Insanity in Germany

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not the poster you asked this of, but this is one of many sites reporting the rape in the pool of a girl and her sister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3395924/Girl-17-raped-14-year-old-sister-sexually-assaulted-tried-save-group-Syrian-migrants-surrounded-German-public-swimming-pool.html

That's not the most trustworthy source, but even so it describes something much different than the earlier allegations. That's not to dismiss what it describes which sounds pretty horrible if it did indeed happen, but it's just not what was previously alleged.

Do conservatives automatically dismiss anything from the New York Times, Huffington Post, Daily Beast, etc. the same way liberals automatically dismiss news reports from certain right-leaning websites...regardless of what the actual truth is?

Conservatives are not allowed to do that. You know, becuase Liberal are opened minded and all that.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

Saudi Arabia would be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

They should go to a country with a backbone - like Russia or Japan. Do you honestly think that Russians or Japanese will put up with this crap the way German ninnies and Swedish bed wetters do?

Some of you guys are so ignorant it is incredible.

You do realize the reason males demand women to cover up, right?
It is because men should not be expected to control their penis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

Saudi Arabia would be good.

They wouldn't touch them with a 10,000 foot pole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

Saudi Arabia would be good.

They wouldn't touch them with a 10,000 foot pole.

Of course they would, and they have. Depending upon how you're counting, they've accepted from thousands to several million refugees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

I'm sure the Irish, Belgians and Fomanians appreciate the sentiment. I take it you've never been to these places and don't know squat about any of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

Saudi Arabia would be good.

They wouldn't touch them with a 10,000 foot pole.

Of course they would, and they have. Depending upon how you're counting, they've accepted from thousands to several million refugees.

Don't be ridiculous, Saudi law doesn't even have a concept of refugee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing this. There's either some important information missing, or it's BS.

I believe it but I wouldn't have if I hadn't heard what the mayor of Cologne had said after the attacks and also if I hadn't heard about Sweden and Germany covering up the sexual attacks. Apparently there were numerous attacks over the Summer in Sweden and they kept it quiet. Many of the Middle Eastern countries are anti-women and have laws based on their religion that women must wear hijab, must sit behind a curtain at funerals, can't drive, etc... Separate AND unequal. When it comes to Western women - forget it - they are deemed as "loose" and therefore they seem to think it is okay to rape and sexually assault them. The Persians that came 30 years ago assimilated quickly and effortlessly and I have many friends that are Persian and they left this culture purposely because they opposed it. I fear we won't be able to assimilate the migrants and refugees though.

There's only one Middle Eastern country where women can't drive - Saudi Arabia - and it is ironically the one with which your government is at its cuddliest, friendliest, kiss-assiest terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

I'm sure the Irish, Belgians and Fomanians appreciate the sentiment. I take it you've never been to these places and don't know squat about any of them?

Well, I've never been to "Fomania."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Some changes look negative on the surface but you will soon realize that space is being created in your life for something new to emerge."

~ Eckhart Tolle

100% of rapes in Norway in past five years have been committed by foreigners. Is this what we are making space for in our lives? No thank you. You can't say people are being paranoid or making it up. The secret is out!
http://10news.dk/?p=1163

FALSE
Most committed in Norway are committed by Norwegian citizens and three quarters are European citizens. The police study states it on page 52.
You can read it here:
https://www.politi.no/oslo/aktuelt/nyhetsarkiv/2011_05/Nyhet_9976.xml

"Norwegian citizen" doesn't mean ethnic Norwegian, and "European citizen" doesn't mean ethnically European. Hell, most of the Chechen boys I went to school with have various European citizenships by now. It doesn't make them European culturally or ethnically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean...pretty much. I studied Islamic history in HS, there were a lot of good 'reasons' back THEN for the ways of life prescribed in the hadith--such as the fact that widows had no protection so it was an act of compassion for men to take on many wives. In much the same way, some of the old testament proscriptions against pork. The difference is--abstaining from pork does not do damage today. Treating women HORRIBLY, killing people (salman Rushdie--fatwa) who question the hadith does. Honestly, from Saudi Arabia to honor killing in western transplant communities... something's gotta give.

Stop repeating propaganda. There is nothing, literally nothing in the Quranic rules on polygamy that casts polygamy as an act of mercy to widows, or encourages marriage to second wives who are widows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

I'm sure the Irish, Belgians and Fomanians appreciate the sentiment. I take it you've never been to these places and don't know squat about any of them?

Well, I've never been to "Fomania."

But you appear to frequent Douchebagville.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean...pretty much. I studied Islamic history in HS, there were a lot of good 'reasons' back THEN for the ways of life prescribed in the hadith--such as the fact that widows had no protection so it was an act of compassion for men to take on many wives. In much the same way, some of the old testament proscriptions against pork. The difference is--abstaining from pork does not do damage today. Treating women HORRIBLY, killing people (salman Rushdie--fatwa) who question the hadith does. Honestly, from Saudi Arabia to honor killing in western transplant communities... something's gotta give.

Stop repeating propaganda. There is nothing, literally nothing in the Quranic rules on polygamy that casts polygamy as an act of mercy to widows, or encourages marriage to second wives who are widows.

The poster to whom you are replying didn't even mention the Quran. But, you really showed that straw man you are debating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why the refugees can't just be given sone irrelevant place -- e.g., Ireland or Belgium or Romania--to have to themselves.

How about NW DC? You imbecile.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean...pretty much. I studied Islamic history in HS, there were a lot of good 'reasons' back THEN for the ways of life prescribed in the hadith--such as the fact that widows had no protection so it was an act of compassion for men to take on many wives. In much the same way, some of the old testament proscriptions against pork. The difference is--abstaining from pork does not do damage today. Treating women HORRIBLY, killing people (salman Rushdie--fatwa) who question the hadith does. Honestly, from Saudi Arabia to honor killing in western transplant communities... something's gotta give.

Stop repeating propaganda. There is nothing, literally nothing in the Quranic rules on polygamy that casts polygamy as an act of mercy to widows, or encourages marriage to second wives who are widows.

The poster to whom you are replying didn't even mention the Quran. But, you really showed that straw man you are debating.

I'm not debating anything, just correcting someone with little knowledge. The hadith has no guidance on marrying widows as second wives, either. This is a trope invented and repeated often by Islam's evangelists. It has no scriptural basis, not in the Quran, not in the hadith.

And the poster clearly means the Quran when she says the hadith - Rushdie wasn't threatened for questioning the hadith, you know.