String of New Year's Eve sexual assaults outrages Cologne
Some 1,000 men are alleged to have carried out dozens of sexual crimes on New Year's Eve in the city of Cologne. That these crimes occured in the city's most famous square has left local authorities reeling.
Police in the western German city of Cologne responded on Monday to outrage over a string of sexual crimes over New Year's Eve. According to police, the series of assaults in one of the city's busiest thoroughfares represented a "completely new dimension of crime."
Some 90 criminal complaints, including one allegation of rape, have been brought to the Cologne police department after women said they were molested by a crowd of men who had gathered in the city's famous square between its central train station and towering Gothic cathedral. Authorities expect more victims to come forward in the next few days.
City police chief Wolfgang Albers said the crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men who gave the appearance of being "Arab or North African" in background.
The police chief told German news agency dpa that the incidents represented "an intolerable situation" for Cologne. His department has already assembled a task force to deal with the matter.
Mayor calls crisis summit
Mayor Henriette Reker, who made international headlines in October when she was stabbed on the campaign trail, has called a crisis meeting, which will include local and federal police, for Tuesday to address the crimes.
Reker told the local press she found the men's actions "monstrous."
"We cannot tolerate this development of lawlessness," Reker told the "Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger" newspaper.
Speaking with local newspaper "Express," Ralf Jäger, the state interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, promised swift action.
"We will not accept that groups of North African men gather expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them," the paper quoted Jäger as saying.
'Politically uncomfortable' consequences
The leader of the North Rhine-Westphalia branch of Germany's main police union, Arnold Plickert, called the crimes "a massive attack on basic rights" and said justice must be seen through even if it has "politically uncomfortable" consequences.
Plickert warned, however, against exploiting the incident to stir up anti-refugee sentiment.
"Any refugees who have a problem integrating into our open society and respecting the rights of other people" must be dealt with using the "full force of the law," he said, though adding that the public should not forget that "the great majority of the people who have come to us have done so because their lives are no longer safe in their homelands."
This is what happens when you import hundreds of thousands of men of fighting age into a completely different country. How's that working out for you Germany?
The evidence points to the majority of perpetrators being of Tunisian, Moroccan and Algerian extraction, not linked to the current wave of migration from Syria.
Though I wouldn't find it unbelievable that there were also Syrians and Turkish Germans in there as well.
I don't expect that to stop schadenfreude from xenophobic anti immigrant people though.
The Mayor of Cologne said today that women should adopt a “code of conduct” to prevent future assault at a crisis meeting following the sexual attack of women by 1000 men on New Year’s eve.
Mayor Henriette Reker attended an emergency meeting with Chief of Police Wolfgang Albers and Wolfgang Wurm to discuss how to deal with the attack, where dozens of women were repeatedly touched and groped, with one case of alleged rape in the center of town.
“It is important to prevent such incidents from ever happening again,” said Mayor Reker, as reported in German by RP Online. “We have heard by now that they [the attacks] have occurred in other cities. This of course is not comforting to us.”
Hamburg also received complaints of sexual assault.
The crisis management team said prevention measures should include a code of conduct for young women and girls, and Mayor Reker said the existing code of conduct will be updated online.
The suggested code of conduct includes maintaining an arm’s length distance from strangers, to stick within your own group, to ask bystanders for help or to intervene as a witness, or to inform the police if you are the victim of such an assault.
In anticipation of large carnivals in the city centre in February, Mayor Reker promised an increased police presence. She warned young women about potential dangers of drunken events.
People expressed frustration at the focus on the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Mayor Reker also said a “better explanation” to asylum seekers was needed about the meaning of the annual carnivals.
“We need to prevent confusion about what constitutes happy behaviour and what is utterly separate from openness, especially in sexual behaviour," she said.
The attackers were described as North African and Arab appearance by the police. The Mayor has said that not all of the attackers were newly-arrived refugees and had already been known to the police, as reported by The Local.
Mayor Reker was seriously wounded herself in October when she was stabbed in the neck by a man who reportedly had anti-foreigner motives amid in escalating tensions about the refugee crisis.
The Mayor of Cologne said today that women should adopt a “code of conduct” to prevent future assault at a crisis meeting following the sexual attack of women by 1000 men on New Year’s eve.
Mayor Henriette Reker attended an emergency meeting with Chief of Police Wolfgang Albers and Wolfgang Wurm to discuss how to deal with the attack, where dozens of women were repeatedly touched and groped, with one case of alleged rape in the center of town.
“It is important to prevent such incidents from ever happening again,” said Mayor Reker, as reported in German by RP Online. “We have heard by now that they [the attacks] have occurred in other cities. This of course is not comforting to us.”
Hamburg also received complaints of sexual assault.
The crisis management team said prevention measures should include a code of conduct for young women and girls, and Mayor Reker said the existing code of conduct will be updated online.
The suggested code of conduct includes maintaining an arm’s length distance from strangers, to stick within your own group, to ask bystanders for help or to intervene as a witness, or to inform the police if you are the victim of such an assault.
In anticipation of large carnivals in the city centre in February, Mayor Reker promised an increased police presence. She warned young women about potential dangers of drunken events.
People expressed frustration at the focus on the victims rather than the perpetrators.
Mayor Reker also said a “better explanation” to asylum seekers was needed about the meaning of the annual carnivals.
“We need to prevent confusion about what constitutes happy behaviour and what is utterly separate from openness, especially in sexual behaviour," she said.
The attackers were described as North African and Arab appearance by the police. The Mayor has said that not all of the attackers were newly-arrived refugees and had already been known to the police, as reported by The Local.
Mayor Reker was seriously wounded herself in October when she was stabbed in the neck by a man who reportedly had anti-foreigner motives amid in escalating tensions about the refugee crisis.
The article mentions Mayor Reker updating the previous code of conduct for women in Cologne, does anyone know what the older code was? Or was the updated code a general code of conduct and these rules for women are being added?
Honestly, what Mayor Reker proposes isn't bad, per se, but following up those attacks with a call for women to conduct themselves differently seems like a pretty heavy dollop of Blaming the Victim.
Da Boss wrote: The evidence points to the majority of perpetrators being of Tunisian, Moroccan and Algerian extraction, not linked to the current wave of migration from Syria.
Though I wouldn't find it unbelievable that there were also Syrians and Turkish Germans in there as well.
I don't expect that to stop schadenfreude from xenophobic anti immigrant people though.
Schadenfreude?
A dispelled Illusion IMHO.
It is important how they handle this. If they can't get some of the perpetrators and/or nothing happens to them, there will be more than just unhappyness.
Cologne and Düsseldorf amongst others have to be careful with the upcoming carnivals and the hundred of thousands of people participating.
I don't think this happend unorganized, because too many involved at more than one place.
Because (shock and horror, I know!) not all immigrants with a slightly brown skin tone are all rapists, or all the same for that matter?
There's a big chance that these people are people that were born in Germany, and it's almost certainly organized. I'm really not sure why so many people seem to think that all immigrants are evil creatures that come here to bomb, rape, and murder us - isn't that what they fled from? I'm not for allowing them all in - countries simply can't handle that - but demonizing all immigrants is just as silly as demonizing all white, anti-social nerds as school shooters.
“We need to prevent confusion about what constitutes happy behaviour and what is utterly separate from openness, especially in sexual behaviour," she said.
Seriously they need training on how not to be vermin? How about: "Do these things and the police will beat you to death with sticks."
When will Europe wake up and protect itself ?
If our politically correct and stupid, disconnected from the world, leaders keep doing...nothing, something bad is gonna happen.
In Corse, a "district" of France, where firefighters have been attacked, embushed, hundreds of people gathered and went in the ghetto, destroyed a mosquee, occupying the no-go zone, with slogans like "arabs keep out !" etc.
Pegida isn't new, and events like this one can only push Europe closer to what happened in Corse.
Because (shock and horror, I know!) not all immigrants with a slightly brown skin tone are all rapists, or all the same for that matter?
If the foreigners hadn't been let in, those incidents would not have occurred. Its an absolute zero sum statement.
Sure, immigrants are not the same, but immigrants did it.
"north Africans" don't come from Germany, in deed ^^
They, or their parents, are immigrants.
And they will forever be.
As their children and grandchildren. Proof just has been made, again, that a north african can never been made, never, in an European.
stanman wrote: An armed society is generally a polite society. Take away the ability to defend oneself and you get chaos.
Spoiler:
Disgusting situation, I hope they apprehend those involved and bring them to justice. Interesting that this appears to be a coherent event across several cities, that implies a high level of organisation.
Those foreigners are fleeing a genocidal war in a region destabilised by our friendly neighbourhood world police.
This idea of foreigners being "let in" is ridiculous. It's a massive human wave which can only be compared to the end of WW2.
To be clear though - the perpetrators are scum, women absolutely do not need to change their behaviour and anyone they can catch should be arrested or deported. This incident makes me extremely angry and I hope to feth it's taken seriously here. There's a terrible tendency to shy away from issues like this in Germany out of a misplaced sense of liberalism, and now is not the time for that. It's not the time for reactionary actions against refugees either.
Because (shock and horror, I know!) not all immigrants with a slightly brown skin tone are all rapists, or all the same for that matter?
If the foreigners hadn't been let in, those incidents would not have occurred. Its an absolute zero sum statement.
Sure, immigrants are not the same, but immigrants did it.
"North African descent" does not mean that they were born there.
Crime in the USA is also frequently committed by immigrants. Shouldn't have let those in either, and have left it all to the Native Americans, right?
I believe that this is the work of an organization intent on creating more and more hate for Muslims, hoping that this'll lead to young Muslims feeling excluded from society and as a result leading to radicalization.
I don't think there is an organization.
It just hundreds of "guys" spread across the county, who, being in the same situation (new year, alcohol, pretty girls, and of course, hating laws and the West) did the same thing.
Crime in the USA is also frequently committed by immigrants. Shouldn't have let those in either, and have left it all to the Native Americans, right?
Thats what the Comanches sure thought. Lets ask the Iroquois their opinion of immigration...
I'm sure they'd start complaining about how all those immigrants are rapists, and then they'd start complaining about the chieftain trying to take away their "self defense" scalpels!
I believe that this is the work of an organization intent on creating more and more hate for Muslims, hoping that this'll lead to young Muslims feeling excluded from society and as a result leading to radicalization.
That is some tin foil hat stuff.
Much more likely it was done by a group of crap bags who because of various cultural reasons view women, and especially women not of their culture, as objects to be used.
Disgusting, and I too hope they catch the perps and apply suitable punishment.
That whole thing is absolutely horrendous. A ton of women get attacked, and the local government creates a "code of conduct" for the women, that is ridiculous. Put the attackers in jail. All of them.
I believe that this is the work of an organization intent on creating more and more hate for Muslims, hoping that this'll lead to young Muslims feeling excluded from society and as a result leading to radicalization.
That is some tin foil hat stuff.
Much more likely it was done by a group of crap bags who because of various cultural reasons view women, and especially women not of their culture, as objects to be used.
Disgusting, and I too hope they catch the perps and apply suitable punishment.
I don't know, but leading groups of women wth fireworks into groups of people that start touching them sounds like it's organized to at least some extent to me.
I reckon it's not any kind of false flag but a bunch of scumbags with crappy attitudes. It's not like the region is famous for it's progressive attitudes towards women or anything.
Seems like they won't catch any of them though - no CCTV in the area it happened apparently, and how are the women concerned going to pick perps out of such a big mob?
Shocking that the Cologne police didn't notice this and disperse them at the time, the German police are usually pretty on the ball about public order stuff. Maybe they're all knackered from pulling extra shifts watching the Christmas Markets for an attack.
I think that's unlikely in the extreme. If the perpetrators weren't caught and detained in the act, how could they be found or prosecuted? It's not like they can take fingerprints or anything like that. I think I read there was only one rape which they could make a case out of, if they could get a DNA match from someone, which would be more than a little difficult.
It'd be great if they could find the people responsible, but I don't think there's any real way to do so. And being unable to bring them to justice is going to strain german-refugee relations, which I think are already strained.
It's titled "learning from history", but the only lesson I gleaned is that eventually refugee-host nation relationships tend to decay, and with a good deal of civil unrest.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know, I just noticed that there's some actual germans in the thread.
How do you guys feel about your country's policy for adopting Syrian refugees, and have your opinions been changed in light of this event?
I'm not German, an Irishman living in Germany, but I think it's a very ethical move that is probably going to fail in it's goals due to a lack of solidarity from other European countries, notably France and the UK, the next two biggest and richest countries in the Union.
This crisis cannot be wished away and the alternative to the German approach are not realistic or are (in my opinion) very unethical.
However I think even a country as big, strong, and open minded as Germany will struggle to cope with the crisis on it's own. I'm getting pretty sick of the lack of leadership displayed by France and the UK on big European issues to be honest. (Throw Ireland in there as well, even though we did say we'd take some refugees in, we could afford to do more than we're doing).
Edit: And this event just makes me feel very depressed, angry at the perpetrators ignorance and crappy behaviour, and even less hopeful that the entire saga will have a happy ending. I figured we'd have some incidents and crimes due to this wave of immigration - it's inevitable. But what happened on new years is worse than the isolated incidents I was worrying about and does not bode well.
stanman wrote: An armed society is generally a polite society. Take away the ability to defend oneself and you get chaos.
Japan seems nice and orderly and they have some of the strictest weapon restrictions in the world.
It also overwhelmingly has the highest per capita suicide rate in the world, but what this talk about guns in Japan has to do with the attacks in Germany I don't know.
Make it clear any repeat means being deported if caught.
Great way to repay the nation taking you in from a hellish warzone....
Need to make it very clear what is and is not appropriate. If you make it clear, no one can say they where not told. Its a different world, they need to lead new rules to operate with in it
The thought occurred to me that perhaps someone videod some of what happened on their phones. Maybe the police will be able to identify people from the likes of that and make some arrests? I really don't want them to get away with this.
stanman wrote: An armed society is generally a polite society. Take away the ability to defend oneself and you get chaos.
Japan seems nice and orderly and they have some of the strictest weapon restrictions in the world.
Aren't they also plagued with groping incidents on trains and up skirt cams? They seem to have a very different slant for how women are treated in public.
stanman wrote: An armed society is generally a polite society. Take away the ability to defend oneself and you get chaos.
Japan seems nice and orderly and they have some of the strictest weapon restrictions in the world.
Aren't they also plagued with groping incidents on trains and up skirt cams? They seem to have a very different slant for how women are treated in public.
I know I've heard all kind of horror stories about groping incidents on jam-packed Tokyo trains. I don't know how prevalent they are in reality, but I'm pretty sure it's more than an infrequent problem.
There are many stories of Western women being mobbed and molested/raped by crowds in Middle Eastern countries. Reporter Lara Logan was set upon by a crowd of 200 in Egypt who together stripped and assaulted her like a pack of animals. There's simply not the same value placed on women's rights. Some of these countries accuse rape victims of adultery after all, there's no consideration of women being a human victim. You bring a swarm of that culture/people into one place, say a thousand for new year celebration, in a western country and the exact same could happen.
This I believe is the problem with mass immigration. Moderate Arab culture is still well behind western culture. We keep being told that there will be very few extremists and that most are 'moderate', so it's racist to be concerned. But I imagine this crowd are to be considered 'moderates', but still this culture is still very jarring in our culture. It means hundreds of these supposed moderate minded people are actually willing to violate women en masse and many more will not come forward to point the finger and give evidence against others in their community. There must be loads of witnesses to these attacks. Where are they? That's why no one will be prosecuted and why women are being given advice instead to give them a wide berth.
stanman wrote: An armed society is generally a polite society. Take away the ability to defend oneself and you get chaos.
Because the fear of gun violence is the best way to get people to be polite?
Armed doesn't always mean guns, there's plenty of ways to arm yourself against attackers.
Unfortunately there is always a segment of the population that is too stupid and inconsiderate to figure out how to interact with society in a responsible fashion. Often the only message they seem to grasp is one backed by threat of physical violence. They don't care what pain or suffering they would cause others, but when confronted by the fact their course of action might result in harm to themself (by somebody defending theself) they might be enlightened to the fact that somebody else may not want to be raped or assaulted. Some people need to be threatened with being shot, stabbed, or beaten about the head to realize what they are doing is wrong, and there's some that fail even at that point or just dont care and press the attack anyways
There was 1000 of them. How is one person with a weapon going to do anything to a mob that size? There's so much more to this than this self defense crap. No one can defend themselves from a giant mob.
Howard A Treesong wrote: There are many stories of Western women being mobbed and molested/raped by crowds in Middle Eastern countries. Reporter Lara Logan was set upon by a crowd of 200 in Egypt who together stripped and assaulted her like a pack of animals. There's simply not the same value placed on women's rights. Some of these countries accuse rape victims of adultery after all, there's no consideration of women being a human victim. You bring a swarm of that culture/people into one place, say a thousand for new year celebration, in a western country and the exact same could happen.
