Debunking Rape Epidemic Claims

[StLucieBengal]

Rape has been a weapon of war since time immemorial. Some fools seem to think it started with Islam. They call it "rape jihad", a recently coined term that did not exist a few decades ago. Perhaps these fools should check out the Old Testement, and see what it has to say about rape and war. Is that "rape jihad" too?

Rape jihad didn't exist when they did it to the Byzantines?

Didn't become prominent out in the open in Egypt when The Muslim brotherhood took over. (Thanks Obama)

Rape jihad is just shaming women to the point they don't want to have non Muslim children or if they are lucky they pregnate the victims with a Muslim kid.

Rape jihad did not exist. Rape as a tool of war certainly did, and I doubt you would find a single civilization in the pre-modern era that did not use it, and it is still used in many conflicts. What people who are now calling it "rape jihad" are trying to do is make it seem as if it's unique to Islamic conflicts.

Doesn't Jihad mean war against a non Muslim?

So when a Muslim attacks a non Muslim with their tools of war then it's jihad.

Hence the use of rape Jihad

 

[Tilly]

Rape has been a weapon of war since time immemorial. Some fools seem to think it started with Islam. They call it "rape jihad", a recently coined term that did not exist a few decades ago. Perhaps these fools should check out the Old Testement, and see what it has to say about rape and war. Is that "rape jihad" too?

Rape jihad didn't exist when they did it to the Byzantines?

Didn't become prominent out in the open in Egypt when The Muslim brotherhood took over. (Thanks Obama)

Rape jihad is just shaming women to the point they don't want to have non Muslim children or if they are lucky they pregnate the victims with a Muslim kid.

Rape jihad did not exist. Rape as a tool of war certainly did, and I doubt you would find a single civilization in the pre-modern era that did not use it, and it is still used in many conflicts. What people who are now calling it "rape jihad" are trying to do is make it seem as if it's unique to Islamic conflicts.

Doesn't Jihad mean war against a non Muslim?

So when a Muslim attacks a non Muslim with their tools of war then it's jihad.

Hence the use of rape Jihad

It's not exactly complex, is it? Lol. Rape jihad arrived with Mohammed and has never gone away. It is important for islamopologists to separate this tactic from Islam, hence the need for them to get rid of the jihad part, IMHO.

 

[Coyote]

Rape has been a weapon of war since time immemorial. Some fools seem to think it started with Islam. They call it "rape jihad", a recently coined term that did not exist a few decades ago. Perhaps these fools should check out the Old Testement, and see what it has to say about rape and war. Is that "rape jihad" too?

Rape jihad didn't exist when they did it to the Byzantines?

Didn't become prominent out in the open in Egypt when The Muslim brotherhood took over. (Thanks Obama)

Rape jihad is just shaming women to the point they don't want to have non Muslim children or if they are lucky they pregnate the victims with a Muslim kid.

Rape jihad did not exist. Rape as a tool of war certainly did, and I doubt you would find a single civilization in the pre-modern era that did not use it, and it is still used in many conflicts. What people who are now calling it "rape jihad" are trying to do is make it seem as if it's unique to Islamic conflicts.

Doesn't Jihad mean war against a non Muslim?

So when a Muslim attacks a non Muslim with their tools of war then it's jihad.

Hence the use of rape Jihad

I don't think it's that simple.

For one - while rape is a tool of war, that doesn't mean every rape is an act of war. Most of the time, it's an act of power and violence against a woman that has nothing to do with ideology, just violence. Ideology can provide a "rationalization" to the perpetrator, but in the end it's still about power and violence against that woman.

Your statement also implies that all Muslims are "at war" with non-Muslims, and therefore any act of violence is a tool of that war. Most often violence is for other reasons. Muslim gangs are no different than neo-nazi gangs, latin american gangs, etc. etc. They are thugs who relish violence.

As for what does Jihad mean? It to is far from a simplistic concept in Islam: What Does "Jihad" Really Mean to Muslims?
It includes "Jihad by sword" - which is the most widely circulated meaning in western cultures, but it also includes an inner struggle, which is less widely circulated.

The concept of jihad as a struggle for self-improvement is little known among non-believers. Yet Noha Aboulmagd-Forster, who teaches Arabic at the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies, stresses that it may be the most common interpretation of the term.

"Something widely quoted by the Muslim 'man on the street' is that the most difficult jihad is the one of the soul," she said. "The biggest trouble is not with your enemy but with yourself."

While inner struggle is one meaning of jihad, many others evidently use it to describe engagement with external enemies. It is there that the concept encounters the notions of other faiths.

"Religiously, jihad is the expending of utmost effort in upholding and defending justice," said Sheikh Jaafar Idris, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Idris explained that he recognizes two kinds of jihad because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice. "The first is the basic and continuous jihad," Idris said. "It was mentioned in the Qur'an very early in the history of Islam and at a time when Muslims were weak and even persecuted. God said to His Prophet, 'Do not obey the kafireen (those who reject the truth) but wage jihad with it (the Qur'an) against them. [25:52]'" ​

 

[Tilly]

Poor kids. Disgusting.

'He used me and abused me' - girl told police after alleged rape, court hears

'He used me and abused me' - girl told police after alleged rape, court hears

12 Nov 2015 / Jenny Loweth, T&A Reporter


A VULNERABLE schoolgirl was forced to her knees and held by the hair when she was raped in a disused underground car park, a jury heard.

She was giving evidence in the trial of 13 men and a youth who deny a total of 28 sexual offences alleged to have taken place in Keighley between May, 2011, and June, 2012.

All but one of the allegations involves the teenager, aged between 13 and 14 at the time, Bradford Crown Court has heard.

A series of interviews she had with police officers was yesterday played in the packed courtroom.

The girl said she was a 13-year-old virgin when a teenage drug dealer called Arif Choudhury raped her in the grounds of a church in Keighley.

Soon afterwards, she claimed, he introduced her to other men and forced her to have sex with them.

Choudhury, who is not on trial and has left the country, was dealing in heroin, cocaine, steroids, ecstasy, cannabis, MCAT and amphetamine, the girl told the police.

In May, 2011, he slapped her round the face, pulled her hair, pushed her to the ground and raped her when she refused to deliver drugs for him any more, she alleged.

She told how he used physical violence on other occasions, bruising her face and breaking her rib.

She said she never took drugs and got nothing out of delivering them for Choudhury, who was 14 when she first met him, aged 12.

The girl said he called her "a little white slag," before raping her....

'He used me and abused me' - girl told police after alleged rape, court hears


Hmmm...slag ...that word is strangely familiar here....

 

[StLucieBengal]

1. This entire thread is about a conspiracy against Muslims. This is an excuse to the media reports of them rapefugees.

Conspiracy theories aren't backed by data or facts. My thread's OP is backed by crime statistics over a period of time. The same sort of crime statistics, I might add, that are perfectly acceptable under other circumstances. The fact that you refer to refugees/migrants as whole as "rapefugees" pretty much supports my position.

2. On broad stroking a group of people.... If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck... It's a duck.

Muslims worldwide share the belief in oppression of women and children. Not all rape away in praise to Allah. But they do support wearing oppressive garmets.

This is my biggest issue with Islam. Their constant oppression, which has no place in western society. Which is why I would shut the borders to them. Until they had a reformation to remove these beliefs and teachings . My wife is Russian orthodox and wears a scarf in church but only wears it in church. She doesn't wear it everywhere .... She still believes in God and isn't any less of an orthodox because of this .... How is this any different than a Muslim?

There I disagree with you, because it assumes two things - that all Muslims adhere to the most conservative aspects of Islam, that they all believe in oppressing women, and that Islam is unchangeable. Attitudes towards women vary according to the culture of the people who practice that faith. For example - look at FGM. It's most prevalent in N. Africa, and in the countries where it is still practiced, it is done by Christian, Animaist and Muslims alike. Yet, in other Muslim majority countries it is unheard of. There is nothing in Islam itself that demands it - it's a cultural legacy.

