The most destructive terrorist action in Nordic countries was done by an ethnic Norwegian named Anders Breivik. That was directed to other ethnic Norwegians, although also people with immigrant background may have been among the victims. Otherwise terrorism in Nordic countries - as elsewhere - has been conducted mainly by Muslims.
A novel exception to this main rule was made by an Australian representative with ideas of white superiority, who made terrorist attacks to mosques in New Zealand. This shows that all terrorists are not Muslims, although Islam was involved also in New Zealand - this time in the role of a victim.
It remains to be seen what kind of political discussion evolve from the New Zealand case. The case of Breivik in Norway led to a intellectually dishonest media storm in Finland in which even claims for the role a Finnish political party behind the terror attack appeared.
I hope similar absurdity will be avoided this time even though in Finland we will have elections of parliament in two months. Instead, I would like to see serious consideration on the importance of a legal route to unravel peoples dissatisfaction on prevailing societal development and clear political - democratic - routes to affect it.
It is also important to notice that Finland does not need a new case of terrorism, not by ethnic Finns or anyone else. It is more than enough that we had a case of knifing in Turku, which underlined the problems associated with Islamic immigration.
This is now more important than ever before as our immigrant population is growing quickly. It was predicted that by year 2035 e.g. in Helsinki region the number of immigrants will grow by 100 000 people. Thereafter the largest foreign languages will be those that are originally spoken in Near-East, North Africa and East Asia.
Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The arrival of caliphate citizens must be prevented
A set of immigration-derived sexual crimes in a Finnish town
Rape statistics in Finland and Sweden are breaking prejudices
The original thought in Finnish:
Kaikki terroristit eivät ole muslimeita
9 March 2019
They want to wipe out from Finland what is good for Africa
The chairman of the Finnish Social Democratic Party Antti Rinne would like to reduce forest cuttings in Finland, because he thinks that "we are cutting too much in relation to the carbon sink". Also the Green party would like to reduce cuttings in our forests during the next four years electoral term and even the Left Alliance is along the same lines.
At the same time, the Finnish Broadcasting company Yle made a very positive story on the thoughts of Andrew Collins who is the CEO of Miro Foresty, which is producing lumber and charcoal in West African countries Ghana and Sierra Leone. According to Yle he has said that professional forestry is the only solution in this situation in a similar way as agriculture is the only solution for food production. And also that we cannot cut natural forests forever, but we need to grow trees for the increasing demand.
Collins mentioned also that e.g. access to forest plantations is less demanding and therefore it is easier to organize their cuttings. Furthermore, the logs are of the same tree species and therefore their economic use is easier.
The views of Collins are based on the loss of African forests due to the uncontrollable population growth of people. That is, the increasing cuttings of natural forests for the economic and domestic use of growing human population.
After reading the story I was left in thinking about the intellectual honesty of the green-leftist´s ideology. If forests in Finland should be removed from the economic use, then why in the world it would be desirable to increase economic forests in Africa? Is it enough that in Africa there is plenty of former forest land that has been taken to agricultural and other use, and that reforesting would make them a carbon sink for a couple of decades. Or actually less than a decade if fast growing eucalyptus would be planted.
Furthermore, I was left in waiting some of our politicians to notice that in Finland we have forests only because they have produced income to their owners. That is the very reason why forest owners have invested in their forests, which is why the forest growth in Finland (and thus their carbon sink) has increased continuously since 1960´s.
Could it be so that green-reddish people assume those investments to continue if owners will not get any income from their properties? Or do they think that there would really be enough of taxpayers money to pay for all Finnish forest owners for their forest protection at the same time when the reducing amount of wood usage in industry reduces the total yield of taxes?
For those who are not aware, I may tell that it is annually a question of billions of euros when we consider forest owners profits for their lumber and profits of wood processing companies. And even more, if we consider the disappearing jobs from forestry sector, that would increase unemployment and thus further reduce the amount of public capital.
Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Suomen metsäpolitiikka on kohdallaan
Suomalaispuolueet päättivät ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntakeinoista
Maapallon metsäpinta-ala kasvaa vauhdikkaasti
At the same time, the Finnish Broadcasting company Yle made a very positive story on the thoughts of Andrew Collins who is the CEO of Miro Foresty, which is producing lumber and charcoal in West African countries Ghana and Sierra Leone. According to Yle he has said that professional forestry is the only solution in this situation in a similar way as agriculture is the only solution for food production. And also that we cannot cut natural forests forever, but we need to grow trees for the increasing demand.
Collins mentioned also that e.g. access to forest plantations is less demanding and therefore it is easier to organize their cuttings. Furthermore, the logs are of the same tree species and therefore their economic use is easier.
The views of Collins are based on the loss of African forests due to the uncontrollable population growth of people. That is, the increasing cuttings of natural forests for the economic and domestic use of growing human population.
After reading the story I was left in thinking about the intellectual honesty of the green-leftist´s ideology. If forests in Finland should be removed from the economic use, then why in the world it would be desirable to increase economic forests in Africa? Is it enough that in Africa there is plenty of former forest land that has been taken to agricultural and other use, and that reforesting would make them a carbon sink for a couple of decades. Or actually less than a decade if fast growing eucalyptus would be planted.
Furthermore, I was left in waiting some of our politicians to notice that in Finland we have forests only because they have produced income to their owners. That is the very reason why forest owners have invested in their forests, which is why the forest growth in Finland (and thus their carbon sink) has increased continuously since 1960´s.
Could it be so that green-reddish people assume those investments to continue if owners will not get any income from their properties? Or do they think that there would really be enough of taxpayers money to pay for all Finnish forest owners for their forest protection at the same time when the reducing amount of wood usage in industry reduces the total yield of taxes?
For those who are not aware, I may tell that it is annually a question of billions of euros when we consider forest owners profits for their lumber and profits of wood processing companies. And even more, if we consider the disappearing jobs from forestry sector, that would increase unemployment and thus further reduce the amount of public capital.
Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Suomen metsäpolitiikka on kohdallaan
Suomalaispuolueet päättivät ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntakeinoista
Maapallon metsäpinta-ala kasvaa vauhdikkaasti
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)