This I believe is the problem with mass immigration. Moderate Arab culture is still well behind western culture. We keep being told that there will be very few extremists and that most are 'moderate', so it's racist to be concerned. But I imagine this crowd are to be considered 'moderates', but still this culture is still very jarring in our culture. It means hundreds of these supposed moderate minded people are actually willing to violate women en masse and many more will not come forward to point the finger and give evidence against others in their community. There must be loads of witnesses to these attacks. Where are they? That's why no one will be prosecuted and why women are being given advice instead to give them a wide berth.
European women should not have to hide in fear, cross a road to avoid them. They are guests in our countries and if they do not obey laws and cultural standards they should be dealt with and told what is expected, laws and such on arrival in Germany etc.
We are told to respect other nations when we visit or live in them. No difference. If you act like that, you are not welcome in our nations.
Send a strong message, others may simply fall into line.
Da Boss wrote: There was 1000 of them. How is one person with a weapon going to do anything to a mob that size? There's so much more to this than this self defense crap. No one can defend themselves from a giant mob.
I understand what you are saying. The counter point is not very often does the guy in front decide he is willing to die for the mob, and I assure you if a few rounds got popped off the Polizie would have converged with a vengeance...
Regardless though, German laws are what they are and the situation is what it is. Unfortunately Germans have never been very successful at getting the Turks to integrate into culture and society, and the newer immigrants are not likely to do so either. Without that integration you deal with the culture clashes. Unfortunately that means good folks get hurt. Once your official response is 'Be afraid of them and keep your distance', you've given up.
Da Boss wrote: There was 1000 of them. How is one person with a weapon going to do anything to a mob that size? There's so much more to this than this self defense crap. No one can defend themselves from a giant mob.
The women weren't attacked by all 1000 men. There were probably half a dozen or a dozen involved in each instance with a few leading the way and the rest following along emboldened by the security and sanctuary of the mob. I guarantee you that none of the attackers wanted to be stabbed or shot. Even in a group nobody wants to be the guy who catches a bullet or gets a knife in the gut. Threaten the boldest ones and they'll all hesitate you create space and flee. These scum are preying on people they perceive to be weak they don't want to deal with resistance. Anything that acts as a deterrent is good. If Germany is going to allow refugees to establish enclaves where women can't go because they'll be assaulted and raped then this will only escalate and lead to more violence.
Da Boss wrote: Those foreigners are fleeing a genocidal war in a region destabilised by our friendly neighbourhood world police.
This idea of foreigners being "let in" is ridiculous. It's a massive human wave which can only be compared to the end of WW2.
Syrians are fleeing from the difficult circumstances in refugee camps in Turkey, Libanon etc. not from the war. Virtually all refugees here in Europe already lived for years in Turkey or other countries in the region. They are economic refugees now. But whereas the Syrians can still be linked to war (if there hadn't been a war they would never have fled to Turkey etc. in the first place), North Africans have no such excuse, they should be deported.
Do some research on the conditions in the camps in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan and come back to me, Iron Captain.
On the Turkish immigration - I agree, that was poorly handled. The administration at the time wanted some cheap low skill labour is my understanding, and the groups that came were not the most educated or forward thinking apparently. Though other waves of Turkish immigrants have integrated more successfully.
The syrians on the whole are more educated though, so I have a bit of hope that they'll integrate better. The Algerians and other North Africans have a different set of issues.
None of that should mean that women in Germany should have to put up with this crap though and I hope they come down hard on it.
Da Boss wrote: The evidence points to the majority of perpetrators being of Tunisian, Moroccan and Algerian extraction, not linked to the current wave of migration from Syria.
Though I wouldn't find it unbelievable that there were also Syrians and Turkish Germans in there as well.
If only there was some common ideology amongst men from those areas. Like a political philosophy or something. Some kind of common idea shared by people in those countries that views women as less than men.
Well I can't think of anything. Can anyone else? A doctrine espoused by men from those countries that claims women to be inferior to men. I'm stumped.
Da Boss wrote: Those foreigners are fleeing a genocidal war in a region destabilised by our friendly neighbourhood world police.
This idea of foreigners being "let in" is ridiculous. It's a massive human wave which can only be compared to the end of WW2.
To be clear though - the perpetrators are scum, women absolutely do not need to change their behaviour and anyone they can catch should be arrested or deported. This incident makes me extremely angry and I hope to feth it's taken seriously here. There's a terrible tendency to shy away from issues like this in Germany out of a misplaced sense of liberalism, and now is not the time for that. It's not the time for reactionary actions against refugees either.
So your position is that Germany is responsible for the instability in the Middle East and Africa and therefore is compelled by some kind of guilt driven moral imperative to create accommodations for tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of refugees that view German women as targets to be gang raped? That's a false obligation. German doesn't need to let refugees in and the country would be better off if they didn't.
Da Boss wrote: Those foreigners are fleeing a genocidal war in a region destabilised by our friendly neighbourhood world police.
This idea of foreigners being "let in" is ridiculous. It's a massive human wave which can only be compared to the end of WW2.
To be clear though - the perpetrators are scum, women absolutely do not need to change their behaviour and anyone they can catch should be arrested or deported. This incident makes me extremely angry and I hope to feth it's taken seriously here. There's a terrible tendency to shy away from issues like this in Germany out of a misplaced sense of liberalism, and now is not the time for that. It's not the time for reactionary actions against refugees either.
So your position is that Germany is responsible for the instability in the Middle East and Africa and therefore is compelled by some kind of guilt driven moral imperative to create accommodations for tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of refugees that view German women as targets to be gang raped? That's a false obligation. German doesn't need to let refugees in and the country would be better off if they didn't.
My snarky reply was actually aimed at placing the responsibility for the state of the region partially at the door of the UK and the US for their failed interventions in the region.
It's my belief that people with your opinion will be looked at with the same revulsion as those who did not want to let the jews in when they were fleeing the Nazi's, in the future.
Oh, and of bloody course the uniting factor is Islam, I thought that was bloody obvious? I'm no fan - it's an awful religion with an awful culture of oppressing women attached to it. Most religions have some section with weird ideas about women, but Islam is the worst that I'm aware of.
I was in Istanbul not long ago and I was admiring the Mosques for their beautiful architecture and lovely airy, light spaces, and reflecting how such a space is a nicer place for a community to get together than the gloomy churches back home. Then I looked behind me and saw the cage like structure where the women are segregated and thought "You know what, maybe it's not so nice after all."
Doubt Merkel is going anywhere - there's no one who is a real threat to her leadership of the CDU. It's definitely going to be used against her by the xenophobes in her party though.
Doubt Merkel is going anywhere - there's no one who is a real threat to her leadership of the CDU. It's definitely going to be used against her by the xenophobes in her party though.
Xenophobes?
You really don't see a fething connection between out of control mass immigration of brutalized refugees from cultures that are deeply misogynistic, fleeing active warzones... and a gigantic mob rampaging through a European city raping women en masse?
If there was ever an argument for controlling a country's borders and being very selective and careful about who is permitted to enter...this is it.
Want to sling some more hyperbole my way there mate? Of course I see the bloody connection. But what is the alternative?
What do you suggest is done about the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing our way then? How do you keep them out? How do you "secure the borders"? It's fantasy.
What disgusts me about this thread is the distinct feeling I get that some posters are quite satisfied that something has happened so they can point the finger at Merkel and Germany for trying to do the right thing, even when it is difficult and riddled with intractable problems.
My snarky reply was actually aimed at placing the responsibility for the state of the region partially at the door of the UK and the US for their failed interventions in the region.
It's my belief that people with your opinion will be looked at with the same revulsion as those who did not want to let the jews in when they were fleeing the Nazi's, in the future.
Oh, and of bloody course the uniting factor is Islam, I thought that was bloody obvious? I'm no fan - it's an awful religion with an awful culture of oppressing women attached to it. Most religions have some section with weird ideas about women, but Islam is the worst that I'm aware of.
I was in Istanbul not long ago and I was admiring the Mosques for their beautiful architecture and lovely airy, light spaces, and reflecting how such a space is a nicer place for a community to get together than the gloomy churches back home. Then I looked behind me and saw the cage like structure where the women are segregated and thought "You know what, maybe it's not so nice after all."
In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion. I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf is clearly the sign that you're a relic from cave man times.
SJW's are in a catch-22. Who's rights do they champion? Women's rights, or ethnic minority rights?
Criticize the ethnic minority males carrying out these attacks > get accused of racism and xenophobia.
Defend refugees and try to hand waive these attacks as a tiny minorty > get accused of turning a blind eye to misogyny.
Take note First World Feminists, this is what real Misogyny looks like.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I know you've got the sarcasm light on, but friends and myself have jumped into something like that before a few times with the idea of taking as many to ER with us as we could. One thing I cannot stand seeing is someone being mobbed, and I can't understand someone standing there and watching it without doing something.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf is clearly the sign that you're a relic from cave man times.
SJW's are in a catch-22. Who's rights do they champion? Women's rights, or ethnic minority rights?
Criticize the ethnic minority males carrying out these attacks > get accused of racism and xenophobia.
Defend refugees and try to hand waive these attacks as a tiny minorty > get accused of turning a blind eye to misogyny.
Take note First World Feminists, this is what real Misogyny looks like.
"Men who sexually assault women are scumbags and should be dealt with."
I'm exhausted from mentally dealing with this horrible Catch 22, I'm going to need a nap.
Don't turn this into a "lol SJW rahrahrah" thing, that's just trying to insult and shut down a large number of people who take part in these discussions by applying a term to them which is used in a derogatory fashion. Don't do it, it's not polite and it's not how you have an honest discussion.
Take note First World Feminists, this is what real Misogyny looks like.
I would have thought the stonings and only 1/4th the say of a man in court already highlighted that.
But the West should totally look the other way on those things because women only make 70% of men or something, or its not real like 1/4 of college women getting sexually assaulted. Those sexual assaults are super real and serious. These sexual assaults are simply a matter of cultural misunderstanding and we should understand. At least I think that's the current memo I got.
Take note First World Feminists, this is what real Misogyny looks like.
This is the type thing (and worse) that will happen to women in frontline units should they ever be over run by enemy forces and why many male military members don't want females in combat. (especially in 3rd world countries) It isn't because they disrespect women choosing to serve or doubting their ability but because they don't want to see them subjected to the horrors of treatment that men will likely inflict on them. There are areas of the world that will treat captives female soldiers worse than dogs.
Take note First World Feminists, this is what real Misogyny looks like.
Don't forget though, cyber-touching is 'equally as damaging' as physical touching* according to certain first world feminists. Women who experienced this molestation are just as hurt as women who get nasty emails.
*pg 48 of the recent UN CYBER VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND GIRLS report found here.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I know you've got the sarcasm light on, but friends and myself have jumped into something like that before a few times with the idea of taking as many to ER with us as we could. One thing I cannot stand seeing is someone being mobbed, and I can't understand someone standing there and watching it without doing something.
That's because while your personal religion has had some "hiccups" with women's rights, they grew up decades ago and stopped. Another major belief, not so much. Those men stood there and watched because they didn't really think it was a big deal. Just like that case in FL awhile ago where it was filmed while a group of men gangraped a woman. Or the almost teeth-pulling length of time its taken for women in India to get equal rights in rape cases for women.
But hey, women in KSA, UAE, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, etc. at least have equal rights in the court of law.
Wait, what? They don't? I'm shocked. Wonder what the connection between such disparate ethnic groups across thousands of miles could be. I've got no idea. Anyone else?
Da Boss wrote: Want to sling some more hyperbole my way there mate?
Excuse me?? Hyperbole? This from you, who labels everyone opposed to a human tidal wave as xenophobes?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
[The rest of my post is spoilered for length:]
Spoiler:
What disgusts me about this thread is the distinct feeling I get that...
And what disgusts ME is this persistent willful blindness of European leaders and refusal to accept that social unrest like this was an entirely predictable consequence of European policy.
some posters are quite satisfied that something has happened so they can point the finger at Merkel and Germany
We didn't need this to happen so we could point the finger at Merkel. We've been pointing the finger at Merkel (among other European leaders) for the last year, warning gak like this was going to happen and indeed has happened. There has been a year long string of incidents that can be directly attributed to or have been exacerbated by the migrant free-for-all that that European leaders such as Merkel encouraged early on.
for trying to do the right thing, even when it is difficult and riddled with intractable problems.
I disagree that encouraging and incentivizing a dangerous, unstoppable free-for-all of human beings to cross an entire continent without legal permission, violently forcing their way through border crossings, risking their children on treacherous winter seas and being preyed and exploited on by ruthless organized gangs, swamping European countries to the point that local infrastructure is overwhelmed... is the right thing to do.
These people stopped being refugees the moment they left Turkey or whatever the safe and stable country is to their country of origin...and became economic migrants looking for a better standard of living. (And of course, I don't blame them for that - I would want to do the same thing in their position - but that still doesn't make it the 'right thing to do').
Of course I see the bloody connection. But what is the alternative?
What do you suggest is done about the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing our way then? How do you keep them out? How do you "secure the borders"? It's fantasy.
By scrapping or at least temporarily suspending the Schengen Agreement and re-establishing national border controls. Border control wasn't fantasy before the Schengen Area was established, and its not a fantasy for the UK and other countries today that are not signatories to the Schengen Agreement.
A). If these people are refugees, not economic migrants, then they should be treated as should. They should be obligated to claim asylum and remain in the first stable country they arrive in. For the vast majority of Syrians, this is probably Turkey. For Africans - Tunisia or perhaps Egypt depending on how the security situations in those countries develop with the recent attack(s) by ISIS.
B). We should be throwing all our resources behind these countries designated as refugee holding centres to support them. We should be funding the construction of a whole network of refugee centres along the Turkish border to make sure these refugees can be provided for and housed in a safe environment. International Aid budgets should be redirected to Turkey and these other designated countries. India is rich enough to afford a space program. Why are we enabling the neglect of their own poor and indirectly subsidizing their space program?
C). Refugees who wish to immigrate into European countries should apply for entry visas and/or citizenship at these refugee centres and go through a proper asylum process. Refugees should be screened to the best of our Intelligence Services' abilities (I accept that this will be a difficult almost impossible task, but we should still try) to weed out ISIS and other radical Jihadiist groups. Refugees should also be screened to identify those people who are unlikely to integrate well into European societies and will pose a danger to European citizens. As we've seen in Cologne with young, Arab men treating women like sex toys. These people should be quarantined and barred from entering Europe until such time as they can be safely returned to their home country or, dare I say it, 're-educated' and acclimatized to European cultures and values (such as a Woman's right not to be groped. ).
Positive Discrimination (or Racial Profiling) should be employed to fast track the asylum applications of people who pose the least statistical risk. The greatest current terror risk is from the radical fringes of Islam. ISIS are Muslim, semantics aside. You can argue that they aren't good Muslims, or that they follow a twisted and perverted form of Islam, but they are Muslims. Yazidi Christians on the other hand, aren't carrying out terror attacks as far as I'm aware, so they can be prioritized for asylum.
I can't believe I'm going to say this...but David Cameron deserves praise for his wise decision to only take in refugees directly from the refugee centres in Turkey and other Middle East countries, not the hordes of people who have illegally forced their way into Europe and are camping out at the channel tunnel. (Or not - has he actually put that policy into effect or did he chicken out?)
D). Asylum seekers who's immigration applications are approved should be distributed across Europe according to the ability of each nation to accommodate and house them. Britain is a small island nation a fraction the size of Germany or France, and we have a housing shortage - we can barely provide enough housing for our own citizens, never mind hundreds of thousands of refugees. Therefore we cannot accommodate the same number of refugees as Germany or France. Whilst each refugee's circumstances should be taken into account (e.g. what languages they speak, whether they already have family in a particular European country), they should not be given any say in this. There should be no sympathy and tolerance of migrants who cross the entire European continent, bypassing one safe and stable country after another (Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Hungary, Italy, France, Belgium), trying to reach the richest countries with the most generous welfare systems.
E). Illegal immigrants who force their way into European countries should be deported, period. We need to take a hard line on this and crack down on it, otherwise its never going to stop if people know the risk is worth it. The rule of law is being undermined, our immigration laws are not being enforced. Our current policy of open door immigration for anyone and everyone whether they're genuine refugees or not is not sustainable. Sweden proved that when they were forced to close their border...after making a blanket invitation (ditto for Germany).
F). Countries all over the world should be contributing to the response to this refugee crisis, if they aren't already. How many refugees are America and Canada taking? And crucially, how many of the rich(ish) and stable Muslim nations are taking in refugees? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, Qatar? The vast majority of these refugees are Muslim, and would best integrate into other Muslim countries. Its an extreme culture shock for conservative Muslims to suddenly find themselves in the socially and sexually liberal nations of Europe.