Opinions of Muslims towards the role of women around the world may lag behind those of western countries, but within Western countries, like the US, Muslim opinions are in line with that of other demographic groups.

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

What do American Muslims believe?

Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.


Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.


Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (69%) say religion is very important in their lives. Virtually all (96%) say they believe in God, nearly two-thirds (65%) report praying at least daily and nearly half (47%) say they attend religious services at least weekly. By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.


When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%). As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.​

Section 5: Political Opinions and Social Values

Muslim Americans show strong support for allowing women to join the workforce. Nine-in-ten either completely (72%) or mostly agree (18%) that women should be able to work outside the home. Among the U.S. general public, almost all either completely (81%) or mostly (16%) agree with this.

Attitudes among Muslim Americans are similar to attitudes among Muslims in Lebanon and Turkey. But support for women working outside the home is considerably smaller in many other Muslim nations. For example, in Egypt, only about six-in-ten say they either completely agree (23%) or mostly agree (39%) that women should be allowed to work outside the home. About four-in-ten (39%) disagree.

Nearly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (68%) say gender makes no difference in the quality of political leaders. Still, about a quarter (27%) say men make better political leaders. Very few (4%) say women make better leaders. There are only slight differences in views on this between men and women and among various age groups. Among the U.S. public, 72% say gender does not determine who will be the better political leader. About one-in-ten each say men (12%) or women (13%) make better lead

​

3. How you treat other posters is of no concern to me in this discussion. That is between you and them. I am more concerned with the topic and not a side argument over past threads.

4. So you would be willing to take on any people as long as they can make it here?

This type of belief is just not feasible in our society. If we didn't have any social benefits then possibly.... But we just can afford adding people from the 3rd world. Not to mention the harm it would do our culture to be flooded with 3rd worlders.

No, I would not be willing to take on any people. I would not take those convicted of violent crimes for example. I'm not "open borders". I think there should be a good vetting process for people from certain countries and we do need to have limits. I don't think it's because of our social benefits system, since few tend to utilize them, and when they do it's not for long. Most want to work.

The question I have though, is that your argument - " the harm it would do our culture to be flooded with 3rd worlders" - is the same argument that has been applied to many other immigrant groups over successive waves of immigration: Irish, Chinese, East European Jews, Italians etc. and the sky never fell.

And it's not courageous for fighting aged men to flee the fight to go to the west. Were you also cheering on the guy in titanic who got on the lifeboat ahead of women and children? Was he courageous?

I don't think it is that black and white. Many of those "fighting age men" are not - they're just men, and there is no breakdown in ages in the data. There is also considerable differences in the different groups. For migrants and refugees trying to make it to Europe, 53% are men, with no age breakdown.

That number includes all migrants. However, the number of Syrian refugees overall, is dominated by women and children, most of whom are in the camps.

I don't consider it comparable to the life boat situation because I can see why men would go first. The journey is tremendously dangerous, with a high mortality rate and an uncertain future. The family is usually left in relative safety by comparison. While the conditions are bad in the refugee camps, at least they aren't being straffed by barrel bombs or sold as sex slaves by ISIS. I would think it would be the men who would take the risks to try and establish themselves and bring their families over.

I've heard the argument before that these men are cowardly and should stay and fight. My response is this - who are we to judge them when we do not walk in their shoes? Listening to interviews with refugees from the Syrian conflict - what they and their families have been through is horrendous. It's a war with no clear sides and horrible atrocities perpetrated on civilians. It's not a new argument. In fact, the same arguments were made in taking Jewish refugees during the holocaust. Some countries that were willing to take them, would only take the children. So desperate parents sent their children to try and save them. And of course, the parents died. In a conflict like Syria - I wouldn't judge the men. That's different than the migrants though, but even then - they are fleeing different things so you can't just broadly judge it, it's case by case.

As for being human beings.... If they are brought up to believe In oppression and rape of women and children.... Just how human are they? Sounds more like how animals believe....

Just how human are they? Very.

You assume they are all rapists and abusers regardless of background, education, culture and individuality. I disagree with that assumption.

All We have is all these personal accounts of women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by Arab and African men. Migrants are African and Arab.

What's odd is that you take these personal accounts and dismiss them.

Even if you live at the holy altar of government crime stats. Where there is smoke there is fire. Unless you think these women are making stuff up?

Probably should consider that Sweden stopped charting gang rape stats in 2006 because it was rising. Stats are kept to make police efforts look better. There has been a long Muslim problem in Sweden for a time. Same as Finland.

Actually, what we have are personal accounts that actually include few rapes, lots of sexual harrassment and assault claims.

I frankly think that the claim "where there is smoke there is fire" is a bad thing to go by. It can ruin innocent people's lives and reputations. Personal testimonials are iffy as reliable unless they are investigated. If you think Sweden stopped charting crime stats in 2006, then offer some evidence for it. Personally my thought is that a ten year conspiracy of silence and deliberate hiding of crime statistics throughout an entire nation, in a society as open as Sweden's would be difficult to pull off and not very believable.

I'm not outright dismissing claims - I'm saying all claims should be investigated and some have been verified and even arrests made. But I'm skeptical because there is a mass hysteria aspect to it that is not reflected in official crime rates. When you couple that with increased xenophobia, a rise in rightwing nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment overall that is looking for scapegoats, then any reasonable person should be careful of jumping to conclusions. There are two things you can always count on to anger and mobilize a population: outsiders raping their women and sexually abusing children and that occurs in every culture.

I mentioned earlier examples with attitudes of whites towards black men during Jim Crowe, and how innocent men were lynched for just looking at a white woman wrong. A more recent example involves sexual abuse of children. Some years ago...maybe the 80's or 90's?....there was a rash of claims of sexual abuse of children in daycares. There was a fairly new psychiatric method by which they interviewed extremely young children, I'm thinking as young as 1-2, barely verbal, and got them to give information leading them to believe the child had been molested. The method was controversial and untested, there was no physical evidence supporting it, but it was used to charge people and take them to court. The result was massive hysteria, news coverage, etc and parents wanting their children examined. The outcome of it was, few convictions, I think, but also people subsequently found innocent, their lives completely ruined because of the "where there's smoke there's fire" and it led to descrediting of that particular pschological tool. So, were these kids being molested? In some cases, I'm sure they were. In others, not. But the hysteria that just the possibility it could have occurred created a mood that pushed events faster than they could be investigated responsibly, and into the court of public opinion.

That is why I'm skeptical of claims of "mass rapes on white women" and "sexual jihad". And, I also suspect that now someone is going to claim I support abuse of children.

Muslims covet blue eyed and blonde Haired women. Even back to the days of their fights with the Byzantines.

I'd like to see some actual emperical data on whether that is true this day and age.

now this will force a change of topic of we are going down the history of "rape jihad". I know you don't like the phrase but it actually has historical relevance. I am quite sure that not all that use it today understand that history but it doesn't change the facts.

Does it bother you because it sounds violent and terrible? Or do you actually believe that Muslims aren't told to wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe.

Let's look at the facts then. As I pointed, all cultures have used rape as a tool of war, and that is all "rape jihad" really is. The religions that dominate the world today, Islam and Christianity, have both used war as a means of spreading their faith, as did Judaism in it's heyday. Rape is talked about and permitted, within certain rules in both the OT and the Quran, though I think the Quran as a whole as more rules surrounding it then the OT which is more open ended.

Personally I think most Muslims are not told to "wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe" and they'd probably laugh in your face if you told them that.

Just quickly I found where they pay more blue and green eyed female slaves.

