Muslim 'mediator' defends gang rape after attack

[hollodero]

(08-31-2017, 11:27 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's like medieval times.   Which is why the west should be careful and deliberate when taking immigrants from these regions.  

It's square peg in a round hole for a lot of these people.  Which only sets them up for failure.

The day has come where I at least halfway agree with something you said.

This being said, the rape epidemics in Europe are mainly an invention of right-wing outlets. There are no wide-spread immigrant rape epidemics going on, I want to stress that.

[GMDino]

(08-31-2017, 11:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How am I generalizing about all Muslims?  We are talking about Muslim migrants who have formed rapist gangs to attack women and a transgender.   You do understand that when speaking about the topic at hand we are talking about a group inside the group already so there is no need for me to waste a sentence mentioning we aren't taking about all Muslims worldwide.  

You do realize these stories are pulled from local and regional news services on the ground.   This is how smaller news services survive they can not afford to have a reporter on the ground in every city around the world.

So this time it's not about ALL Muslim immigrants?

Really?

We're suppose to believe that?

Meanwhile defending the call to rape someone because of their immigration stance.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: So this time it's not about ALL Muslim immigrants?

Really?

We're suppose to believe that?

Meanwhile defending the call to rape someone because of their immigration stance.

Immigrants from these regions bring a high risk of not assimilating into the west. It's prudent to restrict these groups from coming to the west. They have a difficult time already and they need to longer time to assimilate. If they can just form ghettos and live the way they are used to living then it helps no one. And only brings third world living into the west.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 12:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: The day has come where I at least halfway agree with something you said.

This being said, the rape epidemics in Europe are mainly an invention of right-wing outlets. There are no wide-spread immigrant rape epidemics going on, I want to stress that.

That's the first step. Soon enough you will be posting right along with Vlad and I. Lol

[GMDino]

(08-31-2017, 11:53 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: How am I generalizing about all Muslims?  

(08-31-2017, 12:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Immigrants from these regions bring a high risk of not assimilating into the west.    It's prudent to restrict these groups from coming to the west.   They have a difficult time already and they need to longer time to assimilate.   If they can just form ghettos and live the way they are used to living then it helps no one.   And only brings third world living into the west.

[hollodero]

(08-31-2017, 12:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That's the first step.   Soon enough you will be posting right along with Vlad and I.  Lol

*gulp* alright, now I'm scared, so I start strongly contradicting again. The solution needs not be to restrict immigration, but rather to establish a better guidance system (and - in Europe - also better vetting) to enforce what you call "assimilation" (I wouldn't call it that). The muslim "problem" doesn't solve itself with closed borders, it might have a chance to be gradually solved by enforcing a more secular sentiment within people of muslim faith (and immigrants would be a good point to start). Which would take nothing away from Islam except for political and societal demands. These are the things that have no place here and actually are dangerous and need to be faught against (what my political homebase sadly fails to acknowledge). Islam often turns into the main identity-establishing factor, especially for second-generation immigrants who are left out to dry in a society that is hostile towards them and their culture and personal faith. There lies the problem as I see it, and the hostility is part of the problem - hostility as your posts seem to include.

If we fail to keep a debate and dialogue with Islam open, but rather seal off western countries and treat those moslems who we're still confronted with with prejudice and rejection, the hatred won't stop and the violence will only increase. Because of course it does, what's the endgame here, the world gets smaller and will keep doing so anyways, we have to deal with that and can't make the clock run backwards. (Plus it's the ethical thing to do to be a safe harbor for refugees that often flee radical Islam.)

But you're right in saying many muslim immigrants come from more or less medieval countries with code of laws and code of ethics not compatible to ours. They have to adapt to our ways, meaning our laws and customs (not our "culture"), actually have to be taught and instructed - or possibly can't stay. We don't really make any efforts in these regards though.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-31-2017, 01:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: *gulp* alright, now I'm scared, so I start strongly contradicting again. The solution needs not be to restrict immigration, but rather to establish a better guidance system (and - in Europe - also better vetting) to enforce what you call "assimilation" (I wouldn't call it that). The muslim "problem" doesn't solve itself with closed borders, it might have a chance to be gradually solved by enforcing a more secular sentiment within people of muslim faith (and immigrants would be a good point to start). Which would take nothing away from Islam except for political and societal demands. These are the things that have no place here and actually are dangerous and need to be faught against (what my political homebase sadly fails to acknowledge). Islam often turns into the main identity-establishing factor, especially for second-generation immigrants who are left out to dry in a society that is hostile towards them and their culture and personal faith. There lies the problem as I see it, and the hostility is part of the problem - hostility as your posts seem to include.

If we fail to keep a debate and dialogue with Islam open, but rather seal off western countries and treat those moslems who we're still confronted with with prejudice and rejection, the hatred won't stop and the violence will only increase. Because of course it does, what's the endgame here, the world gets smaller and will keep doing so anyways, we have to deal with that and can't make the clock run backwards. (Plus it's the ethical thing to do to be a safe harbor for refugees that often flee radical Islam.)

But you're right in saying many muslim immigrants come from more or less medieval countries with code of laws and code of ethics not compatible to ours. They have to adapt to our ways, meaning our laws and customs (not our "culture"), actually have to be taught and instructed - or possibly can't stay. We don't really make any efforts in these regards though.

I said restrict borders not close borders. I want extreme vetting, so it sounds like you and I are on the same page here.

I am all for keeping communication open. I am just not alright with letting anyone in here from those regions who isn't vetted. It's also a good idea to let them slowly trickle in so they can assimilate into the western life. When we open the flood gates we just promote ghettos and when that happens they never move towards a western life.

[hollodero]

(08-31-2017, 01:18 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I said restrict borders not close borders.   I want extreme vetting, so it sounds like you and I are on the same page here.  

I am all for keeping communication open.  I am just not alright with letting anyone in here from those regions who isn't vetted.   It's also a good idea to let them slowly trickle in so they can assimilate into the western life.   When we open the flood gates we just promote ghettos and when that happens they never move towards a western life.

A similar page, it seems. I just don't really grasp what "extreme" vetting is supposed to mean. That's not an ironic statement, I honestly don't know. How mch can you find out about an average muslim refugee. Can't really ask the local government, and as long as secret service agencys don't have anything else, which probably is common for the average muslim Joe, I don't know what extreme vetting really comes down to.

I would "vet" by examination, some king of examination with interviews and such. Which never would give any kind of distinct certainty, sure.
I would be on the same page with the "slowly trickling in" approach if there weren't a dire crisis going on. But there is, and I would not be in favour of putting refugees down because we want to take it slow. These are people in need, and potential bad apples, as I see it, should not put the focus away from that. That there are people fleeing life threats. Europe sure is more directly concerned with that, since people literally amass across our borders. The ethical thing to do, as I see it, is to in principle grant these people a safe harbor, albeit maybe a temporary one.

Also, we need to give people perspectives, and what we do is letting them hang for years until deciding their fate (meaning: if they can stay or not), and that is sure part of the problem. We put them in a desperate situation of uncertainty, and that this increases the incentive to turn criminal is quite clear and not on Islam as a whole.

But I also don't want to be naive about those people, many sure come from a more or less medieval surrounding as described (which isn't necessarily true for Syrian refugees, those I know are quite sophisticated, but then again those are the only ones I would know). Extremely difficult to handle. The danger of letting people with strong values completely and unchangeably incompatible to western values is quite real. Which is why I'd say, teach and instruct them, and those resisting said teaching need to find some other place to stay.