To be clear - I don't hold the refugees responsible for this crisis. I lay the blame at the feet of our contemptible and incompetent leaders. We need to stop all this emotive bs like "doing the right thing" and "we have a moral obligation". Wise, sustainable policy decision are never made when Government policy is dictated by emotion and hysterics. Sweden proved that.
If thats too long for you to digest and rebut, feel free to dismiss it out of hand and call me a xenophobe. I expect nothing less.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion. I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf is clearly the sign that you're a relic from cave man times.
SJW's are in a catch-22. Who's rights do they champion? Women's rights, or ethnic minority rights?
Criticize the ethnic minority males carrying out these attacks > get accused of racism and xenophobia. Defend refugees and try to hand waive these attacks as a tiny minorty > get accused of turning a blind eye to misogyny.
Take note First World Feminists, this is what real Misogyny looks like.
"Men who sexually assault women are scumbags and should be dealt with."
I'm exhausted from mentally dealing with this horrible Catch 22, I'm going to need a nap.
You're missing the point. Other SJW's with a different set of priorities will call you racist for calling Arab Muslims scumbags.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I know you've got the sarcasm light on, but friends and myself have jumped into something like that before a few times with the idea of taking as many to ER with us as we could. One thing I cannot stand seeing is someone being mobbed, and I can't understand someone standing there and watching it without doing something.
That's because while your personal religion has had some "hiccups" with women's rights, they grew up decades ago and stopped. Another major belief, not so much. Those men stood there and watched because they didn't really think it was a big deal. Just like that case in FL awhile ago where it was filmed while a group of men gangraped a woman. Or the almost teeth-pulling length of time its taken for women in India to get equal rights in rape cases for women.
But hey, women in KSA, UAE, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, etc. at least have equal rights in the court of law.
Wait, what? They don't? I'm shocked. Wonder what the connection between such disparate ethnic groups across thousands of miles could be. I've got no idea. Anyone else?
This doesn't just have to do with my religion, though. When I lived in PA, the Germans and Italians I knew there were always ready to jump in and stop that kind of crap.
Wait, I'm slow and just caught your meaning I think. What about the native Germans though? I'm trying to understand the circumstance where they would just let this happen.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I definitely think you and Edithae would call me an SJW without a shadow of doubt if you saw my activism, but I think this is quite easy - if someone is in trouble like this, bystanders should do their best to overcome the bystander mentality and do something about it.
The gender, race, ethnicity, age, orientation or whatever of all involved on both sides is irrelevant in the above.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I know you've got the sarcasm light on, but friends and myself have jumped into something like that before a few times with the idea of taking as many to ER with us as we could. One thing I cannot stand seeing is someone being mobbed, and I can't understand someone standing there and watching it without doing something.
That's because while your personal religion has had some "hiccups" with women's rights, they grew up decades ago and stopped. Another major belief, not so much. Those men stood there and watched because they didn't really think it was a big deal. Just like that case in FL awhile ago where it was filmed while a group of men gangraped a woman. Or the almost teeth-pulling length of time its taken for women in India to get equal rights in rape cases for women.
But hey, women in KSA, UAE, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, etc. at least have equal rights in the court of law.
Wait, what? They don't? I'm shocked. Wonder what the connection between such disparate ethnic groups across thousands of miles could be. I've got no idea. Anyone else?
This doesn't just have to do with my religion, though. When I lived in PA, the Germans and Italians I knew there were always ready to jump in and stop that kind of crap.
Oh it has nothing to at all to do with your religion, what you describe is what I feel and have seen. I just wanted to highlight the fact religious adherents can and have changed their views, ie Mormons. It's not at all "unpossible" for Muslim nations to start treating women like, ya know, people. Its just not, ya know, happening.
OT Relapse I probably come down too hard on the Mormon's and I do apologize for that. I've seen the crossing at Lee's Ferry finally last month, which the old school settlers had to cross just to get married, and it blew me away kinda. Couple that with the fact that Mormon's really do seem to be good, honest, and again just overall good people that mean no ill will. I've let my personal beliefs (grew up outside Hill Cumorah) prejudice my thoughts.
I feel like I should be seeing similarities here between the faiths, but I don't. Mormonism has actively tried to renounce it's transgressions against women, other races, and now even gays. Islam seems to be heading the other direction sadly.
EDIT to your edit Relapse, I don't think there were too many native Germans around when this type of gak was happening. Its a crowd so Im sure some were, but doesn't look like the majority.
I definitely think you and Edithae would call me an SJW without a shadow of doubt if you saw my activism, but I think this is quite easy - if someone is in trouble like this, bystanders should do their best to overcome the bystander mentality and do something about it.
The gender, race, ethnicity, age, orientation or whatever of all involved on both sides is irrelevant in the above.
You could not be more wrong. The gender/race/ethnicity or whatever of the bystanders were VERY relevant in this case as to why they did nothing. When your culture tells you women are objects/property you are not likely to step in when you see this type of abuse.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion. I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I definitely think you and Edithae would call me an SJW without a shadow of doubt if you saw my activism, but I think this is quite easy - if someone is in trouble like this, bystanders should do their best to overcome the bystander mentality and do something about it.
The gender, race, ethnicity, age, orientation or whatever of all involved on both sides is irrelevant in the above.
Because that is socially just.
No.
I regard SJW more as a pattern of behaviour, rather than simple activism. People who seek the utter ruination and social ostracisation of somebody for a trivial joke, such as Tim Hunt are SJW's. People who decry a scientist and force him into a humiliating and grovelling public apology for daring to wear a shirt made by his female friend when he should be enjoying the proudest moment of his career are SJWs. People who engage in identity politics and use it as a weapon.
I don't know you well enough nor do I remember the specifics of your contributions to the GamerGate debates a year back to consider you an SJW, but you do think highly of some people I regard to be SJW's and that is where we differ.
And btw I do actually agree with this sentiment...
I definitely think you and Edithae would call me an SJW without a shadow of doubt if you saw my activism, but I think this is quite easy - if someone is in trouble like this, bystanders should do their best to overcome the bystander mentality and do something about it.
...Because that is socially just.
Those are all irrelevant of course. But Culture is relevant. The values, beliefs and systems of morality that a person is raised with shapes their behaviour. We saw that with the men in Cologne who didn't think they were doing anything wrong in assaulting women en masse.
Ashiraya wrote: You misunderstand me. I said it is irrelevant as to what bystanders should do, not what they did.
'Should' was defined by their culture, not your desire.
Frankly, feth your idea of 'should'. What you should do in this context has nothing to do with your culture. You could be a Bosnian Buddhist or a Norwegian Hinduist or an American Christian, it doesn't matter, you shouldn't commit gang violence either way.
Is this not obvious?
FTR I think immigrants who commit serious crimes should be sent back to where they came from. Shoplifting, no. Mass violence, yes.
Man, just yesterday I watched that video of the fat German kid on rollerblades get beat up and laughed at by what seemed to be a few Turk/Arab kids and thought "It'll probably get worse". Then this drops.
Ashiraya wrote: You misunderstand me. I said it is irrelevant as to what bystanders should do, not what they did.
'Should' was defined by their culture, not your desire.
Frankly, feth your idea of 'should'. What you should do in this context has nothing to do with your culture. You could be a Bosnian Buddhist or a Norwegian Hinduist or an American Christian, it doesn't matter, you shouldn't commit gang violence either way.
You are arguing from a Eurocentric, liberal perspective. The bastards responsible for this have very different ideas about what they should and should not do.
Is this not obvious?
To us, yes. To people raised in a genuinely misogynistic culture, no.
FTR I think immigrants who commit serious crimes should be sent back to where they came from. Shoplifting, no. Mass violence, yes.
I agree. But how many of these people will be sent back? No doubt European courts will prioritize their human rights over the rights of their victims.
You're missing the point. Other SJW's with a different set of priorities will call you racist for calling Arab Muslims scumbags.
Pretty sure I was clear about using that term as a derogatory thing and applying it to a whole side of an argument that isn't even present in this thread. Last warning.
That goes for the thread as a whole. There's a lot of things being said in here that are bordering on rude, so cut it. Now.
You are arguing from a Eurocentric, liberal perspective. The bastards responsible for this have very different ideas about what they should and should not do.
Unfortunately indeed so. Though, I like to think that 'don't commit mass violence' is a fairly baseline 'should not do' thing, and that their religions and cultures that say otherwise are simply deceiving.
Educating immigrants (multilingual posters in public transports, schools, etc., are allegedly surprisingly effective in Sweden) and making clear to those who bring violence with them that they have overstayed their welcome is the way forward.
That said, racism is a big issue as well and can make criminals seem worse than they really are, and can even push immigrants to crime. Here in Sweden, an organisation made a test where they let one of their Swedish members and one of their immigrant members separately make job applications with identical qualifications, and the job that was turned down for the immigrants due to, for example, 'no more available places', was often open to the Swede calling a minute later.
The problem we see in the OP is a symptom of a serious cobweb of issues and it's certainly not monodirectional.
Spoiler:
To add to what Motyak said above, I think the problem with the SJW term is not necessarily that it is too harsh (I think it is, but on the other hand it's true that there are people arguing some pretty crazy stuff on the internet, so YMMV), the big problem that makes me never use it is actually that the term is far too easy to apply to just about anyone who disagrees with your side of the argument and immediately paints them with the same brush as said people-arguing-crazy-stuff, and shutting down arguments with labels is a very not-good thing.
That is my take, though on a second thought, it shall perhaps be taken elsewhere. Spoilered just in case.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I definitely think you and Edithae would call me an SJW without a shadow of doubt if you saw my activism, but I think this is quite easy - if someone is in trouble like this, bystanders should do their best to overcome the bystander mentality and do something about it.
The gender, race, ethnicity, age, orientation or whatever of all involved on both sides is irrelevant in the above.
Because that is socially just.
We disagree on a lot, but I think we would be diving into that mob shoulder to shoulder.
I am not sure if I'd dare. I am not very strong, and even if I was I would probably just incite the mob into greater heights of violence, which is hardly a good thing.
What I would do is to get to a safe distance (ie around a corner) and call the police.
I would only intervene if the victim would actually die if I didn't. Otherwise I my attempt wouldn't be very helpful. The police is also equipped and trained to deal with such situations, whereas I am a 19 year old student who can barely best my maths book, much less an angry mob.
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if I'd dare. I am not very strong, and even if I was I would probably just incite the mob into greater heights of violence, which is hardly a good thing.
What I would do is to get to a safe distance (ie around a corner) and call the police.
You might surprise yourself, but it would definitely be good to call the cops so we could at least be scaled off the ground in good time.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I know you've got the sarcasm light on, but friends and myself have jumped into something like that before a few times with the idea of taking as many to ER with us as we could. One thing I cannot stand seeing is someone being mobbed, and I can't understand someone standing there and watching it without doing something.
That's because while your personal religion has had some "hiccups" with women's rights, they grew up decades ago and stopped. Another major belief, not so much. Those men stood there and watched because they didn't really think it was a big deal. Just like that case in FL awhile ago where it was filmed while a group of men gangraped a woman. Or the almost teeth-pulling length of time its taken for women in India to get equal rights in rape cases for women.
But hey, women in KSA, UAE, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tunisia, etc. at least have equal rights in the court of law.
Wait, what? They don't? I'm shocked. Wonder what the connection between such disparate ethnic groups across thousands of miles could be. I've got no idea. Anyone else?
This doesn't just have to do with my religion, though. When I lived in PA, the Germans and Italians I knew there were always ready to jump in and stop that kind of crap.
Oh it has nothing to at all to do with your religion, what you describe is what I feel and have seen. I just wanted to highlight the fact religious adherents can and have changed their views, ie Mormons. It's not at all "unpossible" for Muslim nations to start treating women like, ya know, people. Its just not, ya know, happening.
OT Relapse I probably come down too hard on the Mormon's and I do apologize for that. I've seen the crossing at Lee's Ferry finally last month, which the old school settlers had to cross just to get married, and it blew me away kinda. Couple that with the fact that Mormon's really do seem to be good, honest, and again just overall good people that mean no ill will. I've let my personal beliefs (grew up outside Hill Cumorah) prejudice my thoughts.
I feel like I should be seeing similarities here between the faiths, but I don't. Mormonism has actively tried to renounce it's transgressions against women, other races, and now even gays. Islam seems to be heading the other direction sadly.
EDIT to your edit Relapse, I don't think there were too many native Germans around when this type of gak was happening. Its a crowd so Im sure some were, but doesn't look like the majority.
No problems. I once did a handcart trek with some youth that retraced the path of a company that got caught in a winter storm and stranded in Wyoming. It was in June and it was still colder than hell. They had several people die and had to leave them to the wolves just over a hill from their camp. It was serious faith and belief in what they were a part of that kept them going until help arrived from Salt Lake.
motyak wrote: Pretty sure I was clear about using that term as a derogatory thing and applying it to a whole side of an argument that isn't even present in this thread. Last warning.
That goes for the thread as a whole. There's a lot of things being said in here that are bordering on rude, so cut it. Now.
I have not addressed anyone here as SJW, save when d-usa put himself in the abstract role of "SJW" to rebutt my argument and I responded in kind with an abstract reply. And I was trying to make the point that there are conflicting issues in this debate - sexism vs racism. For years, people who warned of this were dismissed as racists. Now its happened. If you want me to knock it off because its Off-Topic, I will. But I reject any accusation that I'm using it as an insult against people here.
Unfortunately indeed so. Though, I like to think that 'don't commit mass violence' is a fairly baseline 'should not do' thing, and that their religions and cultures that say otherwise are simply deceiving.
I agree. Human beings are not born inherently 'evil', save for people born with mental illness or chemical imbalances or w.e. (e.g. psychopaths). And they can usually be treated anyway. But all too often, certain religious and cultural values can turn them 'evil'.
Educating immigrants (multilingual posters in public transports, schools, etc., are allegedly surprisingly effective in Sweden) and making clear to those who bring violence with them that they have overstayed their welcome is the way forward.
I'd prefer this was carried before they came here, as a pre-requisite to entry. Our Government's first priority should be to protect our own citizens. This should be carried out in refugee centres in Turkey and elsewhere as part of the immigration process.
That said, racism is a big issue as well and can make criminals seem worse than they really are, and can even push immigrants to crime. Here in Sweden, an organisation made a test where they let one of their Swedish members and one of their immigrant members separately make job applications with identical qualifications, and the job that was turned down for the immigrants due to, for example, 'no more available places', was often open to the Swede calling a minute later.
To best way to deal with people's prejudices are to deal with the root causes of those prejudices. Very often, people aren't truly racist, they're just distrustful and fearful of a certain group (.e.g. Muslims) because of a negative perception of the whole group caused by a minority fringe behaving badly. Crack down on that fringe, and hard, to stop it giving the rest of them a bad name.
The problem we see in the OP is a symptom of a serious cobweb of issues and it's certainly not monodirectional.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'd prefer this was carried before they came here, as a pre-requisite to entry. Our Government's first priority should be to protect our own citizens. This should be carried out in refugee centres in Turkey and elsewhere as part of the immigration process.
How do you do this in practice, though? If we put in a questionnaire for new immigrants regarding their thoughts on these subjects, they are certainly going to realise that not being as nice as possible will make us shut them out, and so they'll just lie instead.
nels1031 wrote: Man, just yesterday I watched that video of the fat German kid on rollerblades get beat up and laughed at by what seemed to be a few Turk/Arab kids and thought "It'll probably get worse". Then this drops.
As for that..Wow. In the course of looking for that video, I found another similar one.
The kid with roller blades you refer to.
And another kid who is set upon by a gang of kids who follow him down a street (though not as violent as the other video).
I was that kid in school. Self defense should be a voluntary part of school curriculums. I recently joined a Karate club after being threatened with violence at work (which very nearly came to blows). I wish I'd done it as a kid.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'd prefer this was carried before they came here, as a pre-requisite to entry. Our Government's first priority should be to protect our own citizens. This should be carried out in refugee centres in Turkey and elsewhere as part of the immigration process.
How do you do this in practice, though? If we put in a questionnaire for new immigrants regarding their thoughts on these subjects, they are certainly going to realise that not being as nice as possible will make us shut them out, and so they'll just lie instead.
I don't know, it isn't my job to figure out how to do it in practice. Its just something I think needs to be done for the sake of social cohesion in Europe and to protect European citizens.
A questionnaire obviously wouldn't work. People would have to be monitored and their interactions with others (women, other ethnic groups etc) observed. Maybe have them interviewed by psychologists, like a psychiatric assessment to identify warning signs.
Its kind of hard to regulate it, as it is not even that much of a race issue. They might have different customs and views, and that is probably where the problem stems from, that or most of these people are serial rapists. Which I doubt.