Watch: A scene at ISIS slave market; '$500' for green-eyed girl

You are wanting your your cake and also have the ability to eat it as well when it comes to Muslims. You support traditional beliefs and teachings like the oppressive shrouds. Walking behind men, and the ability to rape away. But then In the same paragraph you want to dismiss the traditional beliefs and make light of them.

If Muslims believe in the shroud then it's safe to say they believe in other traditional Muslim teachings as well.

Now as for the history of violence of Christians and Muslims. This topic would require a new thread to have a true discussion and relate it to today. I will say that had Christianity not had their reformation then it would be massively bloody today. This is why I encourage Muslims to have a true reformation of their own religion and join modern society.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Rape has been a weapon of war since time immemorial. Some fools seem to think it started with Islam. They call it "rape jihad", a recently coined term that did not exist a few decades ago. Perhaps these fools should check out the Old Testement, and see what it has to say about rape and war. Is that "rape jihad" too?

Rape jihad didn't exist when they did it to the Byzantines?

Didn't become prominent out in the open in Egypt when The Muslim brotherhood took over. (Thanks Obama)

Rape jihad is just shaming women to the point they don't want to have non Muslim children or if they are lucky they pregnate the victims with a Muslim kid.

Rape jihad did not exist. Rape as a tool of war certainly did, and I doubt you would find a single civilization in the pre-modern era that did not use it, and it is still used in many conflicts. What people who are now calling it "rape jihad" are trying to do is make it seem as if it's unique to Islamic conflicts.

Doesn't Jihad mean war against a non Muslim?

So when a Muslim attacks a non Muslim with their tools of war then it's jihad.

Hence the use of rape Jihad

I don't think it's that simple.

For one - while rape is a tool of war, that doesn't mean every rape is an act of war. Most of the time, it's an act of power and violence against a woman that has nothing to do with ideology, just violence. Ideology can provide a "rationalization" to the perpetrator, but in the end it's still about power and violence against that woman.

Your statement also implies that all Muslims are "at war" with non-Muslims, and therefore any act of violence is a tool of that war. Most often violence is for other reasons. Muslim gangs are no different than neo-nazi gangs, latin american gangs, etc. etc. They are thugs who relish violence.

As for what does Jihad mean? It to is far from a simplistic concept in Islam: What Does "Jihad" Really Mean to Muslims?
It includes "Jihad by sword" - which is the most widely circulated meaning in western cultures, but it also includes an inner struggle, which is less widely circulated.

The concept of jihad as a struggle for self-improvement is little known among non-believers. Yet Noha Aboulmagd-Forster, who teaches Arabic at the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies, stresses that it may be the most common interpretation of the term.

"Something widely quoted by the Muslim 'man on the street' is that the most difficult jihad is the one of the soul," she said. "The biggest trouble is not with your enemy but with yourself."

While inner struggle is one meaning of jihad, many others evidently use it to describe engagement with external enemies. It is there that the concept encounters the notions of other faiths.

"Religiously, jihad is the expending of utmost effort in upholding and defending justice," said Sheikh Jaafar Idris, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Idris explained that he recognizes two kinds of jihad because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice. "The first is the basic and continuous jihad," Idris said. "It was mentioned in the Qur'an very early in the history of Islam and at a time when Muslims were weak and even persecuted. God said to His Prophet, 'Do not obey the kafireen (those who reject the truth) but wage jihad with it (the Qur'an) against them. [25:52]'" ​

Here you go again. you can't have two standards for the same topic.

Jihad means what it means here. We are in the west.

The burden is not on everyone to change to Islam. It's on Islam to change to everyone else. That's what a reformation does .....

You mention rape is a violent act towards women. Well so is making them wear a hijab. At least here in the west.

 

[Tilly]

Conspiracy theories aren't backed by data or facts. My thread's OP is backed by crime statistics over a period of time. The same sort of crime statistics, I might add, that are perfectly acceptable under other circumstances. The fact that you refer to refugees/migrants as whole as "rapefugees" pretty much supports my position.

There I disagree with you, because it assumes two things - that all Muslims adhere to the most conservative aspects of Islam, that they all believe in oppressing women, and that Islam is unchangeable. Attitudes towards women vary according to the culture of the people who practice that faith. For example - look at FGM. It's most prevalent in N. Africa, and in the countries where it is still practiced, it is done by Christian, Animaist and Muslims alike. Yet, in other Muslim majority countries it is unheard of. There is nothing in Islam itself that demands it - it's a cultural legacy.

Opinions of Muslims towards the role of women around the world may lag behind those of western countries, but within Western countries, like the US, Muslim opinions are in line with that of other demographic groups.

Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world

What do American Muslims believe?

Our 2011 survey of Muslim Americans found that roughly half of U.S. Muslims (48%) say their own religious leaders have not done enough to speak out against Islamic extremists.


Living in a religiously pluralistic society, Muslim Americans are more likely than Muslims in many other nations to have many non-Muslim friends. Only about half (48%) of U.S. Muslims say all or most of their close friends are also Muslims, compared with a global median of 95% in the 39 countries we surveyed.


Roughly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (69%) say religion is very important in their lives. Virtually all (96%) say they believe in God, nearly two-thirds (65%) report praying at least daily and nearly half (47%) say they attend religious services at least weekly. By all of these traditional measures, Muslims in the U.S. are roughly as religious as U.S. Christians, although they are less religious than Muslims in many other nations.


When it comes to political and social views, Muslims are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (70%) than the Republican Party (11%) and to say they prefer a bigger government providing more services (68%) over a smaller government providing fewer services (21%). As of 2011, U.S. Muslims were somewhat split between those who said homosexuality should be accepted by society (39%) and those who said it should be discouraged (45%), although the group had grown considerably more accepting of homosexuality since a similar survey was conducted in 2007.​

Section 5: Political Opinions and Social Values

Muslim Americans show strong support for allowing women to join the workforce. Nine-in-ten either completely (72%) or mostly agree (18%) that women should be able to work outside the home. Among the U.S. general public, almost all either completely (81%) or mostly (16%) agree with this.

Attitudes among Muslim Americans are similar to attitudes among Muslims in Lebanon and Turkey. But support for women working outside the home is considerably smaller in many other Muslim nations. For example, in Egypt, only about six-in-ten say they either completely agree (23%) or mostly agree (39%) that women should be allowed to work outside the home. About four-in-ten (39%) disagree.

Nearly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (68%) say gender makes no difference in the quality of political leaders. Still, about a quarter (27%) say men make better political leaders. Very few (4%) say women make better leaders. There are only slight differences in views on this between men and women and among various age groups. Among the U.S. public, 72% say gender does not determine who will be the better political leader. About one-in-ten each say men (12%) or women (13%) make better lead

​

No, I would not be willing to take on any people. I would not take those convicted of violent crimes for example. I'm not "open borders". I think there should be a good vetting process for people from certain countries and we do need to have limits. I don't think it's because of our social benefits system, since few tend to utilize them, and when they do it's not for long. Most want to work.

The question I have though, is that your argument - " the harm it would do our culture to be flooded with 3rd worlders" - is the same argument that has been applied to many other immigrant groups over successive waves of immigration: Irish, Chinese, East European Jews, Italians etc. and the sky never fell.

I don't think it is that black and white. Many of those "fighting age men" are not - they're just men, and there is no breakdown in ages in the data. There is also considerable differences in the different groups. For migrants and refugees trying to make it to Europe, 53% are men, with no age breakdown.

That number includes all migrants. However, the number of Syrian refugees overall, is dominated by women and children, most of whom are in the camps.

I don't consider it comparable to the life boat situation because I can see why men would go first. The journey is tremendously dangerous, with a high mortality rate and an uncertain future. The family is usually left in relative safety by comparison. While the conditions are bad in the refugee camps, at least they aren't being straffed by barrel bombs or sold as sex slaves by ISIS. I would think it would be the men who would take the risks to try and establish themselves and bring their families over.

