Tommy Robinson et. al winning the PR war

[Dogmaphobe]

It's not surprising given what the "International Free Press Society" is: International Free Press Society - Wikipedia

Coyote, why do you liberals hate the idea of the Christian West staying Christian?

Where did that come from? I had no idea we need to restrict religion to within certain boundaries. I don't care one way or another what religion it is as long as religion doesn't become part of the government. I'm for secular, not religion. Religion has a far too bloody history to be allowed to be in charge of us.

Ah -- so THAT'S why you have devoted yourself to promoting Islam and all actions by Muslims undertaken to spread it.

It's because you are all about secularism, don't ya know?!

Well...unlike you, I believe in freedom of religion within a Constitutional construct. I strongly support a secular government that protects the rights of ALL faiths in this country. You can twist that as much as you wish but my record is consistent on this.

You? Not so much.

Here's a test question (wanna bet you dodge it and launch right into attack mode?):

Do you believe in freedom of religion in this country as a foundational right? Within the limits of the Constitution? (i.e. you can't sacrifice virgins and call it religious freedom)?

Or - do you QUALIFY this by insisting some faiths are not "religions"?

Once you go down that road...you open Pandora's box. WHO decides what faiths are "acceptable"? AND...once you do so....which faith's are next in line for striking off? There ARE countries that only allow government authorized faiths to operate in their nation. Is that what you would seek?

That sure is a lot of words you use to try to fool people into thinking your zealous devotion to an ideology that seeks to exterminate secularism from the face of the Earth forever is actually about puppies and rainbows and unicorns, instead.

Unlike you, I do not consider the rape of children as "religious freedom". Britain, and the rest of Western Europe is suffering from an epidemic of rape at the hands of Muslims with contemptuous views towards women, children and the cultures in which they now live. They believe in an ideology that calls for them to dominate, not coexist, and to wage eternal war until all submit before them. Their rape of children is an act of intimidation and cultural dominance, and follows the same pattern of Muslim behavior throughout history as they seek to dominate one culture after another.

Not once have you ever criticized the Muslim child rapists for their racism, misogyny and disregard for the rights of children. 100% of the time, you attack those who do not support the rapes, attack a completely different target in an attempt to normalize the behavior and try to create the illusion that your own pattern of rhetoric is something different than what it actually is.

Healthy people react to the gang rape of 11 year old's with horror. Your reaction is always the same -- to deflect away from the rapists. There are many people in this forum smart enough to see your pattern of defense and who do not fall for your bull shit. I happen to be one of them.

 

[Coyote]

It's not surprising given what the "International Free Press Society" is: International Free Press Society - Wikipedia

Coyote, why do you liberals hate the idea of the Christian West staying Christian?

Where did that come from? I had no idea we need to restrict religion to within certain boundaries. I don't care one way or another what religion it is as long as religion doesn't become part of the government. I'm for secular, not religion. Religion has a far too bloody history to be allowed to be in charge of us.

Ah -- so THAT'S why you have devoted yourself to promoting Islam and all actions by Muslims undertaken to spread it.

It's because you are all about secularism, don't ya know?!

Well...unlike you, I believe in freedom of religion within a Constitutional construct. I strongly support a secular government that protects the rights of ALL faiths in this country. You can twist that as much as you wish but my record is consistent on this.

You? Not so much.

Here's a test question (wanna bet you dodge it and launch right into attack mode?):

Do you believe in freedom of religion in this country as a foundational right? Within the limits of the Constitution? (i.e. you can't sacrifice virgins and call it religious freedom)?

Or - do you QUALIFY this by insisting some faiths are not "religions"?

Once you go down that road...you open Pandora's box. WHO decides what faiths are "acceptable"? AND...once you do so....which faith's are next in line for striking off? There ARE countries that only allow government authorized faiths to operate in their nation. Is that what you would seek?

That sure is a lot of words you use to try to fool people into thinking your zealous devotion to an ideology that seeks to exterminate secularism from the face of the Earth forever is actually about puppies and rainbows and unicorns, instead.