I do think it is pretty interesitng this happened.
No SJW things, but there are idiots or radicals who are defending the idiots who performed the rape, and assualts on twitter.
Which is probably why I stopped using twitter in the first place.
But offtopic.....
The problem I think is that people aren't willing to talk about the issue which is how would we prevent this from happening? do we give women self defense training and make it mandatory for high school students or women in general? Or do we approach and have tighter restrictions or a bit of both?
I mean its not blaming the victim if I say "there needs to be a better defense for this, more officers, and more security to prevent this from happening."
Or you know making an example out of the people who committed the crime and deporting them permanently, would be pretty severe.
Its kind of hard to regulate it, as it is not even that much of a race issue. They might have different customs and views, and that is probably where the problem stems from, that or most of these people are serial rapists. Which I doubt.
Of course it has nothing to do with race. The only link to race is statistical probability. People of certain religious or cultural groups are statistically more likely to be of a particular race due to geographic distribution.
No SJW things, but there are idiots or radicals who are defending the idiots who performed the rape, and assualts on twitter.
Which is the point I was making earlier. What takes priority, when social justice issues come into conflict?
Groping and raping a woman is self evidently (to us anyway) wrong and misogynist. When its an ethnic minority responsible...it often gets hand waived away as racism.
The problem I think is that people aren't willing to talk about the issue which is how would we prevent this from happening? do we give women self defense training and make it mandatory for high school students or women in general? Or do we approach and have tighter restrictions or a bit of both?
I mean its not blaming the victim if I say "there needs to be a better defense for this, more officers, and more security to prevent this from happening."
Or you know making an example out of the people who committed the crime and deporting them permanently, would be pretty severe.
Its not victim blaming to advocate self defense. But it is a realistic acknowledgement that all too often nobody gives a gak about you and the only person you can truly rely on to keep you safe is yourself. Self defense should be considered as one of those life skills like driving that, whilst not essential for absolutely everyone, should be encouraged. People who are subjected to bullying certainly should be encouraged to try it.
As I mentioned earlier, I was attacked at work when someone threatened to "kick my fething teeth out" and grabbed me, and very nearly lost it completely. My employer wasn't interested and just went through the motions. (I no longer work there). I've since resolved to join a Karate club (had 3 lessons so far and it was surprisingly fun) because that incident was an eye opener for me and I've lost faith in others and grown more cynical.
I actually did Taekwondo for a couple months as a kid but stopped (had an ingrowing toenail severe enough to require surgery- it was gross and embarrassing and so I left). I wish I'd stuck with it, or resumed afterwards. My childhood would have been so much difference if I had the ability to defend myself and the self confidence that comes with that. We'll see how long I stick it out this time. I'm an adult now and somewhat more outgoing and less sheltered than back then, so maybe.
(I no longer have the toenail. ).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
I'd prefer she engaged in the literal kind to be honest.
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if I'd dare. I am not very strong, and even if I was I would probably just incite the mob into greater heights of violence, which is hardly a good thing.
What I would do is to get to a safe distance (ie around a corner) and call the police.
I would only intervene if the victim would actually die if I didn't. Otherwise I my attempt wouldn't be very helpful. The police is also equipped and trained to deal with such situations, whereas I am a 19 year old student who can barely best my maths book, much less an angry mob.
From what I've read, police were not unaware of the incidents, including as they happened, they just didn't do anything. I'd always thought that while Germany's military declined into hilariously underfunded obsolescence and irrelevance that the police were actually still pretty good, but I guess grabbing one's ankles has become the preferred German response to aggression at both the macro and micro levels.
The Germans have spent the last 70 years in a cycle of self hatred enforced from without and within, to the point of people being looked down on for being proud of being German by other Germans. Many of them have internalized shame to the point where it has become self destructive and there is almost no drive to stand up for their values and/or identity. I imagine the average German, upon seeing a group of non-white males assaulting a german girl would be more worried about being perceived as being a racist for doing anything about it than anything else.
Out of the twelve or so barfights I was involved in while I was in Germany, roughly one hundred percent of them were against Turkish men who thought we were making time with their ladies, and roughly zero percent of them were against German men; while this is wholly anecdotal it should help illustrate the relative belligerence of parties involved.
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
By scrapping or at least temporarily suspending the Schengen Agreement and re-establishing national border controls. Border control wasn't fantasy before the Schengen Area was established, and its not a fantasy for the UK and other countries today that are not signatories to the Schengen Agreement.
A). If these people are refugees, not economic migrants, then they should be treated as should. They should be obligated to claim asylum and remain in the first stable country they arrive in. For the vast majority of Syrians, this is probably Turkey. For Africans - Tunisia or perhaps Egypt depending on how the security situations in those countries develop with the recent attack(s) by ISIS.
B). We should be throwing all our resources behind these countries designated as refugee holding centres to support them. We should be funding the construction of a whole network of refugee centres along the Turkish border to make sure these refugees can be provided for and housed in a safe environment. International Aid budgets should be redirected to Turkey and these other designated countries. India is rich enough to afford a space program. Why are we enabling the neglect of their own poor and indirectly subsidizing their space program?
C). Refugees who wish to immigrate into European countries should apply for entry visas and/or citizenship at these refugee centres and go through a proper asylum process. Refugees should be screened to the best of our Intelligence Services' abilities (I accept that this will be a difficult almost impossible task, but we should still try) to weed out ISIS and other radical Jihadiist groups. Refugees should also be screened to identify those people who are unlikely to integrate well into European societies and will pose a danger to European citizens. As we've seen in Cologne with young, Arab men treating women like sex toys. These people should be quarantined and barred from entering Europe until such time as they can be safely returned to their home country or, dare I say it, 're-educated' and acclimatized to European cultures and values (such as a Woman's right not to be groped. ).
Positive Discrimination (or Racial Profiling) should be employed to fast track the asylum applications of people who pose the least statistical risk. The greatest current terror risk is from the radical fringes of Islam. ISIS are Muslim, semantics aside. You can argue that they aren't good Muslims, or that they follow a twisted and perverted form of Islam, but they are Muslims. Yazidi Christians on the other hand, aren't carrying out terror attacks as far as I'm aware, so they can be prioritized for asylum.
I can't believe I'm going to say this...but David Cameron deserves praise for his wise decision to only take in refugees directly from the refugee centres in Turkey and other Middle East countries, not the hordes of people who have illegally forced their way into Europe and are camping out at the channel tunnel. (Or not - has he actually put that policy into effect or did he chicken out?)
D). Asylum seekers who's immigration applications are approved should be distributed across Europe according to the ability of each nation to accommodate and house them. Britain is a small island nation a fraction the size of Germany or France, and we have a housing shortage - we can barely provide enough housing for our own citizens, never mind hundreds of thousands of refugees. Therefore we cannot accommodate the same number of refugees as Germany or France. Whilst each refugee's circumstances should be taken into account (e.g. what languages they speak, whether they already have family in a particular European country), they should not be given any say in this. There should be no sympathy and tolerance of migrants who cross the entire European continent, bypassing one safe and stable country after another (Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Hungary, Italy, France, Belgium), trying to reach the richest countries with the most generous welfare systems.
E). Illegal immigrants who force their way into European countries should be deported, period. We need to take a hard line on this and crack down on it, otherwise its never going to stop if people know the risk is worth it. The rule of law is being undermined, our immigration laws are not being enforced. Our current policy of open door immigration for anyone and everyone whether they're genuine refugees or not is not sustainable. Sweden proved that when they were forced to close their border...after making a blanket invitation (ditto for Germany).
F). Countries all over the world should be contributing to the response to this refugee crisis, if they aren't already. How many refugees are America and Canada taking? And crucially, how many of the rich(ish) and stable Muslim nations are taking in refugees? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, Qatar? The vast majority of these refugees are Muslim, and would best integrate into other Muslim countries. Its an extreme culture shock for conservative Muslims to suddenly find themselves in the socially and sexually liberal nations of Europe.[/spoiler]
To be clear - I don't hold the refugees responsible for this crisis. I lay the blame at the feet of our contemptible and incompetent leaders. We need to stop all this emotive bs like "doing the right thing" and "we have a moral obligation". Wise, sustainable policy decision are never made when Government policy is dictated by emotion and hysterics. Sweden proved that.
If thats too long for you to digest and rebut, feel free to dismiss it out of hand and call me a xenophobe. I expect nothing less.
I still think you are a xenophobe, but I'm going to answer this anyway. Not dismissing what you are saying out of hand, I just think you are being very unrealistic.
Point A: You say scrapping Schlengen, and that might have to happen. But you probably absolutely do not get how important Schlengen is for average Europeans who work across the boarder in a neighbouring country. There are millions of commuters across Europe who use the freedom of movement granted by Schlengen to get to work every day. The effects of the shut down on commuters between Denmark and Sweden is already impacting workers in both countries who commute across the boarder to work. It's hard for someone living on an island to understand, but imagine if you had to have boarder controls with scotland and wales, and the inconvenience it would cause.
That said, I recognise that something might need to be done, but it would have to be more careful and graduated than "scrapping" Schlengen.
Point B: The india point is a non-sequitor. But Turkey, Jordan and the other neighbouring states have taken 95% of all refugees. If you think the numbers we are dealing with are difficult, think about that for a minute. Tiny Jordan, with an economy an order of magnitude the size of any European nation, is taking on many times more refugees than any of us plan to. There are simple spatial and infastructural problems that are not solvable in a humane timeframe even if we redirected much more money into the camps. Said money would also be difficult to oversee and control in a foreign country and much of it would be lost to corruption. That said, yes, we should ALSO redirect money to the camps, but if we did, that would do little to prevent migration from North Africa, where large refugee camps do not exist, and the dissolution of states is what we are dealing with. (Cheers for that, Britain and France!)
Point C: Well, of course people should go through the correct channels. The current crisis is a combination of a sustained lack of funding for refugee services in European countries (much more is invested in pointless "defenses" that don't work than in centres to deal with actual refugees. Your screening point reads nicely, but in practical terms without more resources it is pretty impossible given the size of the current migration, which is unprecedented in the last 70 years. If you send the asylum claimants back to Syria, it will not prevent them coming again, as their lives are legitimately at risk there. Why else are they making the dangerous journey in the first place? They will come back but this time they will try to avoid going through the correct channels which will create bigger problems in the long term. Criminals should be arrested and deported, but I disagree with your idea of "fast track" discrimination against muslims because it is not realistic nor will it achieve the outcome you want.
Point D: It's convenient for you to say that refugees should not cross Europe, as you are on the extreme periphary of Europe compared to the refugee source countries. Probably why the UK is so cavalier about intervening as it knows it will not have to deal with the consequences. The UK is a rich country and can deal with as many refugees as france or Germany. It's the South East that is overpopulated, plenty of places in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have the opposite problem. Other countries have similar housing issues to the UK, you are not special despite what your press tells you. Apart from that I generally agree that refugees should be distributed according to ability to cope with them and that this needs to be hashed out between countries. In essence, this is where the EU solidarity has fallen down. The border countries, which tend to be less rich than the others, have been dealing with much bigger numbers of refugees than everyone else due to the Dublin Regulation, and frankly, they urgently need our support.
Point E: This is a silly point - blanket open door immigration does not exist. Germany welcomed Syrian refugees, others will be deported, but this is a long process. I don't understand what is meant by "illegal immigrants who force" - do you mean Syrians, and Libyans who have legitimate asylum claims? Etrians who also do? Who exactly do you mean? Because I'm willing to bet they are a tiny proportion of the actual migrants, and I agree - if they are economic migrants coming from a stable country (not an overstretched refugee camp) then yeah, they shouldn't get asylum or a visa without going through the proper channels. That's obvious, and I don't see anyone arguing for anything else?
Point F: Your allies the Saudis and their various client states in the rich Gulf areas have taken zero refugees right now, which is of course disgusting. But Saudi Arabia being disgusting, who's shocked.
I still think you are missing my point when I say you are unrealistic. How can we stop this human wave? It is coming, and it was coming well before Merkel said anything. People are dying in huge numbers fleeing a war, and they were doing that with or without our rescue operations. Do you want a higher death toll to put people off? It won't, and history will remember you as a callous bastard. Do you want boarders to be covered in fences and troops? This is unrealistic for most of Europe and the people would continue to come ANYWAY. We don't have enough troops to man the entire boarder, and in any case, what are we going to do, shoot large groups of unarmed refugees including large numbers of women and children? Again, this is unrealistic and unethical. We have to deal with this problem, big as it is, and difficult as it is. I hate this phrase, but there is no alternative.
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
My thoughts too. Drunk people molesting people is hardly unique for immigrants. The scale here is bigger than "usual", to be sure, but there's plenty of low-life scum who would do similar things if they thought they could get away with it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to blame the US for the attitude towards women on display in most Middle Eastern countries.
The US invasion of Iraq has nothing at all to do with North African economic refugees' treatment of women in Germany. There's certainly a culprit, but it isn't Uncle Sam.
The US invasion of Iraq has nothing at all to do with North African economic refugees' treatment of women in Germany. There's certainly a culprit, but it isn't Uncle Sam.
Great, can we stop blaming this on the refugee crisis then? Y'know, seeing as Syria isn't in North Africa?
The US invasion of Iraq has nothing at all to do with North African economic refugees' treatment of women in Germany. There's certainly a culprit, but it isn't Uncle Sam.
Come on now, all the Turks and Algerians acting out in Germany were clearly victims of the US invasion of Iraq in some way. AlmightyWalrus could not possibly be using his dislike of US foreign policy to excuse/explain their behavior for any other reason, would he?
The US invasion of Iraq has nothing at all to do with North African economic refugees' treatment of women in Germany. There's certainly a culprit, but it isn't Uncle Sam.
Come on now, all the Turks and Algerians acting out in Germany were clearly victims of the US invasion of Iraq in some way. AlmightyWalrus could not possibly be using his dislike of US foreign policy to excuse/explain their behavior for any other reason, would he?
Where am I excusing or explaining their behaviour using the US invasion of Iraq? The point I was making was that we're facing the biggest wave of refugees since WWII because the US, the UK and a bunch of other countries who are now trying to bail out of the consequences bombed Iraq. Strawman harder next time.
Howard A Treesong wrote: There are many stories of Western women being mobbed and molested/raped by crowds in Middle Eastern countries. Reporter Lara Logan was set upon by a crowd of 200 in Egypt who together stripped and assaulted her like a pack of animals. There's simply not the same value placed on women's rights. Some of these countries accuse rape victims of adultery after all, there's no consideration of women being a human victim. You bring a swarm of that culture/people into one place, say a thousand for new year celebration, in a western country and the exact same could happen.
This I believe is the problem with mass immigration. Moderate Arab culture is still well behind western culture. We keep being told that there will be very few extremists and that most are 'moderate', so it's racist to be concerned. But I imagine this crowd are to be considered 'moderates', but still this culture is still very jarring in our culture. It means hundreds of these supposed moderate minded people are actually willing to violate women en masse and many more will not come forward to point the finger and give evidence against others in their community. There must be loads of witnesses to these attacks. Where are they? That's why no one will be prosecuted and why women are being given advice instead to give them a wide berth.
European women should not have to hide in fear, cross a road to avoid them. They are guests in our countries and if they do not obey laws and cultural standards they should be dealt with and told what is expected, laws and such on arrival in Germany etc.
We are told to respect other nations when we visit or live in them. No difference. If you act like that, you are not welcome in our nations.
Send a strong message, others may simply fall into line.
Its been several days correct? That means nothing will be done.
Libya and North Africa generally is also destabilised by the general malaise in the Arab/Muslim world which is a reaction in part (I emphasize, IN PART) to US foreign policy. Though the lion's share of the blame lies with those countries themselves, US and in the case of Algeria, France, share some degree of responsibility.
I don't expect this point to be taken well, but it stands.
MrDwhitey: If you have xenophobic attitudes, support xenophobic policies, aren't you a xenophobe? Xenophobia is common in the UK right. There's much worse insults than xenophobe in my opinion - I'm not calling anyone racist for example.
Honestly, with some of the gak that gets stated on this forum, "hurr durr, maybe we should just glass the middle east, hurr durr", you can never truly tell. Poe's Law and all that.
My snarky reply was actually aimed at placing the responsibility for the state of the region partially at the door of the UK and the US for their failed interventions in the region.
Neither the US nor the UK have attacked Syria. Thats like blaming Brazil for Syria. Quit blaming the West for problems others make.
My snarky reply was actually aimed at placing the responsibility for the state of the region partially at the door of the UK and the US for their failed interventions in the region.
Neither the US nor the UK have attacked Syria. Thats like blaming Brazil for Syria. Quit blaming the West for problems others make.
You may have missed the whole furor over the British Parliament voting to bomb Syria. I'm fairly sure that qualifies as attacking them
My snarky reply was actually aimed at placing the responsibility for the state of the region partially at the door of the UK and the US for their failed interventions in the region.