I've heard the argument before that these men are cowardly and should stay and fight. My response is this - who are we to judge them when we do not walk in their shoes? Listening to interviews with refugees from the Syrian conflict - what they and their families have been through is horrendous. It's a war with no clear sides and horrible atrocities perpetrated on civilians. It's not a new argument. In fact, the same arguments were made in taking Jewish refugees during the holocaust. Some countries that were willing to take them, would only take the children. So desperate parents sent their children to try and save them. And of course, the parents died. In a conflict like Syria - I wouldn't judge the men. That's different than the migrants though, but even then - they are fleeing different things so you can't just broadly judge it, it's case by case.


Just how human are they? Very.

You assume they are all rapists and abusers regardless of background, education, culture and individuality. I disagree with that assumption.

All We have is all these personal accounts of women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by Arab and African men. Migrants are African and Arab.

What's odd is that you take these personal accounts and dismiss them.

Even if you live at the holy altar of government crime stats. Where there is smoke there is fire. Unless you think these women are making stuff up?

Probably should consider that Sweden stopped charting gang rape stats in 2006 because it was rising. Stats are kept to make police efforts look better. There has been a long Muslim problem in Sweden for a time. Same as Finland.

Actually, what we have are personal accounts that actually include few rapes, lots of sexual harrassment and assault claims.

I frankly think that the claim "where there is smoke there is fire" is a bad thing to go by. It can ruin innocent people's lives and reputations. Personal testimonials are iffy as reliable unless they are investigated. If you think Sweden stopped charting crime stats in 2006, then offer some evidence for it. Personally my thought is that a ten year conspiracy of silence and deliberate hiding of crime statistics throughout an entire nation, in a society as open as Sweden's would be difficult to pull off and not very believable.

I'm not outright dismissing claims - I'm saying all claims should be investigated and some have been verified and even arrests made. But I'm skeptical because there is a mass hysteria aspect to it that is not reflected in official crime rates. When you couple that with increased xenophobia, a rise in rightwing nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment overall that is looking for scapegoats, then any reasonable person should be careful of jumping to conclusions. There are two things you can always count on to anger and mobilize a population: outsiders raping their women and sexually abusing children and that occurs in every culture.

I mentioned earlier examples with attitudes of whites towards black men during Jim Crowe, and how innocent men were lynched for just looking at a white woman wrong. A more recent example involves sexual abuse of children. Some years ago...maybe the 80's or 90's?....there was a rash of claims of sexual abuse of children in daycares. There was a fairly new psychiatric method by which they interviewed extremely young children, I'm thinking as young as 1-2, barely verbal, and got them to give information leading them to believe the child had been molested. The method was controversial and untested, there was no physical evidence supporting it, but it was used to charge people and take them to court. The result was massive hysteria, news coverage, etc and parents wanting their children examined. The outcome of it was, few convictions, I think, but also people subsequently found innocent, their lives completely ruined because of the "where there's smoke there's fire" and it led to descrediting of that particular pschological tool. So, were these kids being molested? In some cases, I'm sure they were. In others, not. But the hysteria that just the possibility it could have occurred created a mood that pushed events faster than they could be investigated responsibly, and into the court of public opinion.

That is why I'm skeptical of claims of "mass rapes on white women" and "sexual jihad". And, I also suspect that now someone is going to claim I support abuse of children.

Muslims covet blue eyed and blonde Haired women. Even back to the days of their fights with the Byzantines.

I'd like to see some actual emperical data on whether that is true this day and age.

now this will force a change of topic of we are going down the history of "rape jihad". I know you don't like the phrase but it actually has historical relevance. I am quite sure that not all that use it today understand that history but it doesn't change the facts.

Does it bother you because it sounds violent and terrible? Or do you actually believe that Muslims aren't told to wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe.

Let's look at the facts then. As I pointed, all cultures have used rape as a tool of war, and that is all "rape jihad" really is. The religions that dominate the world today, Islam and Christianity, have both used war as a means of spreading their faith, as did Judaism in it's heyday. Rape is talked about and permitted, within certain rules in both the OT and the Quran, though I think the Quran as a whole as more rules surrounding it then the OT which is more open ended.

Personally I think most Muslims are not told to "wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe" and they'd probably laugh in your face if you told them that.

Just quickly I found where they pay more blue and green eyed female slaves.

Watch: A scene at ISIS slave market; '$500' for green-eyed girl

You are wanting your your cake and also have the ability to eat it as well when it comes to Muslims. You support traditional beliefs and teachings like the oppressive shrouds. Walking behind men, and the ability to rape away. But then In the same paragraph you want to dismiss the traditional beliefs and make light of them.

If Muslims believe in the shroud then it's safe to say they believe in other traditional Muslim teachings as well.

Now as for the history of violence of Christians and Muslims. This topic would require a new thread to have a true discussion and relate it to today. I will say that had Christianity not had their reformation then it would be massively bloody today. This is why I encourage Muslims to have a true reformation of their own religion and join modern society.

The blonde blue eyed girls and women of Byzantium were very very highly prized by Islamic rape jihadis and scum Muslim slave owners.

 

[Coyote]

When does the 'debunking' happen?

Donald Trump’s call to ban Muslim immigrants is based on a very shoddy poll
None
Here's Why You Shouldn't Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims
Trump's 'Muslim lockdown': What is the Center for Security Policy? - BBC News

Now....can you answer my question? Or...are we in for yet another round of ducking and dodging?

 

[StLucieBengal]

I will check these as I go. But if you are looking for sympathy for anyone who chooses not to live right then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I would shut borders from any place that oppresses women and/or children. I think we need less of these people and more of the people who know how to live right.

My sister in law lives in Belarus and she would be a much better addition to any western country than anyone from the Middle East outside of Israel. But she refuses to enter any country by hook or crook.

If you want to discuss immigration policy then I would take a page from the US immigration 1924 and limit each country to 3% yearly of the foreign born population of legal citizens. I would block the Middle East and Central America. One being at war with Islamic terrorism and Central America for the purpose to allow us to work through all the current illegals in this country. Given most are from Central America. A 10 year hold on immigration from these parts should allow us to catch up and tackle the current illegals. After we round up any of them who have had a felony and deported them immediately.

Immigration should be a slow and steady drip so they can assimilate to our nation and our cultural beliefs since they are moving to be part of our culture.

I love the Australian point system for immigration. If you are not familiar then I encourage you to familiarize yourself.

In light of your feelings about the oppression of women, you might want to rethink whether you want to bring in people from Belarus...

Empowering Belarusian Women to Combat Domestic Violence

Every fourth woman in Belarus has been physically abused by her partner. Just in the last three months, 24 Belarusians have died as a result of domestic violence, a 41% increase from last year.


For decades, impunity for such abuse has persisted in Belarus, a country with a traditional view on a women’s place in society and a troublesome human rights record for both men and women. Domestic violence is finally becoming a public issue and preventative and punitive measures are being taken...

...A typical Belarusian domestic bully is a man in his thirties or forties, intoxicated and unemployed, according to Oleg Karazei, Head of the Prevention Office of the Central Department for Law Enforcement and Prevention of the Belarusian Interior Ministry. Thus, a high level of alcohol consumption, economic problems, and the lower status of women may contribute to the high prevalence of domestic violence in Belarus.

The Role of Culture and Gender Roles


Most important, the prevalence of domestic violence correlates with the status of women and cultural norms regarding gender roles. On the one hand, the law treats women and men in Belarus equally. The country has acceded to all major relevant international conventions related to the rights of women, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Women’s Convention) and 
its Optional Protocol.


