I'm sure you can - especially if you just post any link mentioning immigration to Sweden as you did now.
They'll still not prove things that's been debunked years ago though.
In this case the first BBC-article supports none of your earlier claims at all.
But then BBC is a reputable news source and not your usual diet of conspiracy theories and lies.
My guess is you added this link just because it was about immigration to Sweden, so you just assumed it would support your claims without even reading it.
The second "source" is a joke. The paper interviews a completely random pensioner - ONLY based on the fact that he's Swedish. "Hey everybody - we found this random Swedish old guy who says things we like to hear so let's all listen to him tell us the "truth" about Sweden!".
The paper in question also supports the British Ukip-party - which of course is outspokenly anti-immigrant.
The article also repeats the repeatedly debunked claim about "no-go zones".
The third article isn't much better. It's written by an anonymous person who claims to be a professor at an American university, but of course there is no proof of that.
Basically this is just a blog post on a right-wing website by an unknown person.
The author claims a number of things about violant crime in Sweden and describes the situation in terms no Swedish criminologists - that actually are the experts on crime in Sweden - would agree with.
He also goes into the question of rape and that's where it gets interesting.
Because the person who's written this wants to sound like a serious academic he doesn't repeat the "rape capitol of the world" claim which he knows has be debunked.
Instead he only cites the paper by Carlqvist and Hedegaard - the two Scandinavian racists behind the repeatedly debunked "rape capitol of the world" claim - as "proof" for his claims!
He also misidentifies Hedegaard (who's Danish) as Swedish. Not a mistake a serious academic would do.
And lastly you just threw in a link to Wikipedia - because why the hell not I guess?
It doesn't prove any of your claims - but then none of the other links you posted did either.
OK, now I've done this two times and that's it for me. I have (slightly more) serious racists I want to answer so I can't waste more time on you.
0
@coolcol117
I'm sure you can - especially if you just post any link mentioning immigration to Sweden as you did now.
They'll still not prove things that's been debunked years ago though.
In this case the first BBC-article supports none of your earlier claims at all.
But then BBC is a reputable news source and not your usual diet of conspiracy theories and lies.
My guess is you added this link just because it was about immigration to Sweden, so you just assumed it would support your claims without even reading it.
The second "source" is a joke. The paper interviews a completely random pensioner - ONLY based on the fact that he's Swedish. "Hey everybody - we found this random Swedish old guy who says things we like to hear so let's all listen to him tell us the "truth" about Sweden!".
The paper in question also supports the British Ukip-party - which of course is outspokenly anti-immigrant.
The article also repeats the repeatedly debunked claim about "no-go zones".
The third article isn't much better. It's written by an anonymous person who claims to be a professor at an American university, but of course there is no proof of that.
Basically this is just a blog post on a right-wing website by an unknown person.
The author claims a number of things about violant crime in Sweden and describes the situation in terms no Swedish criminologists - that actually are the experts on crime in Sweden - would agree with.
He also goes into the question of rape and that's where it gets interesting.
Because the person who's written this wants to sound like a serious academic he doesn't repeat the "rape capitol of the world" claim which he knows has be debunked.
Instead he only cites the paper by Carlqvist and Hedegaard - the two Scandinavian racists behind the repeatedly debunked "rape capitol of the world" claim - as "proof" for his claims!
He also misidentifies Hedegaard (who's Danish) as Swedish. Not a mistake a serious academic would do.
And lastly you just threw in a link to Wikipedia - because why the hell not I guess?
It doesn't prove any of your claims - but then none of the other links you posted did either.
OK, now I've done this two times and that's it for me. I have (slightly more) serious racists I want to answer so I can't waste more time on you.