Unlike you, I do not consider the rape of children as "religious freedom". Britain, and the rest of Western Europe is suffering from an epidemic of rape at the hands of Muslims with contemptuous views towards women, children and the cultures in which they now live. They believe in an ideology that calls for them to dominate, not coexist, and to wage eternal war until all submit before them. Their rape of children is an act of intimidation and cultural dominance, and follows the same pattern of Muslim behavior throughout history as they seek to dominate one culture after another.

Not once have you ever criticized the Muslim child rapists for their racism, misogyny and disregard for the rights of children. 100% of the time, you attack those who do not support the rapes, attack a completely different target in an attempt to normalize the behavior and try to create the illusion that your own pattern of rhetoric is something different than what it actually is.

Healthy people react to the gang rape of 11 year old's with horror. Your reaction is always the same -- to deflect away from the rapists. There are many people in this forum smart enough to see your pattern of defense and who do not fall for your bull shit. I happen to be one of them.

Wow...a multi paragraph rant that is nothing more than an off topic personal attack, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my post to you.

I think I just won my bet

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Coyote, why do you liberals hate the idea of the Christian West staying Christian?

Where did that come from? I had no idea we need to restrict religion to within certain boundaries. I don't care one way or another what religion it is as long as religion doesn't become part of the government. I'm for secular, not religion. Religion has a far too bloody history to be allowed to be in charge of us.

Ah -- so THAT'S why you have devoted yourself to promoting Islam and all actions by Muslims undertaken to spread it.

It's because you are all about secularism, don't ya know?!

Well...unlike you, I believe in freedom of religion within a Constitutional construct. I strongly support a secular government that protects the rights of ALL faiths in this country. You can twist that as much as you wish but my record is consistent on this.

You? Not so much.

Here's a test question (wanna bet you dodge it and launch right into attack mode?):

Do you believe in freedom of religion in this country as a foundational right? Within the limits of the Constitution? (i.e. you can't sacrifice virgins and call it religious freedom)?

Or - do you QUALIFY this by insisting some faiths are not "religions"?

Once you go down that road...you open Pandora's box. WHO decides what faiths are "acceptable"? AND...once you do so....which faith's are next in line for striking off? There ARE countries that only allow government authorized faiths to operate in their nation. Is that what you would seek?

That sure is a lot of words you use to try to fool people into thinking your zealous devotion to an ideology that seeks to exterminate secularism from the face of the Earth forever is actually about puppies and rainbows and unicorns, instead.

Unlike you, I do not consider the rape of children as "religious freedom". Britain, and the rest of Western Europe is suffering from an epidemic of rape at the hands of Muslims with contemptuous views towards women, children and the cultures in which they now live. They believe in an ideology that calls for them to dominate, not coexist, and to wage eternal war until all submit before them. Their rape of children is an act of intimidation and cultural dominance, and follows the same pattern of Muslim behavior throughout history as they seek to dominate one culture after another.

Not once have you ever criticized the Muslim child rapists for their racism, misogyny and disregard for the rights of children. 100% of the time, you attack those who do not support the rapes, attack a completely different target in an attempt to normalize the behavior and try to create the illusion that your own pattern of rhetoric is something different than what it actually is.

Healthy people react to the gang rape of 11 year old's with horror. Your reaction is always the same -- to deflect away from the rapists. There are many people in this forum smart enough to see your pattern of defense and who do not fall for your bull shit. I happen to be one of them.

Wow...a multi paragraph rant that is nothing more than an off topic personal attack, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my post to you.

I think I just won my bet

The topic of this thread is actually Tommy Robinson and his campaign against the rape of children. My posting addressed the rape of children.

Your support for Islamic child rape under the guise that you are really all about religious freedom notwithstanding, my posting was far more on topic than yours.

 

[Coyote]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

 

[Coyote]

Where did that come from? I had no idea we need to restrict religion to within certain boundaries. I don't care one way or another what religion it is as long as religion doesn't become part of the government. I'm for secular, not religion. Religion has a far too bloody history to be allowed to be in charge of us.