On the other hand, discrimination against women on the job market and the so-called “glass ceiling” remain prevalent. Patriarchal notions of a woman's role in the family pervade the social and political sphere. Belarusian women are largely responsible for child upbringing, and President Lukashenka himself views women primarily as “keepers of hearth and home". For example, in 2010 he said, "It is undeniable that the Lord has ordained a woman to be a mother. Regardless of a woman's career, she has to care for her children. I want our women to give birth to at least three children."


Gender stereotypes make violence easier to justify and can prevent women from reporting abuse. Cultural norms play a large role in the way women choose to respond to violence. Women in Belarus, as well as in other post-Soviet states, are expected "not to wash their dirty laundry in public".​

I can only assume this was supposed to be your "gotcha" post showing me that Belarusian women are victims as well. Not sure what point you were trying to make especially when i said my sister in law. Now I should make sure that you know that sister in law means a woman. She isnt one of those trannies or delusional pretenders. An actual real life woman here.....

I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. That men who drink get into violent fits and pick on someone weaker than them? Belarusian culture doesn't oppress women. They are equals in society....

This was interesting...


..A typical Belarusian domestic bully is a man in his thirties or forties, intoxicated and unemployed, according to Oleg Karazei, Head of the Prevention Office of the Central Department for Law Enforcement and Prevention of the Belarusian Interior Ministry. Thus, a high level of alcohol consumption, economic problems, and the lower status of women may contribute to the high prevalence of domestic violence in Belarus.

You know what we didnt see in there....... Their religion telling them its ok and permitted to abuse, rape, or assault their women. They have drinking problem when it comes to violence at home. Not a religion problem. Same as we have here.....

Culture has more to do with how men interact with women then religion alone, and that is evident by how the faith is practiced in different areas around the world.

Belarus, as a whole seems pretty religious and dominated by the Belarusian Orthodox Church - conservative religious institutions that promote a conservative view of the role of women and men and the idea that men are over women, which can be and has been used to justify abuse. The article I quoted pointed out the inferior status of women in that culture as a ongoing issue in domestic abuse. Where do you suppose that status comes from? It comes from the church. The countries where women enjoy the greatest rights and freedoms, and laws that protect them from violence are typically the most secular in their religious practices.

actually Russian orthodox is a lot like being old school Catholic. There is zero oppression.

Are you insinuating that being a homemaker makes you oppressed? I realize you are trying to make a parallel to Muslims .... But I have never mentioned or said being a homemaker was a problem.

Are Russian orthodox women forced to wear an oppressive shroud or face a beating? No.

No, being a homemaker does not make you oppressed unless you have no choice. Choice makes the difference.

Are Muslim women "forced to wear an oppressive shroud or face a beating?" Not necessarily. Depends on what culture they live in.

Are Orthodox Jews "forced to wear an oppressive shroud or face a beating?"

Removal of choice is what turns something into oppression and you seem to assume that most Muslim women do not have that choice.

Choice is a great thing.

Police: 14-Year-Old Slapped, Dragged Out of School by Her Hair for Not Wearing Muslim Headscarf. Where It Allegedly Happened Might Irritate You.

I was forced to wear the veil and I wish no other woman had to suffer it

Somali woman killed for not wearing veil, relatives say - BBC News

 

[Coyote]

Rape has been a weapon of war since time immemorial. Some fools seem to think it started with Islam. They call it "rape jihad", a recently coined term that did not exist a few decades ago. Perhaps these fools should check out the Old Testement, and see what it has to say about rape and war. Is that "rape jihad" too?

Rape jihad didn't exist when they did it to the Byzantines?

Didn't become prominent out in the open in Egypt when The Muslim brotherhood took over. (Thanks Obama)

Rape jihad is just shaming women to the point they don't want to have non Muslim children or if they are lucky they pregnate the victims with a Muslim kid.

Rape jihad did not exist. Rape as a tool of war certainly did, and I doubt you would find a single civilization in the pre-modern era that did not use it, and it is still used in many conflicts. What people who are now calling it "rape jihad" are trying to do is make it seem as if it's unique to Islamic conflicts.

Doesn't Jihad mean war against a non Muslim?

So when a Muslim attacks a non Muslim with their tools of war then it's jihad.

Hence the use of rape Jihad

I don't think it's that simple.

For one - while rape is a tool of war, that doesn't mean every rape is an act of war. Most of the time, it's an act of power and violence against a woman that has nothing to do with ideology, just violence. Ideology can provide a "rationalization" to the perpetrator, but in the end it's still about power and violence against that woman.

Your statement also implies that all Muslims are "at war" with non-Muslims, and therefore any act of violence is a tool of that war. Most often violence is for other reasons. Muslim gangs are no different than neo-nazi gangs, latin american gangs, etc. etc. They are thugs who relish violence.

As for what does Jihad mean? It to is far from a simplistic concept in Islam: What Does "Jihad" Really Mean to Muslims?
It includes "Jihad by sword" - which is the most widely circulated meaning in western cultures, but it also includes an inner struggle, which is less widely circulated.

The concept of jihad as a struggle for self-improvement is little known among non-believers. Yet Noha Aboulmagd-Forster, who teaches Arabic at the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies, stresses that it may be the most common interpretation of the term.

"Something widely quoted by the Muslim 'man on the street' is that the most difficult jihad is the one of the soul," she said. "The biggest trouble is not with your enemy but with yourself."

While inner struggle is one meaning of jihad, many others evidently use it to describe engagement with external enemies. It is there that the concept encounters the notions of other faiths.

"Religiously, jihad is the expending of utmost effort in upholding and defending justice," said Sheikh Jaafar Idris, of the Saudi Arabian Embassy. Idris explained that he recognizes two kinds of jihad because there are two kinds of violations of justice: jihad with words against false beliefs, and jihad with the sword against acts of injustice. "The first is the basic and continuous jihad," Idris said. "It was mentioned in the Qur'an very early in the history of Islam and at a time when Muslims were weak and even persecuted. God said to His Prophet, 'Do not obey the kafireen (those who reject the truth) but wage jihad with it (the Qur'an) against them. [25:52]'" ​

Here you go again. you can't have two standards for the same topic.

Jihad means what it means here. We are in the west.

No. It does not. And it's not a matter of "standards". It's a matter of accurate definitions. You can't just claim something means something because you say so. You can CHOOSE to only accept one meaning, but then that leaves you open to a hell of a lot of misunderstanding. We are in the west, but the term "jihad" is not a western term. If we are going to use it, then it's incumbent on US to understand it's meaning properly.

The burden is not on everyone to change to Islam. It's on Islam to change to everyone else. That's what a reformation does .....

No, that is not what "reformation" does. Did Christianity change to everyone else? Are you allowed to create your own meaning for the Trinity and sacrements and insist that your definition be adhered to by all Christians? Reformation is bringing a religion in line with modern principles, while still retaining it's essence. That means, you find within that religion, what you need - and it's there in Islam. It's all in what you choose to emphasize.

You mention rape is a violent act towards women. Well so is making them wear a hijab. At least here in the west.

Forcing a woman to do or wear anything against her will can be a violent act...or not.

If a woman wants to go shopping, totally nude - is forcing her to wear clothing in public a violent act toward women?

On the other hand, our culture has acceptable dress codes that are fairly minimal to prevent arrest - you just need to keep the naughty bits covered. But we do have other limitations that can be imposed, for example requiring a shirt and shoes to enter certain establishments. Is that a violent act?

The reason I'm pointing this out is it isn't black and white.

The second aspect is CHOICE. I'm totally for free choice. If a Muslim woman chooses to wear a hijab as an expression of her faith - then she has every right to - just like a woman has a right to be a homemaker - or an Orthodox Jewish woman has a right to wear a headscarf as an expression of her faith.

It's all about free choice.

 

[Coyote]

In light of your feelings about the oppression of women, you might want to rethink whether you want to bring in people from Belarus...