Neither the US nor the UK have attacked Syria. Thats like blaming Brazil for Syria. Quit blaming the West for problems others make.
Geography 101: Syria is to the west of what country (and no, Iran is not the country I'm after, nor is Jordan)?
Honestly, with some of the gak that gets stated on this forum, "hurr durr, maybe we should just glass the middle east, hurr durr", you can never truly tell. Poe's Law and all that.
This is true, I generally give the benefit of the doubt if there's a smiley. Unless whembly posted it of course, that guys crazy.
I also definitely think some cultures are worse than others. As a friend just said, cultures that hang toilet paper over the back instead of to the front are clearly inferior.
The reason I personally would dislike the idea of being called a xenophobe is because I see it as disliking people of other cultures for no rational reason, they're just "different" and therefore "wrong", and then from that starting point looking at things from an unfair standpoint to confirm their bias.
For example, if a culture has as part of it the dehumanisation of women, then I would say that that aspect of that culture is completely wrong and inferior. If people following it were to come to the UK for example, I would fully expect them to drop that part of it. Drop their entire culture and just became 100% fried breakfast eating Brits? No. Just get rid of the parts that go against human rights.
Doubt Merkel is going anywhere - there's no one who is a real threat to her leadership of the CDU. It's definitely going to be used against her by the xenophobes in her party though.
Xenophobes?
You really don't see a fething connection between out of control mass immigration of brutalized refugees from cultures that are deeply misogynistic, fleeing active warzones... and a gigantic mob rampaging through a European city raping women en masse?
If there was ever an argument for controlling a country's borders and being very selective and careful about who is permitted to enter...this is it.
I think we can all sleep soundly knowing that this thread, like so many others, seems to be headed straight down the quagmire of realism vs. post-colonial theory vs. critical theory.
A country can easily secure its frontier: I mean look at Hungary, or just remember the Iron curtain.
USA has nothing to do with north African, in deed. Even if the mob wasn't composed by Syrian refugees, the fact it is composed by immigrants / sons of immigrants should make us stop to let those "refugees" in.
Firstly, Europe can't save all the poor in the world
Then, they don't integrate
And finally they are attacking us.
Seriously, just let them drowning in the Aegean, and they will stop coming.
I don't want my children to grow up in the islamic Republic of France, near to new turkey Germany. It shouldn't be that way.
USA has nothing to do with north African, in deed. Even if the mob wasn't composed by Syrian refugees, the fact it is composed by immigrants / sons of immigrants should make us stop to let those "refugees" in.
Is there a reason you put "refugees" in quotation marks? Did you miss the little genocidal conflict in Syria?
Firstly, Europe can't save all the poor in the world
We're not taking 5 %. Most of Europe isn't even trying. Considering our standard of living is partially dependent on the rest of the world being out of luck, it'd rather cowardly to just throw our hands in the air and give up.
Seriously, just let them drowning in the Aegean, and they will stop coming.
You're despicable.
godardc wrote: I don't want my children to grow up in the islamic Republic of France, near to new turkey Germany. It shouldn't be that way.
Funny you should say that, because I'd rather not see the Fourth Reich rise. Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious, and with the anti-intellectualistic streak a lot of the right-wing parties in Europe have now there's a fair chance that we're going to feth up royally.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't see how constantly labelling people as xenophobic is any less rude than calling people SJW.
Because painting Syrian refugees as all being violent murder-rapists because of something apparently done by people from or descendant from North Africa IS xenophobia.
Relapse wrote: In all of this, where the hell were the men to defend the women? I think most posters here would be in the middle of that punching, elbowing and kicking any man or group they saw abusing women in such an outrageous fashion.
I know if it happened here where I live, these guys would have gotten a severe beat down by the local populace.
That's a totally sexist stance at least according to all the SJWs. No woman needs a man to step in and do anything for her and by suggesting that a man should fight on her behalf it's clearly a sign that you're a dusty relic from cave man times.
I definitely think you and Edithae would call me an SJW without a shadow of doubt if you saw my activism, but I think this is quite easy - if someone is in trouble like this, bystanders should do their best to overcome the bystander mentality and do something about it.
The gender, race, ethnicity, age, orientation or whatever of all involved on both sides is irrelevant in the above.
Because that is socially just.
Thats also mind numbingly stupid. Is "socially just" going to pay your medical bills when they curb stomp you? Is "Socially just" gong to take care of your family? Is "socially just" going to compensate you for the permanent injuries you suffer? I've done that, and paid for it, permanently. Never again. Never again. You're on your on your own.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: The Germans have spent the last 70 years in a cycle of self hatred enforced from without and within, to the point of people being looked down on for being proud of being German by other Germans. Many of them have internalized shame to the point where it has become self destructive and there is almost no drive to stand up for their values and/or identity. I imagine the average German, upon seeing a group of non-white males assaulting a german girl would be more worried about being perceived as being a racist for doing anything about it than anything else.
Out of the twelve or so barfights I was involved in while I was in Germany, roughly one hundred percent of them were against Turkish men who thought we were making time with their ladies, and roughly zero percent of them were against German men; while this is wholly anecdotal it should help illustrate the relative belligerence of parties involved.
Well I'm sure you probably were actually, but the important thing is, did you win? To quote the Bard that is Burt Reynolds" " Gimme somebody!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Libya and North Africa generally is also destabilised by the general malaise in the Arab/Muslim world which is a reaction in part (I emphasize, IN PART) to US foreign policy. Though the lion's share of the blame lies with those countries themselves, US and in the case of Algeria, France, share some degree of responsibility.
I don't expect this point to be taken well, but it stands.
MrDwhitey: If you have xenophobic attitudes, support xenophobic policies, aren't you a xenophobe? Xenophobia is common in the UK right. There's much worse insults than xenophobe in my opinion - I'm not calling anyone racist for example.
Libya was Europe's baby, not ours. The US hasn't been involved in North Africa since that Desert Fox thing.
My snarky reply was actually aimed at placing the responsibility for the state of the region partially at the door of the UK and the US for their failed interventions in the region.
Neither the US nor the UK have attacked Syria. Thats like blaming Brazil for Syria. Quit blaming the West for problems others make.
You may have missed the whole furor over the British Parliament voting to bomb Syria. I'm fairly sure that qualifies as attacking them
BUT THEY DIDN'T. They may be in fact targetting ISIL, but thats much later.
Frazzled wrote: This is what happens when you import hundreds of thousands of men of fighting age into a completely different country. How's that working out for you Germany?
I mean you don't want to say "We told you so!"... but... we told you so!
Er...hey Mod, another Mod said Ixnay on the Social Justicey...
Another mod said no using the term SJW to dismiss a whole side of the argument/set up strawmen/etc. When I just read ITT someone advocating for just letting people drown, the term xenophobe seems like it fits right in.
Wouldn't fighting for justice make one a social justice warrior? (asked the father of one)
I don't get the negative connotation, but thats for another thread.
As for letting people drown, I am not sure about Australia, but there is no common law duty to aid. I am not offering that as a policy (I thought I was hardcore) merely that there is no duty, legally, or on behalf of a country.
Thats also mind numbingly stupid. Is "socially just" going to pay your medical bills when they curb stomp you? Is "Socially just" gong to take care of your family? Is "socially just" going to compensate you for the permanent injuries you suffer? I've done that, and paid for it, permanently. Never again. Never again. You're on your on your own.
Retreating around the corner and calling the police is not going to cause you permanent injuries.
Thats also mind numbingly stupid. Is "socially just" going to pay your medical bills when they curb stomp you? Is "Socially just" gong to take care of your family? Is "socially just" going to compensate you for the permanent injuries you suffer? I've done that, and paid for it, permanently. Never again. Never again. You're on your on your own.
Retreating around the corner and calling the police is not going to cause you permanent injuries.
I mentioned it before in this thread, but the cops were alerted in several of these incidents. It didn't do much good.
If you call the cops and alert them, and they fail to act on your alarm, they can get in serious trouble.
In Sweden anyway. I can't imagine it's much different in Germany.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Agreed, but when I replied you had not stated that yet.
Spoiler:
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if I'd dare. I am not very strong, and even if I was I would probably just incite the mob into greater heights of violence, which is hardly a good thing.
What I would do is to get to a safe distance (ie around a corner) and call the police.
I would only intervene if the victim would actually die if I didn't. Otherwise I my attempt wouldn't be very helpful. The police is also equipped and trained to deal with such situations, whereas I am a 19 year old student who can barely best my maths book, much less an angry mob.
Ashiraya wrote: If you call the cops and alert them, and they fail to act on your alarm, they can get in serious trouble.
In Sweden anyway. I can't imagine it's much different in Germany.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Agreed, but when I replied you had not stated that yet.
Spoiler:
Ashiraya wrote: I am not sure if I'd dare. I am not very strong, and even if I was I would probably just incite the mob into greater heights of violence, which is hardly a good thing.
What I would do is to get to a safe distance (ie around a corner) and call the police.
I would only intervene if the victim would actually die if I didn't. Otherwise I my attempt wouldn't be very helpful. The police is also equipped and trained to deal with such situations, whereas I am a 19 year old student who can barely best my maths book, much less an angry mob.
4th post on page 4, Frazz.
THe fact your getting help is a big thing, one person can only do so much, but getting the alert out means you have far more support on the way and ploice often are well trained to deal with trouble. better than average person
Ashiraya wrote: If you call the cops and alert them, and they fail to act on your alarm, they can get in serious trouble.
In Sweden anyway. I can't imagine it's much different in Germany.
Well, the exact opposite is true in the US (where courts have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect you), so that may be where the disconnect is.
Regardless, the "serious trouble" they're getting into in this case apparently involves a meeting and then a declaration from the mayor that those darn German women really should do a better job of protecting themselves from this sort of thing.
Seaward wrote: Well, the exact opposite is true in the US (where courts have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect you)
Wait, seriously? What? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
Yeah, seriously, unfortunately. They are responsible for protecting the public at large, not any one specific person, so are shielded for liability if they do not help specific people.
motyak wrote: Another mod said no using the term SJW to dismiss a whole side of the argument/set up strawmen/etc. When I just read ITT someone advocating for just letting people drown,the term xenophobe seems like it fits right in.
motyak wrote: Don't turn this into a "lol SJW rahrahrah" thing,that's just trying to insult and shut down a large number of people who take part in these discussions by applying a term to them which is used in a derogatory fashion.Don't do it, it's not polite and it's not how you have an honest discussion.
Pretty sure I was clear about using that term as a derogatory thing
There's a lot of things being said in here that are bordering on rude, so cut it. Now.[
Derogatory terms like racist and xenophobe are frequently thrown around to insult people and shut down their arguments, in the same manner that you say SJW is used. And yet you permit the former.
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
My thoughts too. Drunk people molesting people is hardly unique for immigrants. The scale here is bigger than "usual", to be sure, but there's plenty of low-life scum who would do similar things if they thought they could get away with it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
I thought it was largely the Arab Spring that so many people here were praising which led to this.
Seaward wrote: Well, the exact opposite is true in the US (where courts have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect you)
Wait, seriously? What? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I can see why you see the need to walk around with guns now. O.o
You should get that sorted out, seriously.
Around here, it is pretty much the point of the police!
Police forces across Europe are overwhelmed and lack the resources to deal with huge influxes of people. There is literally nothing they can do to stop this (see video below) short of deploying hundreds if not thousands of Riot Police en masse along with water cannon and that takes time, planning and resources.
Seaward wrote: Well, the exact opposite is true in the US (where courts have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect you)
Wait, seriously? What? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I can see why you see the need to walk around with guns now. O.o
You should get that sorted out, seriously.
Around here, it is pretty much the point of the police!
There is a very good reason for this though. The police literally cannot protect you in many situations. Thus making them have a legal obligation to do something which is impossible can cause major problems.
If they had an obligation to protect everybody, the following situation could happen. Old lady lives outside of town. Someone begins breaking into her house and she calls police. They are twenty minutes away. She ends up being murdered long before the police arrive. Her son could then sue the police for failing to protect her. That's why we have the police not have an obligation to protect you.
Police exist to enforce the law. Protecting people is secondary.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Police forces across Europe are overwhelmed and lack the resources to deal with huge influxes of people. There is literally nothing they can do to stop this (see video below) short of deploying hundreds if not thousands of Riot Police en masse along with water cannon and that takes time, planning and resources.
That's what happens when you allow more people in than your country can absorb and assimilate properly.
Seaward wrote: Well, the exact opposite is true in the US (where courts have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect you)
Wait, seriously? What? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I can see why you see the need to walk around with guns now. O.o
You should get that sorted out, seriously.
Around here, it is pretty much the point of the police!
There is a very good reason for this though. The police literally cannot protect you in many situations. Thus making them have a legal obligation to do something which is impossible can cause major problems.
If they had an obligation to protect everybody, the following situation could happen. Old lady lives outside of town. Someone begins breaking into her house and she calls police. They are twenty minutes away. She ends up being murdered long before the police arrive. Her son could then sue the police for failing to protect her. That's why we have the police not have an obligation to protect you.
Police exist to enforce the law. Protecting people is secondary.
Which is why there's not a duty to protect someone, but rather a duty to try to protect someone. In your scenario, the police would not be culpable because there wasn't anything they could do, but at least they'd tried.
Grey Templar wrote: Police exist to enforce the law. Protecting people is secondary.
And you wonder why your government is so incompetent...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Police forces across Europe are overwhelmed and lack the resources to deal with huge influxes of people. There is literally nothing they can do to stop this (see video below) short of deploying hundreds if not thousands of Riot Police en masse along with water cannon and that takes time, planning and resources.
That's what happens when you allow more people in than your country can absorb and assimilate properly.
Which wouldn't be happening if the rest of Europe weren't chickening out of helping.
I'm sure if you look up- the actual case law/statutes in your country, you'll find the police have no legal duty to protect you, or are legally protected from being sued.
Wow people in this thread really showed their true colors.
drown in the aegean
Holy lord that is probably why I don't trust people.
If they had an obligation to protect everybody, the following situation could happen. Old lady lives outside of town. Someone begins breaking into her house and she calls police. They are twenty minutes away. She ends up being murdered long before the police arrive. Her son could then sue the police for failing to protect her. That's why we have the police not have an obligation to protect you.
Police exist to enforce the law. Protecting people is secondary.
The police can't protect everyone. I mean to counter this I could say a Lifeguard has the duty to act and protect. If someone breaks a rule we aren't going to say oh this person is drowning, but I am dealing with an injury, so I can't do anything. Priortization usually happens and if we fail to save their life (IE they flatlined, and we did all we could do) then you won't get sued. Because under the good samartian laws you are not obligated to save someone if they are dead. You have the duty to act, if you screwed up, you will be charged and fined, sued etc. If you don't then you have nothing to worry about.
Police in the united states exist to enforce the law and protect people second. That is not true for the rest of the world.
In a perfect world it would be protecting people first, and then enforcing the law.
In general the United States has quite a few interesting things, but that doesn't really matter for this thread. Germany is facing this problem and my questions still have gone unanswered from before. Mostly in prevention, how do we deal with this? What would the punishments be at best?
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
My thoughts too. Drunk people molesting people is hardly unique for immigrants. The scale here is bigger than "usual", to be sure, but there's plenty of low-life scum who would do similar things if they thought they could get away with it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
Sorry, I missed the part where I personally had anything to do with any of this, in any way shape or form possible, considering that I've never been a proponent of the Iraq war nor a proponent of intervening in the affairs of Arab Muslim nations. On top of that, I don't even vote, and my payment of taxes is completely involuntary. Perhaps you could explain that part?
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Bull. If the police arive on the scene and catch someone raping someone in flagrante delicto they can totally intervene before it gets worse. Further, the inability to protect everyone at once is not a valid reason not to try.
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
My thoughts too. Drunk people molesting people is hardly unique for immigrants. The scale here is bigger than "usual", to be sure, but there's plenty of low-life scum who would do similar things if they thought they could get away with it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
Sorry, I missed the part where I personally had anything to do with any of this, in any way shape or form possible, considering that I've never been a proponent of the Iraq war nor a proponent of intervening in the affairs of Arab Muslim nations. On top of that, I don't even vote, and my payment of taxes is completely involuntary. Perhaps you could explain that part?
Part of the responsibility of a democracy is to own up to mistakes made in the past, even if one weren't in favour of them. Considering your posting history on Dakka I think it's safe to say that you're not in favour of helping anyone, anywhere, ever.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Not true. They can be proactive through the use of foot patrols. Having an active street presence lets them be more proactive and react faster. The problem is that Police numbers and budgets have tended to be cut year on year, so they lack the resources to do this.