Ah -- so THAT'S why you have devoted yourself to promoting Islam and all actions by Muslims undertaken to spread it.

It's because you are all about secularism, don't ya know?!

Well...unlike you, I believe in freedom of religion within a Constitutional construct. I strongly support a secular government that protects the rights of ALL faiths in this country. You can twist that as much as you wish but my record is consistent on this.

You? Not so much.

Here's a test question (wanna bet you dodge it and launch right into attack mode?):

Do you believe in freedom of religion in this country as a foundational right? Within the limits of the Constitution? (i.e. you can't sacrifice virgins and call it religious freedom)?

Or - do you QUALIFY this by insisting some faiths are not "religions"?

Once you go down that road...you open Pandora's box. WHO decides what faiths are "acceptable"? AND...once you do so....which faith's are next in line for striking off? There ARE countries that only allow government authorized faiths to operate in their nation. Is that what you would seek?

That sure is a lot of words you use to try to fool people into thinking your zealous devotion to an ideology that seeks to exterminate secularism from the face of the Earth forever is actually about puppies and rainbows and unicorns, instead.

Unlike you, I do not consider the rape of children as "religious freedom". Britain, and the rest of Western Europe is suffering from an epidemic of rape at the hands of Muslims with contemptuous views towards women, children and the cultures in which they now live. They believe in an ideology that calls for them to dominate, not coexist, and to wage eternal war until all submit before them. Their rape of children is an act of intimidation and cultural dominance, and follows the same pattern of Muslim behavior throughout history as they seek to dominate one culture after another.

Not once have you ever criticized the Muslim child rapists for their racism, misogyny and disregard for the rights of children. 100% of the time, you attack those who do not support the rapes, attack a completely different target in an attempt to normalize the behavior and try to create the illusion that your own pattern of rhetoric is something different than what it actually is.

Healthy people react to the gang rape of 11 year old's with horror. Your reaction is always the same -- to deflect away from the rapists. There are many people in this forum smart enough to see your pattern of defense and who do not fall for your bull shit. I happen to be one of them.

Wow...a multi paragraph rant that is nothing more than an off topic personal attack, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my post to you.

I think I just won my bet

The topic of this thread is actually Tommy Robinson and his campaign against the rape of children. My posting addressed the rape of children.

Your support for Islamic child rape under the guise that you are really all about religious freedom notwithstanding, my posting was far more on topic than yours.

Strange...how was this "on topic"?

Ah -- so THAT'S why you have devoted yourself to promoting Islam and all actions by Muslims undertaken to spread it.

It's because you are all about secularism, don't ya know?!

 

[JimBowie1958]

I no more want to see an Islamic religiously dominated governance than I do a Christian one, and I don't see that happening, not even remotely. Just consider for a moment this: Christians in America have long been trying for just that, they are by far the dominant religion here....yet they've never been able to accomplish that. Our Constitution is strong and we, as a nation are built on many waves of ethnic immigration. They all settle in and become American - including Muslims.

Robinson is a Brit, and England does not have separation of church and state as we do. They officially recognise the Anglican church as the official church and the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church as well.

Making arguments from an American Constitution really does not matter.

Yes, I am in favor of not discriminating on the basis of religion with the exception of those faiths that advocate war on secular government and Christians.

Many Salafi clerics do exactly that, so I think Salafi's should not be allowed into the country while I appreciate and am fine with main stream Sunni's and Shia.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

 

[Coyote]

I no more want to see an Islamic religiously dominated governance than I do a Christian one, and I don't see that happening, not even remotely. Just consider for a moment this: Christians in America have long been trying for just that, they are by far the dominant religion here....yet they've never been able to accomplish that. Our Constitution is strong and we, as a nation are built on many waves of ethnic immigration. They all settle in and become American - including Muslims.

Robinson is a Brit, and England does not have separation of church and state as we do. They officially recognise the Anglican church as the official church and the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church as well.