Empowering Belarusian Women to Combat Domestic Violence

Every fourth woman in Belarus has been physically abused by her partner. Just in the last three months, 24 Belarusians have died as a result of domestic violence, a 41% increase from last year.


For decades, impunity for such abuse has persisted in Belarus, a country with a traditional view on a women’s place in society and a troublesome human rights record for both men and women. Domestic violence is finally becoming a public issue and preventative and punitive measures are being taken...

...A typical Belarusian domestic bully is a man in his thirties or forties, intoxicated and unemployed, according to Oleg Karazei, Head of the Prevention Office of the Central Department for Law Enforcement and Prevention of the Belarusian Interior Ministry. Thus, a high level of alcohol consumption, economic problems, and the lower status of women may contribute to the high prevalence of domestic violence in Belarus.

The Role of Culture and Gender Roles


Most important, the prevalence of domestic violence correlates with the status of women and cultural norms regarding gender roles. On the one hand, the law treats women and men in Belarus equally. The country has acceded to all major relevant international conventions related to the rights of women, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Women’s Convention) and 
its Optional Protocol.


On the other hand, discrimination against women on the job market and the so-called “glass ceiling” remain prevalent. Patriarchal notions of a woman's role in the family pervade the social and political sphere. Belarusian women are largely responsible for child upbringing, and President Lukashenka himself views women primarily as “keepers of hearth and home". For example, in 2010 he said, "It is undeniable that the Lord has ordained a woman to be a mother. Regardless of a woman's career, she has to care for her children. I want our women to give birth to at least three children."


Gender stereotypes make violence easier to justify and can prevent women from reporting abuse. Cultural norms play a large role in the way women choose to respond to violence. Women in Belarus, as well as in other post-Soviet states, are expected "not to wash their dirty laundry in public".​

I can only assume this was supposed to be your "gotcha" post showing me that Belarusian women are victims as well. Not sure what point you were trying to make especially when i said my sister in law. Now I should make sure that you know that sister in law means a woman. She isnt one of those trannies or delusional pretenders. An actual real life woman here.....

I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. That men who drink get into violent fits and pick on someone weaker than them? Belarusian culture doesn't oppress women. They are equals in society....

This was interesting...


..A typical Belarusian domestic bully is a man in his thirties or forties, intoxicated and unemployed, according to Oleg Karazei, Head of the Prevention Office of the Central Department for Law Enforcement and Prevention of the Belarusian Interior Ministry. Thus, a high level of alcohol consumption, economic problems, and the lower status of women may contribute to the high prevalence of domestic violence in Belarus.

You know what we didnt see in there....... Their religion telling them its ok and permitted to abuse, rape, or assault their women. They have drinking problem when it comes to violence at home. Not a religion problem. Same as we have here.....

Culture has more to do with how men interact with women then religion alone, and that is evident by how the faith is practiced in different areas around the world.

Belarus, as a whole seems pretty religious and dominated by the Belarusian Orthodox Church - conservative religious institutions that promote a conservative view of the role of women and men and the idea that men are over women, which can be and has been used to justify abuse. The article I quoted pointed out the inferior status of women in that culture as a ongoing issue in domestic abuse. Where do you suppose that status comes from? It comes from the church. The countries where women enjoy the greatest rights and freedoms, and laws that protect them from violence are typically the most secular in their religious practices.

actually Russian orthodox is a lot like being old school Catholic. There is zero oppression.

Are you insinuating that being a homemaker makes you oppressed? I realize you are trying to make a parallel to Muslims .... But I have never mentioned or said being a homemaker was a problem.

Are Russian orthodox women forced to wear an oppressive shroud or face a beating? No.

No, being a homemaker does not make you oppressed unless you have no choice. Choice makes the difference.

Are Muslim women "forced to wear an oppressive shroud or face a beating?" Not necessarily. Depends on what culture they live in.

Are Orthodox Jews "forced to wear an oppressive shroud or face a beating?"

Removal of choice is what turns something into oppression and you seem to assume that most Muslim women do not have that choice.

Choice is a great thing.

Police: 14-Year-Old Slapped, Dragged Out of School by Her Hair for Not Wearing Muslim Headscarf. Where It Allegedly Happened Might Irritate You.

I was forced to wear the veil and I wish no other woman had to suffer it

Somali woman killed for not wearing veil, relatives say - BBC News

Choice is a great thing. We are very fortunate, in this country, that we do have that choice - something that does not exist in Somalia or Saudi Arabia for women. In the case of your first article - the man was arrested, appropriately, for child abuse, for his actions towards his daughter.

 

[Meathead]

All We have is all these personal accounts of women who have been raped and sexually assaulted by Arab and African men. Migrants are African and Arab.

What's odd is that you take these personal accounts and dismiss them.

Even if you live at the holy altar of government crime stats. Where there is smoke there is fire. Unless you think these women are making stuff up?

Probably should consider that Sweden stopped charting gang rape stats in 2006 because it was rising. Stats are kept to make police efforts look better. There has been a long Muslim problem in Sweden for a time. Same as Finland.

Actually, what we have are personal accounts that actually include few rapes, lots of sexual harrassment and assault claims.

I frankly think that the claim "where there is smoke there is fire" is a bad thing to go by. It can ruin innocent people's lives and reputations. Personal testimonials are iffy as reliable unless they are investigated. If you think Sweden stopped charting crime stats in 2006, then offer some evidence for it. Personally my thought is that a ten year conspiracy of silence and deliberate hiding of crime statistics throughout an entire nation, in a society as open as Sweden's would be difficult to pull off and not very believable.

I'm not outright dismissing claims - I'm saying all claims should be investigated and some have been verified and even arrests made. But I'm skeptical because there is a mass hysteria aspect to it that is not reflected in official crime rates. When you couple that with increased xenophobia, a rise in rightwing nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment overall that is looking for scapegoats, then any reasonable person should be careful of jumping to conclusions. There are two things you can always count on to anger and mobilize a population: outsiders raping their women and sexually abusing children and that occurs in every culture.

I mentioned earlier examples with attitudes of whites towards black men during Jim Crowe, and how innocent men were lynched for just looking at a white woman wrong. A more recent example involves sexual abuse of children. Some years ago...maybe the 80's or 90's?....there was a rash of claims of sexual abuse of children in daycares. There was a fairly new psychiatric method by which they interviewed extremely young children, I'm thinking as young as 1-2, barely verbal, and got them to give information leading them to believe the child had been molested. The method was controversial and untested, there was no physical evidence supporting it, but it was used to charge people and take them to court. The result was massive hysteria, news coverage, etc and parents wanting their children examined. The outcome of it was, few convictions, I think, but also people subsequently found innocent, their lives completely ruined because of the "where there's smoke there's fire" and it led to descrediting of that particular pschological tool. So, were these kids being molested? In some cases, I'm sure they were. In others, not. But the hysteria that just the possibility it could have occurred created a mood that pushed events faster than they could be investigated responsibly, and into the court of public opinion.

That is why I'm skeptical of claims of "mass rapes on white women" and "sexual jihad". And, I also suspect that now someone is going to claim I support abuse of children.

Muslims covet blue eyed and blonde Haired women. Even back to the days of their fights with the Byzantines.

I'd like to see some actual emperical data on whether that is true this day and age.

now this will force a change of topic of we are going down the history of "rape jihad". I know you don't like the phrase but it actually has historical relevance. I am quite sure that not all that use it today understand that history but it doesn't change the facts.

Does it bother you because it sounds violent and terrible? Or do you actually believe that Muslims aren't told to wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe.

Let's look at the facts then. As I pointed, all cultures have used rape as a tool of war, and that is all "rape jihad" really is. The religions that dominate the world today, Islam and Christianity, have both used war as a means of spreading their faith, as did Judaism in it's heyday. Rape is talked about and permitted, within certain rules in both the OT and the Quran, though I think the Quran as a whole as more rules surrounding it then the OT which is more open ended.