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
My thoughts too. Drunk people molesting people is hardly unique for immigrants. The scale here is bigger than "usual", to be sure, but there's plenty of low-life scum who would do similar things if they thought they could get away with it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
Sorry, I missed the part where I personally had anything to do with any of this, in any way shape or form possible, considering that I've never been a proponent of the Iraq war nor a proponent of intervening in the affairs of Arab Muslim nations. On top of that, I don't even vote, and my payment of taxes is completely involuntary. Perhaps you could explain that part?
Again, trying to see what Iraq has to do with North Africa, which is, you know, thousands of miles away.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Police forces across Europe are overwhelmed and lack the resources to deal with huge influxes of people. There is literally nothing they can do to stop this (see video below) short of deploying hundreds if not thousands of Riot Police en masse along with water cannon and that takes time, planning and resources.
That's what happens when you allow more people in than your country can absorb and assimilate properly.
Which wouldn't be happening if the rest of Europe weren't chickening out of helping.
What does the rest of Europe have to do with your country's decision to allow more people in than it can handle?
There's this idea of European solidarity, though it is much battered and abused this last decade or so, I'm hoping it with see a resurgence.
Oh, and on the Mayor's comments, they are really dumb, but it's one statement taken out of context from the end of a longer response. It's not the only thing she's recommending. Still, there have been stupid statements from other left wing politicians - I'm especially embarrassed by the response of the Green Party, since I'd like to be a *proud* green voter for once in my life...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Police forces across Europe are overwhelmed and lack the resources to deal with huge influxes of people. There is literally nothing they can do to stop this (see video below) short of deploying hundreds if not thousands of Riot Police en masse along with water cannon and that takes time, planning and resources.
That's what happens when you allow more people in than your country can absorb and assimilate properly.
Which wouldn't be happening if the rest of Europe weren't chickening out of helping.
What does the rest of Europe have to do with your country's decision to allow more people in than it can handle?
The same amount of people split over all of Europe wouldn't be nearly as taxing. There just aren't any options, beyond forcing people back into an active warzone.
Plus, who said anything about taking more people than we can handle? We're coping just fine, so far.
Da Boss wrote: There's this idea of European solidarity, though it is much battered and abused this last decade or so, I'm hoping it with see a resurgence.
This. The UK and France in particular, but many EU countries have benefited immensely from being part of the EU. It's not just free handouts though, it's responsibilites too.
Part of the responsibility of a democracy is to own up to mistakes made in the past, even if one weren't in favour of them. Considering your posting history on Dakka I think it's safe to say that you're not in favour of helping anyone, anywhere, ever.
Counterpoint: I was most in favor of helping the Israelis deal with their Islamic terrorism problem, and the region hasn't really been quite as well behaved since I left.
Usually when we accuse an entire group of people of doing something committed by a subset of that group, it's considered racist, xenophobic, or otherwise bigoted. It's good to see that on Dakka it's OK, as long as the target group is Americans, generally.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Not true. They can be proactive through the use of foot patrols. Having an active street presence lets them be more proactive and react faster. The problem is that Police numbers and budgets have tended to be cut year on year, so they lack the resources to do this.
Solution: Halve the military budget (at the very least - the US seriously doesn't need a military budget larger than Norway's GDP) and disperse the saved money into civic improvements such as healthcare, education and police funding. Yes, believe me, ~300 billion dollars extra in those areas can make a difference, even in a country that large.
Congratulations, the country has been improved.
I can imagine that the first politician to suggest this would be burned at the stake.
Part of the responsibility of a democracy is to own up to mistakes made in the past, even if one weren't in favour of them. Considering your posting history on Dakka I think it's safe to say that you're not in favour of helping anyone, anywhere, ever.
Counterpoint: I was most in favor of helping the Israelis deal with their Islamic terrorism problem, and the region hasn't really been quite as well behaved since I left.
Usually when we accuse an entire group of people of doing something committed by a subset of that group, it's considered racist, xenophobic, or otherwise bigoted. It's good to see that on Dakka it's OK, as long as the target group is Americans, generally.
You weren't speaking on behalf of yourself, you said that "plenty of Americans" had seen this coming. You made yourself the voice of "plenty of Americans". You don't get to speak on behalf of people in their capacity as members of a certain nation and then discard that when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
The same amount of people split over all of Europe wouldn't be nearly as taxing. There just aren't any options, beyond forcing people back into an active warzone.
How about splitting them all over the world? Why is this solely Europe's responsibility? The USA, Canada, Gulf States etc should be contributing too.
Plus, who said anything about taking more people than we can handle? We're coping just fine, so far.
Is Cologne coping just fine? Is Sweden? Didn't the Swedish Deputy Prime Minister break down on TV announcing that they forced to close the borders and stop taking refugees?
Counterpoint: I was most in favor of helping the Israelis deal with their Islamic terrorism problem, and the region hasn't really been quite as well behaved since I left.
Which implies that your help was not very effective in the long run.
Sweden is just as fine as any other country. Our high crime % is mainly due to generous definitions and high percentage of crimes being reported rather than unreported.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Not true. They can be proactive through the use of foot patrols. Having an active street presence lets them be more proactive and react faster. The problem is that Police numbers and budgets have tended to be cut year on year, so they lack the resources to do this.
Solution: Halve the military budget (at the very least - the US seriously doesn't need a military budget larger than Norway's GDP) and disperse the saved money into civic improvements such as healthcare, education and police funding. Yes, believe me, ~300 billion dollars extra in those areas can make a difference, even in a country that large.
Congratulations, the country has been improved.
I can imagine that the first politician to suggest this would be burned at the stake.
Redcruisair wrote: The crowd was composed of up to 1,000 heavily intoxicated men ... gathered expressly for the purpose of debasing women by sexually assaulting them
So, the same as every other Friday night in a city then...
My thoughts too. Drunk people molesting people is hardly unique for immigrants. The scale here is bigger than "usual", to be sure, but there's plenty of low-life scum who would do similar things if they thought they could get away with it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Germany may be shocked, but plenty of Americans saw this coming. Good job on the cultural Seppuku, Merkel!
Here's a thought: don't blame other nations for trying to clean up your mistakes. Or did Germany bomb Iraq to rubble all of a sudden, causing the problems in the Middle-East in the first place.
Sorry, I missed the part where I personally had anything to do with any of this, in any way shape or form possible, considering that I've never been a proponent of the Iraq war nor a proponent of intervening in the affairs of Arab Muslim nations. On top of that, I don't even vote, and my payment of taxes is completely involuntary. Perhaps you could explain that part?
Again, trying to see what Iraq has to do with North Africa, which is, you know, thousands of miles away.
I'm trying to understand why no one seems to have brought up the much lauded Arab Spring and it's part in all of this.
Part of the responsibility of a democracy is to own up to mistakes made in the past, even if one weren't in favour of them. Considering your posting history on Dakka I think it's safe to say that you're not in favour of helping anyone, anywhere, ever.
Counterpoint: I was most in favor of helping the Israelis deal with their Islamic terrorism problem, and the region hasn't really been quite as well behaved since I left.
Usually when we accuse an entire group of people of doing something committed by a subset of that group, it's considered racist, xenophobic, or otherwise bigoted. It's good to see that on Dakka it's OK, as long as the target group is Americans, generally.
You weren't speaking on behalf of yourself, you said that "plenty of Americans" had seen this coming. You made yourself the voice of "plenty of Americans". You don't get to speak on behalf of people in their capacity as members of a certain nation and then discard that when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
Counterpoint: I was most in favor of helping the Israelis deal with their Islamic terrorism problem, and the region hasn't really been quite as well behaved since I left.
Which implies that your help was not very effective in the long run.
Trigger puller != policy maker. Kind of a pointless jab given the circumstances, no?
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Not true. They can be proactive through the use of foot patrols. Having an active street presence lets them be more proactive and react faster. The problem is that Police numbers and budgets have tended to be cut year on year, so they lack the resources to do this.
Solution: Halve the military budget (at the very least - the US seriously doesn't need a military budget larger than Norway's GDP) and disperse the saved money into civic improvements such as healthcare, education and police funding. Yes, believe me, ~300 billion dollars extra in those areas can make a difference, even in a country that large.
Congratulations, the country has been improved.
I can imagine that the first politician to suggest this would be burned at the stake.
You realize though, a good part of our budget was due to helping Europe and countries in Asia defend themselves?
The same amount of people split over all of Europe wouldn't be nearly as taxing. There just aren't any options, beyond forcing people back into an active warzone.
How about splitting them all over the world? Why is this solely Europe's responsibility? The USA, Canada, Gulf States etc should be contributing too.
They absolutely should. I'm just focussing on the refugees that have managed to get to Europe because, one way or another, we have to deal with them.
Is Cologne coping just fine? Is Sweden? Didn't the Swedish Deputy Prime Minister break down on TV announcing that they forced to close the borders and stop taking refugees?
How does closing the borders mean we've taken in too many? Wouldn't it rather imply that we've taken in people to capacity, and are stopping before we're overwhelmed?
And, as people in this thread keep telling me, North Africa isn't Syria.
Part of the responsibility of a democracy is to own up to mistakes made in the past, even if one weren't in favour of them. Considering your posting history on Dakka I think it's safe to say that you're not in favour of helping anyone, anywhere, ever.
Counterpoint: I was most in favor of helping the Israelis deal with their Islamic terrorism problem, and the region hasn't really been quite as well behaved since I left.
Usually when we accuse an entire group of people of doing something committed by a subset of that group, it's considered racist, xenophobic, or otherwise bigoted. It's good to see that on Dakka it's OK, as long as the target group is Americans, generally.
You weren't speaking on behalf of yourself, you said that "plenty of Americans" had seen this coming. You made yourself the voice of "plenty of Americans". You don't get to speak on behalf of people in their capacity as members of a certain nation and then discard that when it comes back to bite you in the ass.
What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
*I'm* floundering? The war in Syria is, partially, a result of the Iraq war. Without the civil war in Syria the massive refugee crisis wouldn't exist.
And, again, Syria isn't Morocco. I'm not arguing that the US caused these molestations or that it's related to the US at all, I'm arguing that the people in this thread that jumped straight to attacking the Syrian refugees are using deeds perpetrated by Moroccan immigrants or their descendants to attack people they don't like while completely ignoring the history of the Syrian conflict.
motyak wrote: Another mod said no using the term SJW to dismiss a whole side of the argument/set up strawmen/etc. When I just read ITT someone advocating for just letting people drown,the term xenophobe seems like it fits right in.
motyak wrote: Don't turn this into a "lol SJW rahrahrah" thing,that's just trying to insult and shut down a large number of people who take part in these discussions by applying a term to them which is used in a derogatory fashion.Don't do it, it's not polite and it's not how you have an honest discussion.
Pretty sure I was clear about using that term as a derogatory thing
There's a lot of things being said in here that are bordering on rude, so cut it. Now.[
Derogatory terms like racist and xenophobe are frequently thrown around to insult people and shut down their arguments, in the same manner that you say SJW is used. And yet you permit the former.
Racist and xenophobe are English expressions with specific meanings. For example, if I say black people are stupider than white people, that is a racist comment. It is a statement of fact.
SJW, however, is a coinage designed deliberately to disparage what might be broadly termed politically correct opinion.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
All factually correct, which is why I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should admit refugees. That's a separate problem altogether.
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Not true. They can be proactive through the use of foot patrols. Having an active street presence lets them be more proactive and react faster. The problem is that Police numbers and budgets have tended to be cut year on year, so they lack the resources to do this.
Solution: Halve the military budget (at the very least - the US seriously doesn't need a military budget larger than Norway's GDP) and disperse the saved money into civic improvements such as healthcare, education and police funding. Yes, believe me, ~300 billion dollars extra in those areas can make a difference, even in a country that large.
Congratulations, the country has been improved.
I can imagine that the first politician to suggest this would be burned at the stake.
You realize though, a good part of our budget was due to helping Europe and countries in Asia defend themselves?
The US has about 1,300,000 active military personnel if Wikipedia is to be believed. The only enemy countries powerful enough to warrant an army of that size would never invade due to the threat of nuclear retaliation. Having a military of that size is simply superflous and consumes gargantuan amounts of money. Yes, it would mean less foreign intervention, but isn't foreign intervention already something considered rather problematic?
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
All factually correct, which is why I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should admit refugees. That's a separate problem altogether.
Well, there's always the option of just ignoring your own mistakes and not even trying to fix them.
The same amount of people split over all of Europe wouldn't be nearly as taxing. There just aren't any options, beyond forcing people back into an active warzone.
How about splitting them all over the world? Why is this solely Europe's responsibility? The USA, Canada, Gulf States etc should be contributing too.
We are. I've personally been to the home of one family from Syria my church is sponsoring. Plus we're taking in thousands DAILY from Latin America. We even have a train for children seeking refugee coming from central America direct to the US. We've done more than our part for decades thank you very much.
The same amount of people split over all of Europe wouldn't be nearly as taxing. There just aren't any options, beyond forcing people back into an active warzone.
How about splitting them all over the world? Why is this solely Europe's responsibility? The USA, Canada, Gulf States etc should be contributing too.
We are. I've personally been to the home of one family from Syria my church is sponsoring. Plus we're taking in thousands DAILY from Latin America. We even have a train for children seeking refugee coming from central America direct to the US. We've done more than our part for decades thank you very much.
Your economic dominance is built on fething Africa over (so is ours, for that matter) and keeping dictators in power all over the world in power (again, we do it too). Half the reason Latin America is the way it is is because of the Munroe doctrine and its legacy. Again, fixing your own messes isn't doing "more than your part".
Grey Templar wrote: Unless you have a policeman on permenant protection detail with every single citizen then protecting people as a priority is impossible.
The police can only react after the fact, that's all they can be expected to do.
Not true. They can be proactive through the use of foot patrols. Having an active street presence lets them be more proactive and react faster. The problem is that Police numbers and budgets have tended to be cut year on year, so they lack the resources to do this.
Solution: Halve the military budget (at the very least - the US seriously doesn't need a military budget larger than Norway's GDP) and disperse the saved money into civic improvements such as healthcare, education and police funding. Yes, believe me, ~300 billion dollars extra in those areas can make a difference, even in a country that large.
Congratulations, the country has been improved.
I can imagine that the first politician to suggest this would be burned at the stake.
I think you absolutely fail to comprehend how fraking huge the US is. Its not just a numbers game, its also an issue of distances.
Currently, there are around 250 sworn officers per 100,000 citizens. Increasing that number in the manner you describe would be astronomically expensive, enough to make it virtually impossible. And it still wouldn't solve the problem that the police cannot possibly respond in a timely manner to more than a small number of cases. As the saying goes, when seconds matter the police are minutes away. Nothing can be done to change that.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
Again, what does that have to do with another continent?
I think you absolutely fail to comprehend how fraking huge the US is. Its not just a numbers game, its also an issue of distances.
Currently, there are around 250 sworn officers per 100,000 citizens. Increasing that number in the manner you describe would be astronomically expensive, enough to make it virtually impossible. And it still wouldn't solve the problem that the police cannot possibly respond in a timely manner to more than a small number of cases. As the saying goes, when seconds matter the police are minutes away. Nothing can be done to change that.
Currently, the law enforcement budget (including running prisons, courts, etc.) is at ~60 billion dollars.
I am pretty sure you can see the difference.
It will not make the law enforcement flawless, but hot damn will it be a better use of the money.
I think you absolutely fail to comprehend how fraking huge the US is. Its not just a numbers game, its also an issue of distances.
Currently, there are around 250 sworn officers per 100,000 citizens. Increasing that number in the manner you describe would be astronomically expensive, enough to make it virtually impossible. And it still wouldn't solve the problem that the police cannot possibly respond in a timely manner to more than a small number of cases. As the saying goes, when seconds matter the police are minutes away. Nothing can be done to change that.
Currently, the law enforcement budget (including running prisons, courts, etc.) is at ~60 billion dollars.
I am pretty sure you can see the difference.
It will not make the law enforcement flawless, but hot damn will it be a better use of the money.
The way our government is set up, its not like all money goes in one pile.
The Military is funded by the federal government's budget. But police are funded at the state and local levels. Totally separate pots of money. The Federal government can't just shift the cash from the federal budget to the states and local departments.
You really have total ignorance about how the US's geography and government organization works.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
Again, what does that have to do with another continent?
Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
The way our government is set up, its not like all money goes in one pile.
The Military is funded by the federal government's budget. But police are funded at the state and local levels. Totally separate pots of money. The Federal government can't just shift the cash from the federal budget to the states and local departments.
You really have total ignorance about how the US's geography and government organization works.
Then disperse the money accordingly to those states and local departments according to population, etc.
I don't see what is so much more difficult with this than usual tax spending calculations and decisions.
The way our government is set up, its not like all money goes in one pile.
The Military is funded by the federal government's budget. But police are funded at the state and local levels. Totally separate pots of money. The Federal government can't just shift the cash from the federal budget to the states and local departments.
