreigners will just slide past them in queue. Just because they're foreigners. Link: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ska...a-i-bostadskon

Also, the elderly are kicked out of nursing homes to make space for foreigners. In the first link, we're talking about 90 year olds:
http://www.gp.se/nyheter/v%C3%A4stsv...heter-1.162680
http://www.op.se/jamtland/are/aldreb...e-flyktingbarn

So, greeting them with "Refugees Welcome" banners at the train station is reason for them to commit murders and gang rapes? Obvious trolling.

Swedes are human beings too. This is a transcript of the Green Party leader's speech: https://www.mp.se/just-nu/asa-romsons-almedalstal-2014. I hope the 9th paragraph translates OK in Google, because there she says that white, heterosexual men are not humans. Did that name calling make us kill people?

The Swedish prime minister basically called Swedes barbarians, while sucking up to arabs in the Ronna ghetto. Link: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/rei...blott-barbari/ Again, did that send Swedish murder rates sky rocketing towards the level of asylum seeker murder rates?

That is very obvious.

To other readers:
Please note that all my claims are backed up by links (to accepted news and official sources, not to extremist sites - verify them if you doubt me), whereas Mittelwachter so far has been incapable of posting one single link to substantiate one single claim he makes.

Thus, Hitchen's razor can be applied to Mittelwachter's posts: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

The idiot who blew himself up in Ansbach is confirmed to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

So it starts...

A general warning:

Arguments are good. Heated arguments are okay. Name-calling is not. Just because you believe someone is wrong, claiming he is lying is not a good arguing tactic. Please keep it civil.

He's not claiming, he's proving.:shifty:

Can't be true. We all know that no terrorists will enter Germany using the refugees for cover.:/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!!

That's how I understood it as well.
Sure, to claim someone is lying does sound ugly at first... but if it is the case, why not say it, as long as facts are provided to back things up, Steve?

I think Steve is referring to -

Why did he mention lying then? :hmmm:

Just in case you mean "clever Dick" - that is the translation I got for "Schlaumeier", "Besserwisser" - meaning a super-witty know-it-all. I got that translation already over 30 years ago at school, my English teacher was half-American, she lived there for 20 years, and all her family was and I assume still is there, so she knew your language a bit. But it is also in the book-dictonary I have. And in the internet dictionaries I know as well. I cannot see anything offensive in that term. Note the name is used as a name, not as a noun for you know what.

And Schlaumeier, Schlauberger was exactly the term I meant.

My bad, just red Wamiduku's post and opening sentence.

Was still catching up with the thread.

Proving somebody is wrong is not the same as proving he's intentionally lying. And it doesn't matter. Calling somebody a liar, whether true or not, is still resorting to name calling, and is still not allowed.

Period.

Liar is name calling?

Really now? :)

:subsim:

Yes. It has happened before, with resulting action taken by Neal himself.

As I said, keep it civil.

What Skybird writes are mostly opinion pieces, like this last one, not evidence.
Regarding a "Schlaumeier" who selfrighteously claims to know it all, look into the mirror. Quoting Ayn Rand what capitalism is or is not, does not prove to be evidence.

All Muslims attacked the US on 9/11? Or was it a group of certain civilians, motivated to take revenge for some US action?

Do we have highly motivated civilians, willing to kill Muslims, because some did evil things? Are they keeping their feet close, because we send troops to do the job?

_________________________

A nation mistreating its own population has a problem. This problem intensifies, if the nation adds more population.
But the root of the problem is not the population here, but the nation treating the population wrong.
Can everybody prove it to himself, just by using his own brain? Do I need some back up from some clever media?

Most data to prove a concept taken from any entity with an agenda is subject to interpretation.
Common facts are a good base for discussions, but abused statistics and prepared data to support a political statement are supporting the political statement by default.
“But my politics are of course better than yours! You are totally wrong informed, my information is way better than yours!”

The media is paid for creating perception, reality and motivation. Wherever we are not in person, some experts are entitled to tell us their interpretation of truth.
We may believe or not. We tend to trust our preferred expert, especially if we have been taught for decades he would never ever lie to us.
The internet caused the “Lügenpresse”, because we are able to uncover the lies. The classical media is in trouble, the believers start to distrust.
Do I have to find some back up for this? Or do you realize by yourself what happens around you?

My media expert will create motivation for my followers, your media expert creates motivation for your followers.
The followers may have intense discussions, who's paid manipulators are the better ones. Believers in religious online-wars, engaged to support their god.

Please use your own brain. Learn to distrust your “information”, designed for your indignation management. Try to get these media priests out of your heads.

Divide et impera works by ruling through deviding the people - make them fight, distrust, hate each other.
If the people would just react on their first person reality - created by their own personal experience, the wrong treatment of population would be history.
We don't need more agitatiors, hatemongers and hooray patriots. We need mediators, teachers (of facts) and more critical thinking to live in peace. If this is something to be desired of course.

So insisting on providing some motivational data is not desirable, because we all see our own motivators to be the correct ones.
That's why we chose them to be our motivators. There is a feed back loop. We see the world we want to see it - and our preferred media shows us the world we want to look at it.

Consequently the discussions of links are endless, the only possible end is “agree to disagree”, for those who already know the true truth - provided by their motivators. A waste of lifetime.

So let's keep it civilised and let's use common sense. There is some data available we do agree upon.
I.e.: Soldiers are trained for violence, but may suffer from it afterwards. Does your motivator agree or disagree? Do you have to agree or disagree?
Or do we share this knowledge and are we consequently able to project it on civilians and violence? Could this explain the unexpected behaviour?
I think so. My opinion. No motivator around to prove my statement. It's my statement.

As it is my statement “refugees are attacked with Molotov cocktails”. This is common knowledge I hope. If this can be proven wrong - please do so. But the “pyromenes facts” don't contradict the statement.
They add some now common knowledge. The fire senations in Swedish refugee's shelters have several different reasons.

As I said before - I don't talk about any Swedish situation in special, but the general situation for us and the immigrants/refugees in Europe and their homelands.
But now I talk about Sweden: I think (with my pretty limited grade of background information) Sweden tries to bite more than it can chew. Why dare I to have an opinion on it?

I know there are only about 10 mio Swedes. They have some sort of national stigma - something like “didn't fulfil the own expectations on nobility, by refusing to help enough refugees in Nazi times.”
Now history repeating, the motivation to defend the noble values clashes with the fear to suffer from indentity loss by strangers. The Swedish society might change totally. The numbers of refugees are too high. I do agree - my personal opinion - based on my observation, the Germans face a similar problem for decades: a feeling of guilt has to be overcompensated by showing the total opposite former behaviour.

The European/Western problem is quite similar, but we are Janus-faced. We attack their homelands, but tell everywhere we are noble minded.
So we have to offer help - but a huge part of our own society is in fear to do it. Too many strangers, acting weird, wrong religion, the money.
We should help our poor first! Nobody cared for them before, but now we realize a problem. The nation is dealing wrong with some population.

Our tendency for generalization doesn't help either.

No certain media motivator generates my motivation to support my statements, but my own observations, some undisputed facts and some common sense.
Hard to find some motivator's quotes for me. I can offer links to some undisputed quotes. I like to assume you are of certain education and we share a certain amount of common facts.
All other causal consequences of my arguments are constucted by me. They represent my opinion and not the generated opinion of any motivator.

So is it possible to have an unemotional discussion? Critical personal thinking - own opinion - connecting facts and common sense? Without hate and agitation?
Civilized discussion on a certain niveau - or dull reaffirmation of peer believes?