Personally I think most Muslims are not told to "wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe" and they'd probably laugh in your face if you told them that.

Just quickly I found where they pay more blue and green eyed female slaves.

Watch: A scene at ISIS slave market; '$500' for green-eyed girl

You are wanting your your cake and also have the ability to eat it as well when it comes to Muslims. You support traditional beliefs and teachings like the oppressive shrouds. Walking behind men, and the ability to rape away. But then In the same paragraph you want to dismiss the traditional beliefs and make light of them.

If Muslims believe in the shroud then it's safe to say they believe in other traditional Muslim teachings as well.

Now as for the history of violence of Christians and Muslims. This topic would require a new thread to have a true discussion and relate it to today. I will say that had Christianity not had their reformation then it would be massively bloody today. This is why I encourage Muslims to have a true reformation of their own religion and join modern society.

The blonde blue eyed girls and women of Byzantium were very very highly prized by Islamic rape jihadis and scum Muslim slave owners.

Easy Tilly, the Byzantines were definitely not Muslims but the first line of defense against them. The fall of Constantinople was the beginning of a long siege of Europe all the way to the gates of Vienna.

Coyote, stop making a fool of yourself. You're too much of an airhead for anyone to take seriously. Trust them.

 

[Coyote]

One thing I'm going to add, about choice and I'd like to post it as a serious question that hopefully won't get trolled.

Children have very limited free choice. Parents can dictate a lot when it comes to what they wear or do. There are plenty of cases of non-Muslim families that insist their children dress "modestly" according to their religious principles - high collars, no bear arms or legs, or a hair covering. Is forcing a child to dress according to religious principles any different than a conservative Muslim family insisting on hijab for an unemancipated child?

Disclaimer: this is NOT in any way excusing what that father did to his daughter, that was child abuse.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You excuse it simply because of your goal to crush Western culture.

Which, in turn, is caused by a lack of self-worth.

When those who lack a sense of self worth look inside themselves and recognize just how worthless they feel, the honest and courageous people take stock of themselves and take measures to improve their worth -- not only to themselves, but to others as well. Cowardly, simpering individuals, however, simply blame their worthlessness on everybody else, and so align themselves with those seeking to destroy their own culture in a childish exhibition of nihilistic acting out.

Was it lack of self worth that caused you to select a discredited poll from a hate site over the reputable sources you normally use or is it simply that your pathological hatred of all Muslims, even Americans, has created a total breakdown in your integrity and honesty?

Not that I expect an honest answer from you

The Islamist site you used did not discredit or debunk anything.

You are certainly a broken record, now, aren't you? The Geodon could help with these manic repetitions of yours, but again -- only if you take the stuff.

As far as these intrusive thoughts of yours that compel you to say the same things over and over again is concerned, you can also dispense with all the projecting. Just because you are unconcerned with Muslims raping European women and children -- in fact indicating time after time that you consider it funny when others oppose it -- that does not mean anybody else ONLY opposes rape when it is Muslims. It just means you assume that others are as hypocritical as you, as devoid of basic humanity as you and so utterly committed to an agenda as you that they have allowed it to dominate their life as you have allowed this mania to dominate yours.

 

[Tilly]

Actually, what we have are personal accounts that actually include few rapes, lots of sexual harrassment and assault claims.

I frankly think that the claim "where there is smoke there is fire" is a bad thing to go by. It can ruin innocent people's lives and reputations. Personal testimonials are iffy as reliable unless they are investigated. If you think Sweden stopped charting crime stats in 2006, then offer some evidence for it. Personally my thought is that a ten year conspiracy of silence and deliberate hiding of crime statistics throughout an entire nation, in a society as open as Sweden's would be difficult to pull off and not very believable.

I'm not outright dismissing claims - I'm saying all claims should be investigated and some have been verified and even arrests made. But I'm skeptical because there is a mass hysteria aspect to it that is not reflected in official crime rates. When you couple that with increased xenophobia, a rise in rightwing nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment overall that is looking for scapegoats, then any reasonable person should be careful of jumping to conclusions. There are two things you can always count on to anger and mobilize a population: outsiders raping their women and sexually abusing children and that occurs in every culture.

I mentioned earlier examples with attitudes of whites towards black men during Jim Crowe, and how innocent men were lynched for just looking at a white woman wrong. A more recent example involves sexual abuse of children. Some years ago...maybe the 80's or 90's?....there was a rash of claims of sexual abuse of children in daycares. There was a fairly new psychiatric method by which they interviewed extremely young children, I'm thinking as young as 1-2, barely verbal, and got them to give information leading them to believe the child had been molested. The method was controversial and untested, there was no physical evidence supporting it, but it was used to charge people and take them to court. The result was massive hysteria, news coverage, etc and parents wanting their children examined. The outcome of it was, few convictions, I think, but also people subsequently found innocent, their lives completely ruined because of the "where there's smoke there's fire" and it led to descrediting of that particular pschological tool. So, were these kids being molested? In some cases, I'm sure they were. In others, not. But the hysteria that just the possibility it could have occurred created a mood that pushed events faster than they could be investigated responsibly, and into the court of public opinion.

That is why I'm skeptical of claims of "mass rapes on white women" and "sexual jihad". And, I also suspect that now someone is going to claim I support abuse of children.

Muslims covet blue eyed and blonde Haired women. Even back to the days of their fights with the Byzantines.

I'd like to see some actual emperical data on whether that is true this day and age.

now this will force a change of topic of we are going down the history of "rape jihad". I know you don't like the phrase but it actually has historical relevance. I am quite sure that not all that use it today understand that history but it doesn't change the facts.

Does it bother you because it sounds violent and terrible? Or do you actually believe that Muslims aren't told to wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe.

Let's look at the facts then. As I pointed, all cultures have used rape as a tool of war, and that is all "rape jihad" really is. The religions that dominate the world today, Islam and Christianity, have both used war as a means of spreading their faith, as did Judaism in it's heyday. Rape is talked about and permitted, within certain rules in both the OT and the Quran, though I think the Quran as a whole as more rules surrounding it then the OT which is more open ended.

Personally I think most Muslims are not told to "wage war with other religions in the race to spread their beliefs around the globe" and they'd probably laugh in your face if you told them that.

Just quickly I found where they pay more blue and green eyed female slaves.

Watch: A scene at ISIS slave market; '$500' for green-eyed girl

You are wanting your your cake and also have the ability to eat it as well when it comes to Muslims. You support traditional beliefs and teachings like the oppressive shrouds. Walking behind men, and the ability to rape away. But then In the same paragraph you want to dismiss the traditional beliefs and make light of them.

If Muslims believe in the shroud then it's safe to say they believe in other traditional Muslim teachings as well.

Now as for the history of violence of Christians and Muslims. This topic would require a new thread to have a true discussion and relate it to today. I will say that had Christianity not had their reformation then it would be massively bloody today. This is why I encourage Muslims to have a true reformation of their own religion and join modern society.

The blonde blue eyed girls and women of Byzantium were very very highly prized by Islamic rape jihadis and scum Muslim slave owners.

Easy Tilly, the Byzantines were definitely not Muslims but the first line of defense against them. The fall of Constantinople was the beginning of a long siege of Europe all the way to the gates of Vienna.

Coyote, stop making a fool of yourself. You're too much of an airhead for anyone to take seriously. Trust them.

I agree. It was the Byzantines the Muslims lusted after. My post wasn't very clear, sozzy.

 

[Tilly]

You excuse it simply because of your goal to crush Western culture.

Which, in turn, is caused by a lack of self-worth.