You really have total ignorance about how the US's geography and government organization works.
Then disperse the money accordingly to those states and local departments according to population, etc.
I don't see what is so much more difficult with this than usual tax spending calculations and decisions.
That would involve totally changing the way the government is set up. You are basically advocating for an impossible, and idiotic, task. We don't need or want this kind of gross federal government intrusion.
Kilkrazy wrote: The ancient laws and customs of the sea compel mariners to offer aid to vessels in distress.
Do you have a cite for that in maritime law? This is not a criticism but a question.
EDIT: I'm not asking for a cite or anything, just a reference.
I was actually referring to the ancient customs by which seafarers have operated for centuries, to help each other in distress, but in fact the principle is embodied in Article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.
Italy and Greece are both signatories to the treaty and therefore bound to assist refugees floating around in the Med.
The way our government is set up, its not like all money goes in one pile.
The Military is funded by the federal government's budget. But police are funded at the state and local levels. Totally separate pots of money. The Federal government can't just shift the cash from the federal budget to the states and local departments.
You really have total ignorance about how the US's geography and government organization works.
Then disperse the money accordingly to those states and local departments according to population, etc.
I don't see what is so much more difficult with this than usual tax spending calculations and decisions.
That would involve totally changing the way the government is set up. You are basically advocating for an impossible, and idiotic, task. We don't need or want this kind of gross federal government intrusion.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
All factually correct, which is why I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. But again, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should admit refugees. That's a separate problem altogether.
Well, there's always the option of just ignoring your own mistakes and not even trying to fix them.
Guess why people don't like the US at times?
I didn't make any mistakes. I don't want to deal with refugees raping and murdering my family members.
Why don't the Saudis take in their Muslim brothers? After all, Saudi Arabia is a lot closer.
Grey Templar: Honestly, it's okay. We're grand. No need for you guys to feel like you need to "protect us". We've seen where that leads, thanks.
Nuggz: Yeah, Saudi are despicable. As usual.
I reckon Europe as a whole can easily deal with the Syrian influx actually. There's barely any need for the US to get involved. But France and Britain need to step up. Ireland too (just to prevent that being used against me )
Grey Templar: Considering you guys spend more than all the rest of us combined, I'm sure you guys could cut back a little and the world wouldn't explode. I mean all that spending doesn't make you guys immune to attacks or allow you to win wars even when fighting massively technologically and financially inferior opposition, so what exactly is the point?
Grey Templar wrote: When you are forced to protect most of the world, no its not all that idiotic.
You are also missing that welfare, Social Security, and Health Care together make a truly obscene number.
'Protecting most of the world'? What?
Why do you think all you Europeans can get away with tiny military budgets? Its because the US military exists.
Yeah, look at what % of GDP NATO members are required by treaty to spend, and look at what they did spend over the last 2-3 decades. And look at the capabilities they bought (a lot of redundancy while leaving some critical capabilities almost completely up the US to provide).
Here's an interesting way of looking at immigration. I leave it to others here to educate me on the pros or cons of the ideas outlined in the demonstration.
Also, examining the US military as a portion of only the Federal budget when comparing it to other military spending(which is always given as a portion of total national budget) is deceiving.
To get an accurate picture, you have to add State and Local spending in there was well like other country ratios do. That shrinks the military spending considerably.
Try us. Halve your military budget and see if we end up with sharia laws.
More like we are the reason you aren't speaking Russian and wearing fuzzy hats(or goosestepping with red armbands)
No, you wouldn't fall apart tomorrow without us. But your national security would be severely reduced.
Really the only problem with US military spending is that Congress buys unnecessary equipment our military doesn't want.
Arguably, you harm your own people and your economy with the enormous tax spend on maintaining it.
Even if Russia and China ARE major threats, the US military is so ridiculously powerful for conventional warfare that only a complete lunatic would engage them directly EVEN IF you cut the budget by a significant amount. Even 20% would be huge.
Edit to add: And if such a lunatic existed, they would be obliterated in days by the US if they DID attack.
The problem is that the military spend for conventional warfare doesn't do anything to stop unconventional attacks, which is the main security threat currently.
There's a very good book about this called the Accidental Guerrilla which was written by a top security advisor to the pentagon on insurgent warfare. Well worth reading.
I remember in world war 2 how the nazi's and the japanese did not want to conquer the united states because it would be too hard for them to do it. It is alot of land and and trying to take it would be alot more difficult than conquering russia.
So no the united states is not under threat of foreign powers conquering the united states.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What does admitting refugees have to do with the Iraq war? With the civil war in Syria? With any of the factors causing the mess in the first place? You're really floundering here.
It caused a bit of a domino effect. Invading Iraq and removing Saddam destabilized the whole, created a power vacuum in which Jihadists could flourish, encouraged anti European and American and helped perpetuate the Jihadist narrative of a "Crusade on Islam". Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
Again, what does that have to do with another continent?
Those Jihadists then spread out to other regions and in turn helped destabilize more countries and topple more dictators.
Which jihad states exist in North Africa again. I must have missed something.
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Only to our selves with our decaying infrastructure. Its cool, though. Last Friday I got to see a B2 Spirit fly over my house to kick off the Rose Bowl. That makes up for our country's deplorable state of road and bridge maintenance.
Asherian Command wrote: I remember in world war 2 how the nazi's and the japanese did not want to conquer the united states because it would be too hard for them to do it. It is alot of land and and trying to take it would be alot more difficult than conquering russia.
So no the united states is not under threat of foreign powers conquering the united states.
We aren't under threat of foreign invasion because we have this huge military. Kinda why we would want to keep it.
If something is the reason you aren't under threat, you don't get rid of it because you aren't under threat. You don't get rid of the cause of the good effect.
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Only to our selves with our decaying infrastructure. Its cool, though. Last Friday I got to see a B2 Spirit fly over my house to kick off the Rose Bowl. That makes up for our country's deplorable state of road and bridge maintenance.
The Federal government isn't responsible for maintaining your local and state roads.
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.
Russia would have a large military regardless as they are and always have been an aggressive power. If the US has a large military, Russia just claims its self-defense. If the US doesn't have a large military, Russia has a large military anyway and they get to run rampant over all their little neighbors.
Kilkrazy wrote: The ancient laws and customs of the sea compel mariners to offer aid to vessels in distress.
Do you have a cite for that in maritime law? This is not a criticism but a question.
EDIT: I'm not asking for a cite or anything, just a reference.
I was actually referring to the ancient customs by which seafarers have operated for centuries, to help each other in distress, but in fact the principle is embodied in Article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982.
Italy and Greece are both signatories to the treaty and therefore bound to assist refugees floating around in the Med.
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.
So, we caused the Soviets to invade Czechoslovakia in '68? Or put down the Hungarians in '56? Or divide Berlin with a wall in '61? Or to declare marshall law in Poland in '81?
Grey Templar wrote: When you are forced to protect most of the world, no its not all that idiotic.
You are also missing that welfare, Social Security, and Health Care together make a truly obscene number.
'Protecting most of the world'? What?
Guys arguing the merits of the US budget process seems OT from a crime spree in Koln, Germany no? Can we get back to topic before Motyak loses his mind.
"They say whenever an OT thread goes off topic, Motyak sheds a single, tiny tear."
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Maintaining a military as large as the US does is exactly what causes the likes of Russia to become a "threat", because they view the US as a threat to them, what with the military bases and nukes all around their borders.
Russia would have a large military regardless as they are and always have been an aggressive power. If the US has a large military, Russia just claims its self-defense. If the US doesn't have a large military, Russia has a large military anyway and they get to run rampant over all their little neighbors.
Which would be different to what is currently happening because...?
I'm not sure why the blame is on the refugees or weakened German police forces. As I posted earlier, the exact same thing has happened in the US already. We even have a term for it: Wildings.
If a bunch of German minorities started playing the Knock Out Game, would we be blaming purely European politics? It seems to me like these things happen when you have a lot of young men, possibly intoxicated, in a mob with no police presence in sight. Things escalate.
If something is the reason you aren't under threat, you don't get rid of it because you aren't under threat. You don't get rid of the cause of the good effect.
Grey Templar wrote: And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Only to our selves with our decaying infrastructure. Its cool, though. Last Friday I got to see a B2 Spirit fly over my house to kick off the Rose Bowl. That makes up for our country's deplorable state of road and bridge maintenance.
The Federal government isn't responsible for maintaining your local and state roads.
Yeah, good thing I didn't say local roads, eh?
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has rated almost 200,000 bridges, or one of every three bridges in the U.S., as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Furthermore, more than one-fourth of all bridges are over 50 years old, the average design-life of a bridge.
Personally, I'd trade a few pieces of cool war gear for some maintained bridges. We have plenty of gak to kill other people, we could skim a few % off our military spending and do A LOT for the people of this country and still have plenty of money left to keep our military churning.
You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.
Da Boss wrote: Arguably, you harm your own people and your economy with the enormous tax spend on maintaining it.
Even if Russia and China ARE major threats, the US military is so ridiculously powerful for conventional warfare that only a complete lunatic would engage them directly EVEN IF you cut the budget by a significant amount. Even 20% would be huge.
Edit to add: And if such a lunatic existed, they would be obliterated in days by the US if they DID attack.
The problem is that the military spend for conventional warfare doesn't do anything to stop unconventional attacks, which is the main security threat currently.
There's a very good book about this called the Accidental Guerrilla which was written by a top security advisor to the pentagon on insurgent warfare. Well worth reading.
The US military makes many nation's militaries pale in comparison
Take for example the Iraq war or gulf war. The largest air force, was destroyed in little over a day by the united states.
So no we don't have to worry about foreign powers ever attacking the us.... Ever.
Police forces in general are not well equipped enough to handle large standing groups of people, even riot units take alot of time, money and planning to execute correctly.
Grey Templar wrote: You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.
Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.
Grey Templar wrote: You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.
Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.
Nah, nothing to do with teacher salaries. It has more to do with Administrative bloat(one of the schools at my college has 3 deans for 'reasons'...), purchasing unnecessary equipment(my school just retrofitted the gym with a bunch of new exercise machines, but the desks in most classrooms are intended for elementary school kids, not adults), etc...
Grey Templar wrote: You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.
Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.
I have a personal example. When I lived in Burke County GA, the HS built a new foot ball stadium (over 250k) yet could not afford a tutoring program which they were mandated to have by state DOE because of their dismal graduation rate (at that point less than 50%). Yep it is anecdotal.
Grey Templar wrote: You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.
Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.
Nah, nothing to do with teacher salaries. It has more to do with Administrative bloat(one of the schools at my college has 3 deans for 'reasons'...), purchasing unnecessary equipment(my school just retrofitted the gym with a bunch of new exercise machines, but the desks in most classrooms are intended for elementary school kids, not adults), etc...
Ah.
Also, I realize that my statement sounded super combative, I didn't mean it to sound that way.
I do not wish to derail your guys' thread, but I would like to mention a few things about the USA budget and Military expenses.
Throughout the entire US federal system (and local system) and especially in the military, there is a LOT of waste and mismanagement of funds. One of the biggest wastes being contractors who win a bid and charge 1000's of dollars for things like a single NAIL. I would call these things fraud and a waste, but because of the laws for some insane reason they are legal. You have spending on useless and unneeded things being paid for while the members of the military get pay cuts and in many cases the members of the military get paid LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE.
Our whole system is an fething mess. A lot of it due to the complacence and lack of education in the voting populace. It seems like ,to me anyway, that majority have no interest in doing the work that is required to keep our system running properly. The result is we have given the reigns of government over to a bunch of morally bankrupt people who we are willing to let run things with zero consequences for anything they do. We have also let them take away much of our ability to do anything about them or the things they do.
Sorry if this is off topic to the thread. I will shut up now, and go back to watching from my cave.
Schools in general spend their money on entertainment more than.... Education.... "Oh no we don't have any money, *buys a lambrogheni or a whole new stadium instead of giving students freebooks and better equipment to use for learning*"
Its really common and stupid. If Schools spent little amounts of money entertainment and spent it more on educational objects or needs, then alot of problems in the school system would be solved.
"Asherian talk about cologne's new year gang assault."
This is actually a great segaway into educating foreigners to your country, I remember that during my time in america I had to go through training to become an American. Which is the naturalization thing that every non-american wants to do to become an american. (Though instead I Did it through the school system instead, while my mother did it through the government.)
They are educated about the culture and the way of life the united states and americans in general and their culture. Less indoctrination and more teaching people how to act in this country. Just imagine if this education had happened to these foreigners of Cologne many of the problems would been alot fewer. I mean there would be a few people who are disobedient but it wouldn't be at this scale of the amount of people who are committing crimes or sexual assaults on women.
d-usa wrote: How did a thread about sexual attacks on women in Germany become a thread about US budgetary issues?
Well most governments in the world put a bit too much importance on military, but sometimes it does lead to development in the military technologies and it being passed down to civilian thoughts.
I mean the united states as the best force projection on the planet.
Though in terms of budget they could cut back quite a bit. And we would be able to spend it a bit better than on military technologies. As the united states still has some of the best technologies on the planet.
Grey Templar wrote: You'd get far more money by making our educational system more efficient. The ways our school systems squander the money they are given is truly appalling. Make them more efficient so we can save money there.
Any examples or is this another "teachers are payed too much" thing.
d-usa wrote: How did a thread about sexual attacks on women in Germany become a thread about US budgetary issues?
Every thread is secretly about the US! I mean on page 1 it was about US gun control, and now it's about US budgets. A while ago it was about US foreign policy.
Other countries don't really exist except as backdrops or examples in American stories, or places for American ancestors to come from!
d-usa wrote: How did a thread about sexual attacks on women in Germany become a thread about US budgetary issues?
Every thread is secretly about the US! I mean on page 1 it was about US gun control, and now it's about US budgets. A while ago it was about US foreign policy.
Other countries don't really exist except as backdrops or examples in American stories, or places for American ancestors to come from!
So, yeah, about that topic..
Well spoken, you're all just our props! Now that we understand each other, carry on with the show.
d-usa wrote: How did a thread about sexual attacks on women in Germany become a thread about US budgetary issues?
Every thread is secretly about the US! I mean on page 1 it was about US gun control, and now it's about US budgets. A while ago it was about US foreign policy.
Other countries don't really exist except as backdrops or examples in American stories, or places for American ancestors to come from!
So, yeah, about that topic..
Its even worse then that. As all roads lead to Texas, and the other states are just window dressing for its, the entire world is just a backdrop for...San Antonio.
I personally abhor rapists. I think they get off lighter than they should most of the time. I think if they rape someone and there is no doubt forensically or otherwise that they did it and it has been proven, then the rapist should be castrated. And I don't mean chemically. Should probably remove the ruler as well as the dice bag. Women rapists should probably be handled in a slightly different fashion. What that is I can't say.
Fething scum. Shoving a firework into someones clothes. It makes me so angry.
My fiancee is looking up pepper spray online. Normally, I might think that is over the top, but honestly, she has to walk home in the dark through some dodgy areas sometimes so I'm happy she's looking to her safety a bit.
Da Boss wrote: Fething scum. Shoving a firework into someones clothes. It makes me so angry.
My fiancee is looking up pepper spray online. Normally, I might think that is over the top, but honestly, she has to walk home in the dark through some dodgy areas sometimes so I'm happy she's looking to her safety a bit.
Make sure you guys understand local laws regarding pepper spray. I know here my wife works on a federal installation and pepper spray and tazers/stun guns are considered weapons and not allowed.
Da Boss wrote: Fething scum. Shoving a firework into someones clothes. It makes me so angry.
My fiancee is looking up pepper spray online. Normally, I might think that is over the top, but honestly, she has to walk home in the dark through some dodgy areas sometimes so I'm happy she's looking to her safety a bit.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah we checked it out. It's allowed, but it's use is regulated (ie. it can only be used in real cases of self defense).
But cheers, it is important to check this stuff out.
See if you can get 1 extra one for "testing".
Not on a live subject, unless someone really wants... but, it'll be good to know what to do when you discharge a pepper spray and not get caught yourself.
Not on a live subject, unless someone really wants... but, it'll be good to know what to do when you discharge a pepper spray and not get caught yourself.
indeed. You should practice what it does. Might wear a face shield. Because of some testing I was able to shoot a quick squirt right into a husky's face from about 15 feet over Christmas (it was the stream type). I TOLD YOU NOT TO WITH MY DOGS.
Grey Templar wrote: The Cold War may be over, but there are other threats. Russia and China are still major threats, and the Middle East powder keg is becoming worse.
We aren't in a period where we can afford to deescalate. And we don't cause any harm by maintaining a large military.