When those who lack a sense of self worth look inside themselves and recognize just how worthless they feel, the honest and courageous people take stock of themselves and take measures to improve their worth -- not only to themselves, but to others as well. Cowardly, simpering individuals, however, simply blame their worthlessness on everybody else, and so align themselves with those seeking to destroy their own culture in a childish exhibition of nihilistic acting out.

Was it lack of self worth that caused you to select a discredited poll from a hate site over the reputable sources you normally use or is it simply that your pathological hatred of all Muslims, even Americans, has created a total breakdown in your integrity and honesty?

Not that I expect an honest answer from you

The Islamist site you used did not discredit or debunk anything.

You are certainly a broken record, now, aren't you? The Geodon could help with these manic repetitions of yours, but again -- only if you take the stuff.

As far as these intrusive thoughts of yours that compel you to say the same things over and over again is concerned, you can also dispense with all the projecting. Just because you are unconcerned with Muslims raping European women and children -- in fact indicating time after time that you consider it funny when others oppose it -- that does not mean anybody else ONLY opposes rape when it is Muslims. It just means you assume that others are as hypocritical as you, as devoid of basic humanity as you and so utterly committed to an agenda as you that they have allowed it to dominate their life as you have allowed this mania to dominate yours.

It has actually ruined its own thread through its stalking, lying about posters, and it's endless BORING BEYOND BELIEF spamming. If only someone could help it. Lol.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

Coyote, stop making a fool of yourself. .

While you are at it, would you mind asking my golden retriever to stop licking himself?

I'm sure you will have every bit as much success.

 

[Meathead]

You excuse it simply because of your goal to crush Western culture.

Which, in turn, is caused by a lack of self-worth.

When those who lack a sense of self worth look inside themselves and recognize just how worthless they feel, the honest and courageous people take stock of themselves and take measures to improve their worth -- not only to themselves, but to others as well. Cowardly, simpering individuals, however, simply blame their worthlessness on everybody else, and so align themselves with those seeking to destroy their own culture in a childish exhibition of nihilistic acting out.

Was it lack of self worth that caused you to select a discredited poll from a hate site over the reputable sources you normally use or is it simply that your pathological hatred of all Muslims, even Americans, has created a total breakdown in your integrity and honesty?

Not that I expect an honest answer from you

The Islamist site you used did not discredit or debunk anything.

You are certainly a broken record, now, aren't you? The Geodon could help with these manic repetitions of yours, but again -- only if you take the stuff.

Speaking of broken records...I posted other links as well.

As far as these intrusive thoughts of yours that compel you to say the same things over and over again is concerned, you can also dispense with all the projecting. Just because you are unconcerned with Muslims raping European women and children -- in fact indicating time after time that you consider it funny when others oppose it -- that does not mean anybody else ONLY opposes rape when it is Muslims. It just means you assume that others are as hypocritical as you, as devoid of basic humanity as you and so utterly committed to an agenda as you that they have allowed it to dominate their life as you have allowed this mania to dominate yours.

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Weird. I saw a quote and started reading some of Coyote's broken English which then disappeared from my screen.

 

[Tilly]

More rape jihad.

"Algerian sex attacker shouted "Inshallah" - if Allah wills it - as he raped a 25-year-old German student - then asked her if she had enjoyed it'

• The 37-year-old Algerian man is on trial in Hannover, accused of rape
• His victim, 25, said he shouted 'if Allah wills it' during her horrific ordeal
• She told the court that her attacker asked her afterwards if it was 'good'
• He denies rape but prosecutors say DNA evidence links him to the crime

By COREY CHARLTON FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 14:30, 10 February 2016 | UPDATED: 15:12, 10 February 2016

An Algerian man who almost killed his 25-year-old student victim shouted out 'if Allah wills it' in Arabic as he raped her in a darkened alley, a court has heard.

The man, identified only by his first name Rheda, is accused of following the student as she walked home from a nightclub at 5am in Hannover, Germany.

Afterwards, with his victim badly beaten, he is alleged to have climbed off her and asked her if she enjoyed it...

She said: 'He asked me in broken German if I had [the] time. Before I could reply he then grabbed me by the arm and pulled me down an alleyway.

'He told me "I need sex". I opened my mouth to scream but he put his hand over my mouth. I had a pepper spray, and I tried to spray it at him but he grabbed it off me, and used it on me instead.

'Then he threw me onto the ground, and tried to pull off my trousers but he couldn't do it. Then he started screaming at me to get undressed.'

She told the court she had tried to win time by begging him to leave her alone and hoped that someone would come past.

Nobody did, and when she tried to scream again he started beating her in the face and he sprayed the pepper spray on her face again.

He had banged her head on the ground repeatedly until she was almost unconscious, and she thought she was going to die.

She said: 'He put his hand over my mouth and closed my nose, and I thought I was going to suffocate. I then indicated to him that I had given in, and would do what he wanted if he let me breathe.'

He then raped her and she said that throughout he was talking to himself, shouting 'Inshallah' - which is Arabic for 'if Allah wills it'.

She said: 'Afterwards he asked me if it was good, and if I had enjoyed it.'

Her voice then broke as she added: 'I never would have thought something like that could happen to me. I just couldn't comprehend it. I thought I was going to die.'...

'Algerian sex attacker shouted "Inshallah" as he raped student, 25'

 

[Dogmaphobe]

More rape jihad.

"Algerian sex attacker shouted "Inshallah" - if Allah wills it - as he raped a 25-year-old German student - then asked her if she had enjoyed it'

• The 37-year-old Algerian man is on trial in Hannover, accused of rape
• His victim, 25, said he shouted 'if Allah wills it' during her horrific ordeal
• She told the court that her attacker asked her afterwards if it was 'good'
• He denies rape but prosecutors say DNA evidence links him to the crime

By COREY CHARLTON FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 14:30, 10 February 2016 | UPDATED: 15:12, 10 February 2016

An Algerian man who almost killed his 25-year-old student victim shouted out 'if Allah wills it' in Arabic as he raped her in a darkened alley, a court has heard.

The man, identified only by his first name Rheda, is accused of following the student as she walked home from a nightclub at 5am in Hannover, Germany.

Afterwards, with his victim badly beaten, he is alleged to have climbed off her and asked her if she enjoyed it...

She said: 'He asked me in broken German if I had [the] time. Before I could reply he then grabbed me by the arm and pulled me down an alleyway.

'He told me "I need sex". I opened my mouth to scream but he put his hand over my mouth. I had a pepper spray, and I tried to spray it at him but he grabbed it off me, and used it on me instead.

'Then he threw me onto the ground, and tried to pull off my trousers but he couldn't do it. Then he started screaming at me to get undressed.'

She told the court she had tried to win time by begging him to leave her alone and hoped that someone would come past.

Nobody did, and when she tried to scream again he started beating her in the face and he sprayed the pepper spray on her face again.

He had banged her head on the ground repeatedly until she was almost unconscious, and she thought she was going to die.

She said: 'He put his hand over my mouth and closed my nose, and I thought I was going to suffocate. I then indicated to him that I had given in, and would do what he wanted if he let me breathe.'

He then raped her and she said that throughout he was talking to himself, shouting 'Inshallah' - which is Arabic for 'if Allah wills it'.

She said: 'Afterwards he asked me if it was good, and if I had enjoyed it.'

Her voice then broke as she added: 'I never would have thought something like that could happen to me. I just couldn't comprehend it. I thought I was going to die.'...

'Algerian sex attacker shouted "Inshallah" as he raped student, 25'

Now, you can't expect Coyote to be moved by such a horrific ordeal when she derives such a sense of smug, self-righteous satisfaction by supporting those doing it, can you?

Get with the program, here. This isn't about the victims! It is about Coyote and all the others Coyotes of the world and their needs, instead. By acting as champions for Islamic rape, they prove to each other that they are "tolerant". It acts like brownie points, where the more they support the rape, the more credits they get from their little peeps for their tolerance.[/QUOTE]