Russia and China aren't threats, it is NATO that makes them into threats. The biggest threat to Europe is (just as in the past) international alliances and power blocs like NATO. The biggest risk is being dragged into a conflict by Europe's gung-ho American "allies" and their NATO lackeys. Without NATO encroaching on their turf, Russia and China would feel far less threatened and would therefore be far less hostile. The Middle East is no major military threat either as long as we don't constantly feel the need to go in there and meddle with it. NATO is like a racketeering scheme. It creates threats to which it can then offer protection to justify its existance (and therefore US influence). NATO is a tool of the US. Europe is more than capable of defending itself and doesn't need the worldwide force projecting capabilities of NATO. NATO is obsolete, and Europe would be safer without it.
Now on topic, I hope the perpetrators are identified quickly and receive severe punishment. I think it would be a good idea to confine refugees and asylum seekers to their centers unless they have a clear reason or purpose for going outside. It would stop them from hanging around and harrassing others. My town has refugees too, and they are always hanging around outside in large groups. It feels threatening. Strangely, it is only the young men that do this. Most of the refugees in my town are families, but you only rarely see older men, women or children outside.
Iron Captain, your statements unfortunately ring false given Russian actions in Ukraine.
And what else can the refugees do? They're not allowed to work, there's no entertainment in their rooms. They literally have nothing better to do.
I saw that some Syrian refugees were volunteering in the North of England to help out with the flooding, and we have Syrian volunteers that come to my school to help out. It gives them something productive to do and helps them to learn the language. Perhaps that is needed in your town too?
My town has refugees too, and they are always hanging around outside in large groups. It feels threatening. Strangely, it is only the young men that do this.
Nothing strange about it. They're young men behaving in the way that bored, unemployed, disenfranchised young men the world over behave. But the problem is compounded to an order of magnitude by the cultural differences of the countries that they were raised in, and the countries they now find themselves in.
Da Boss wrote: Iron Captain, your statements unfortunately ring false given Russian actions in Ukraine.
If NATO had been dissolved after the end of the Cold War, there never would have been any Russian actions in Ukraine. Ukraine is a buffer state between NATO and Russia. Russia needs to preserve this buffer to preserve its safety. Without NATO, there would have been no need for a buffer zone, because there would be no threat from the west.
Da Boss wrote: And what else can the refugees do? They're not allowed to work, there's no entertainment in their rooms. They literally have nothing better to do.
Neither is there anything for them to do outside, expect harassing others. They can hang around inside. Maybe TVs, computers or some other entertainment for them would be a worthwile investment.
Da Boss wrote: I saw that some Syrian refugees were volunteering in the North of England to help out with the flooding, and we have Syrian volunteers that come to my school to help out. It gives them something productive to do and helps them to learn the language. Perhaps that is needed in your town too?
Yeah, initiatives like that are great. Last year, they helped our scouting group maintain a nature reserve. But not all of them want to do unpaid volunteer work. And even for those that do, there just is not enough volunteer work available.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And, again, Syria isn't Morocco. I'm not arguing that the US caused these molestations or that it's related to the US at all, I'm arguing that the people in this thread that jumped straight to attacking the Syrian refugees are using deeds perpetrated by Moroccan immigrants or their descendants to attack people they don't like while completely ignoring the history of the Syrian conflict.
If I look at the Netherlands, the long term problems with the integration of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants and their descendants have made the public and politicians skeptical of granting current refugees from the Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean conflicts permanent residency for fear of similar problems with these groups in the future. The reason for migration may be different, the outcome to the receiving society might very well be the same.
Asked by a journalist whether refugees were behind the rampage, Maas said police were still working to identify the attackers.
'This is not about where someone is from but what they did,' he said. 'Making an issue out of it, lumping it together with the refugee issue, is nothing but exploitation. Now is the time to determine the facts and then decide on the necessary consequences.'
The idea of "no go areas" is ludicrous and they do not exist. This happened in front of one of the busiest train stations in Germany, in front of a national monument visited by thousands of tourists a day.
Hardly a "no go area". It's an awful, worrying, hopefully one off incident, not a sign that large areas of Europe are off limits.
And it appears that blaming the victim is how Germany wishes to handle this.
Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker said Wednesday that women should adopt a “code of conduct” to discourage men from committing sexual assault. Gangs of migrants went on a crime spree last Friday night, which overwhelmed police and left scores of women at their attackers’ mercy.
The mayor suggested women keep “at arm’s length” from strangers, travel in groups, and to ask bystanders for help.
“It is important to prevent such incidents from ever happening again,” Reker said, the Independent reported Wednesday.
Reker’s comments appear to ignore the fact that victims, often traveling in groups, were systematically targeted by gangs.
“I don’t think much of the how-to-behave tips for women such as #arm’slength. It is not women who are responsible, but the perpetrators,” German Justice Minister Heiko Mass responded Wednesday on Twitter.
I'm sorry, the Mayor of Cologne is now the representative of opinion for all of Germany? All hail the new dictator?
Can I pick an american who represents the views of all americans then? Is that how this works?
I mean your statement is directly contradicted by the Justice Minister at the end of the quoted section. One idiot saying something dumb does not tar an entire country, and if it does, the US is screwed.
You can't keep crowds of 10 or 100 'at arm's length' from seizing hold of people and assaulting them. Some of those attacked were already in groups.
I understand the advice of the mayor, it's akin to telling people to make sure their doors are locked to prevent burglary. It shouldn't be about victim blaming but as always it's difficult to word appropriately and easily construed in a negative way, especially as there seems a certain air of helplessness about tackling the culprits given off by those in charge. It happened a week ago and they've identified a few but made no arrests.
That isn't really a riot, that actually looks pretty normal for German New Year. I've been in Berlin on NYE and it's literally insanity. It's like the one day a year when they let their hair down, and they really go fething mental (I wasn't sure I was going to survive). People launching fireworks at each other seems to just be normal. My ex-girlfriend who is from Berlin, was full of stories about gas grenades and blank pistols being fired off on NYE too. We were only out of the house for about 2 mins before a bunch of kids attacked us with rockets. I'm surprised the police even showed up in that video, I didn't see them at all on NYE when I was there (despite chaos like that everywhere). I figured the police just give up and hide for the night.
I'm not saying it didn't happen, or trying to downplay it, but I think there are people who are trying to suggest the NYE in Germany was some picturesque Christmas card scene before the refugees showed up. There has probably been quite a lot of fethed up stuff happening every year that we just didn't hear about, because it didn't involve refugees.
Bromsy wrote: Out of the twelve or so barfights I was involved in while I was in Germany, roughly one hundred percent of them were against Turkish men who thought we were making time with their ladies, and roughly zero percent of them were against German men; while this is wholly anecdotal it should help illustrate the relative belligerence of parties involved.
I got in a bar fight while I was there, with a German (on NYE incidentally), though I may have started that fight... Maybe the common theme in all these fights is English speaking people.
Drunkeness and bad behaviour with fireworks is very common (someone threw a firework at me the first year I was in Germany) , people were firing them off right outside my apartment in central Nuremberg til 4 in the morning and the street outside was trashed in the morning.
But mass sexual assault is not usual over here, not at all. Targeted bad behaviour toward women in that way IS something new, and it is associated with migrant populations.
We have to admit that and deal with it- trying to hand wave it or explain it away or ignore it will just make the problem worse.
Note that I say this as someone who is pro looking after Syrian refugees as best we can and not anti immigration by any standards. But we've got to be realistic and truthful about the challenges, and the German media and parts of it's political establishment tend to be too hesitant to tell the truth when negative things happen involving migrants (the TV channel didn't report this for days after it was known, for example, for which they've had to apologise.)
Dishonesty about this just feeds into the Right Wing populist narrative and does not help the problem long term.
Da Boss wrote: Fething scum. Shoving a firework into someones clothes. It makes me so angry.
My fiancee is looking up pepper spray online. Normally, I might think that is over the top, but honestly, she has to walk home in the dark through some dodgy areas sometimes so I'm happy she's looking to her safety a bit.
Just remember that it confined spaces the spray does not discriminate between attacker and defender.
Da Boss wrote: Fething scum. Shoving a firework into someones clothes. It makes me so angry.
My fiancee is looking up pepper spray online. Normally, I might think that is over the top, but honestly, she has to walk home in the dark through some dodgy areas sometimes so I'm happy she's looking to her safety a bit.
Make sure you guys understand local laws regarding pepper spray. I know here my wife works on a federal installation and pepper spray and tazers/stun guns are considered weapons and not allowed.
I was wondering about rape alarms and sprays when I heard about these attacks.
They were talked about a lot some years ago, and I didn't think anyone carried them any more.
But, if they're needed, carry what you can.
This is both disgusting and disturbing. Degenerates. There is something inheritly sick with a culture that thinks it's acceptable behaviour to do this in a country hosting them.
A few people do it - they're likely acting individually and outliers.
For so many to do it? - it's engrained in the culture.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Smacks, I never called it a riot. They ARE however using fireworks as weapons, deliberately firing them at people and local premises.
I was referring to the video having "riot" in the title.
Da Boss wrote: Drunkeness and bad behaviour with fireworks is very common (someone threw a firework at me the first year I was in Germany) , people were firing them off right outside my apartment in central Nuremberg til 4 in the morning and the street outside was trashed in the morning.
But mass sexual assault is not usual over here, not at all. Targeted bad behaviour toward women in that way IS something new, and it is associated with migrant populations.
We have to admit that and deal with it- trying to hand wave it or explain it away or ignore it will just make the problem worse.
Note that I say this as someone who is pro looking after Syrian refugees as best we can and not anti immigration by any standards. But we've got to be realistic and truthful about the challenges, and the German media and parts of it's political establishment tend to be too hesitant to tell the truth when negative things happen involving migrants (the TV channel didn't report this for days after it was known, for example, for which they've had to apologise.)
Dishonesty about this just feeds into the Right Wing populist narrative and does not help the problem long term.
I think you are absolutely right, but honesty goes both ways. Some people will use this as bias confirmation to support their view that refugees are all degenerate criminals. And the media is going to stoke that fire by reporting an army of a thousand rapists, and rioting. When really, there was one reported rape (you'd think a thousand rapists would be more effective?), 8 people arrested, some criminal gangs certainly, and probably a few hundred people who were just milling around getting drunk on account of it being NYE.
What isn't clear from the videos, and something which is worth debating, is how many people in those crowds were local Germans and how many were non-native immigrants?
Is there anyone here who was present in Cologne or knows the city? Is this normal for NYE in Cologne city centre, with such huge crowds and dangerous misuse of fireworks?
I've been in Cologne for NYE visiting German relatives, few years back.
Idiots with fireworks - you get them everywhere, every year.
Mass sexual assault - it's a new problem.
London 2009 - 2011 was kinda dull, just standing on the bank of the thames - after the fireworks everyone just kind of shuffled away home.
Geneva last year was wonderful (2014) and happy.
Edinburgh New Year this year - not a single arrest. Amusingly the crowd seemed to be 15% Japanese, 78% Scottish and 4% other EU countries and 3% non EU (excluding Japan mentioned above). There was lots of dancing and cheering and I found an awesome folk band called the Peatbog Faeries who had some serious bass speakers going on.
None of the problems on the scale in Cologne this year.
A couple of years ago Edinburgh changed their city centre Hogmanay celebration to paid ticket entry, in order to limit numbers. This would affect the make-up of the crowd.
Kilkrazy wrote: A couple of years ago Edinburgh changed their city centre Hogmanay celebration to paid ticket entry, in order to limit numbers. This would affect the make-up of the crowd.
Yea I had one of those on. Maybe that's what they should do in other countries - keep the underisables away from good natured celebrations.
I spent three years living in neighboring Dusseldorf and I know Cologne and especially the area around the Hauptbahnhof reasonably well.
The entire region is full of small and medium sized cities and towns - it's a pretty large conurbation and is one of the most densely populated regions in Europe. It's consequently got a higher percentage of immigrants and second - third generation immigrants than any other part of Germany. With this comes a fairly high level of inequality.
The entire Lander is fairly underfunded due to the huge population and needs infastructural investment, but it's a nice enough place to live anyhow. Cologne is a bit poorer than Dusseldorf but also more vibrant and culturally active. However when I have been there it has always seemed to have more punks, antisocial people and generally seemed more run down.
Giant crowds of people with fireworks are not unknown, and arseholes with fireworks are an unfortunate fact of the German New Year - I believe it's the only night when fireworks are allowed, and people tend to go a bit nuts. In my experience, the worst offenders do tend to be Turkish Germans, but I've seen plenty of non-Turkish Germans being idiots as well.
However what happened this year is unprecedented in it's scale and the nature of what happened, and the migrant element to it is definitely new.
Very depressing, the more that comes out the more it seems like many were actually recent migrants - police reports seem to mention syrian papers at least.
Earlier Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, said police had to "adjust" to the fact that groups of men had attacked women en masse.
He also warned that anti-immigrant groups were trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred against refugees.
"What happens on right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women," he said. "This is poisoning the climate of our society."
I'm having a pretty hard time accepting that anything written, however unpleasant, on right wing sites and chatrooms can be 'at least as awful' as (and by inference very possibly worse than) women being physically assaulted and actually raped in the street.
Not in the first instance, of course, but where will it end?
I'm not saying that Germany is going to start rounding up the Libyans and Syrians next week, but all over Europe we have been seeing increased hate crime towards various minority out-groups such as Jews and Muslims for some years. Here we are right now with people accusing "North African" man of hate crimes against women.
Here we are right now with people accusing "North African" man of hate crimes against women.
Because that is how the witnesses and victims described their attackers?
I don't understand what you're trying to say here...Are you saying that you don't believe the eyewitness and victim reports? Or are you saying that innocent people are being accused as well?
but all over Europe we have been seeing increased hate crime towards various minority out-groups such as Jews
And how much of that can be attributed to the large influx of Muslim immigrants?
and Muslims
Oh gee, I wonder why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its still ridiculous though, the idea that nasty words on the internet however racist, can be 'as awful as' actual real life sexual assault and rape.
German paper Welt am Sontag reported today that the police identified most of the perpetrators as Syrian refugees while few were north Africans, which has been confirmed by police unions. Apparently the heads of police suppressed this information out of fear of stigmatizing immigrants. The scandal continues.
Antario wrote: German paper Welt am Sontag reported today that the police identified most of the perpetrators as Syrian refugees while few were north Africans, which has been confirmed by police unions. Apparently the heads of police suppressed this information out of fear of stigmatizing immigrants. The scandal continues.
Yeah, just read it myself. It gives me a weird feeling when the policemen on the streets have to speak out and directly contradict what our interior minister said - was there a loss of information, or was this deliberately suppressed? I'm also very interested to see how fast the policemen on duty that night will be called racists for stating so openly what they saw - that many of the suspects controlled or taken in had refugee and asylum seeker papers on them.
It took nearly a week for the mainstream media to begin widely reporting it, apparently. I was astounded that Dakka Dakka was the first I heard of it. Come to think of it, I still don't recall seeing it on the Sky News headlines.
I'm also very interested to see how fast the policemen on duty that night will be called racists for stating so openly what they saw - that many of the suspects controlled or taken in had refugee and asylum seeker papers on them.
We're going to see days if not weeks of equivocation from political leaders, trying to redirect the narrative.
Hence the remarks from the Mayor about native German women taking steps to avoid offending migrants, or the remarks about "online hate speech" being 'at least as awful' as rape.
It took nearly a week for the mainstream media to begin widely reporting it, apparently. I was astounded that Dakka Dakka was the first I heard of it. Come to think of it, I still don't recall seeing it on the Sky News headlines.
I'm also very interested to see how fast the policemen on duty that night will be called racists for stating so openly what they saw - that many of the suspects controlled or taken in had refugee and asylum seeker papers on them.
We're going to see days if not weeks of equivocation from political leaders, trying to redirect the narrative.
Hence the remarks from the Mayor about native German women taking steps to avoid offending migrants, or the remarks about "online hate speech" being 'at least as awful' as rape.
A friend of mine just posted an article on facebook where the author was roughly referring to this incident, but also explained that Western media oversexualizes women so that all the young men from middle eastern countries are, naturally, thinking that all Western girls are easy and like a rather aggressive approach. It's another weird...discussion point I have not heard before.
Clearly Cologne needs a slut walk, in full view of said migrants.
Don't like it? Welcome to Europe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
also explaning that Western media oversexualizes women so that all the young men from middle eastern countries are, naturally, thinking that all Western girls are easy and like a rather aggressive approach.
So they're all addicted to western porn?
That argument might seem credible on the face of it...Women do tend to be sexualised in western media. But that also implies that middle eastern men are weak willed and easily influenced. Which is of course racist. Right?
Ugh, its so hard to keep up to date with modern definitions of racism...
I don't believe the problem has anything to do with race, or think that racism is applicable as a term for the resentment as it's not a race causing the trouble.
The issue is Islam.
There. I said it.
Islam and the barbarism is brings to any place it rules over
WITH MY DOGS.