Making arguments from an American Constitution really does not matter.

Yes, I am in favor of not discriminating on the basis of religion with the exception of those faiths that advocate war on secular government and Christians.

Many Salafi clerics do exactly that, so I think Salafi's should not be allowed into the country while I appreciate and am fine with main stream Sunni's and Shia.

I would be fine with all of them, and if individuals violate the law then they are criminally dealt with like any other. I do not think it's up to me to determine what faith is ok and is not, as long as they follow a nation's laws.

 

[Coyote]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I would be fine with all of them, and if individuals violate the law then they are criminally dealt with like any other. I do not think it's up to me to determine what faith is ok and is not, as long as they follow a nation's laws.

Then you should learn more about Jihadist Salafism.

Gilles Kepel writes that the Salafis whom he encountered in Europe in the 1980s were "totally apolitical".[3][5] However, by the mid-1990s he met some who felt jihad in the form of "violence and terrorism" was "justified to realize their political objectives". The combination of Salafi alienation from all things non-Muslim – including "mainstream European society" – and violent jihad created a "volatile mixture".[5] "When you're in the state of such alienation you become easy prey to the jihadi guys who will feed you more savory propaganda than the old propaganda of the Salafists who tell you to pray, fast and who are not taking action".[5]

According to Kepel, Salafist jihadism combined "respect for the sacred texts in their most literal form, ... with an absolute commitment to jihad, whose number-one target had to be America, perceived as the greatest enemy of the faith."[13]

Salafi jihadists distinguished themselves from salafis they term "sheikist", so named because – the jihadists believed – the "sheikists" had forsaken adoration of God for adoration of "the oil sheiks of the Arabian peninsula, with the Al Saud family at their head". Principal among the sheikist scholars was Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz – "the archetypal court ulema [ulama al-balat]". These allegedly "false" salafi "had to be striven against and eliminated", but even more infuriating was the Muslim Brotherhood, who were believed by Salafi jihadists to be excessively moderate and lacking in literal interpretation of holy texts.[13] Iyad El-Baghdadi describes Salafism as "deeply divided" into "mainstream (government-approved, or Islahi) Salafism", and jihadi Salafism.[7]

Another definition of Salafi jihadism, offered by Mohammed M. Hafez, is an "extreme form of Sunni Islamism that rejects democracy and Shia rule". Hafez distinguished them from apolitical and conservative Salafi scholars (such as Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz and Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh), but also from the sahwa movement associated with Salman al-Ouda or Safar Al-Hawali.[14]

According to Mohammed M. Hafez, contemporary jihadi Salafism is characterized by "five features":

• immense emphasis on the concept of tawhid (unity of God);
• God's sovereignty (hakimiyyat Allah), which defines right and wrong, good and evil, and which supersedes human reasoning is applicable in all places on earth and at all times, and makes unnecessary and un-Islamic other ideologies such as liberalism or humanism;
• the rejection of all innovation (bid‘ah) in Islam;
• the permissibility and necessity of takfir (the declaring of a Muslim to be outside the creed, so that they may face execution);
• and on the centrality of jihad against infidel regimes.[14]

Another researcher, (Thomas Hegghammer), has outlined five objectives shared by jihadis:[15]

• Changing the social and political organisation of the state, (an example, being the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and the former Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) which fought to overthrow the Algerian state and replace it with an Islamic state.)[15]
• Establishing sovereignty on a territory perceived as occupied or dominated by non-Muslims, (an example being the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (Soldiers of the Pure) in Indian occupied Kashmir and the Caucasus Emirate in the Russian Federation).[15]
• Defending the Muslim community (ummah) from external non-Muslim perceived threats, either the "near enemy" (al-adou al-qarib, this includes jihadists Arabs who travelled to Bosnia and Chechnya to defend local Muslims against non-Muslim armies) or the "far enemy" (al-adou al-baid, often affiliates of Al-Qaeda attacking the West).[15]
• Correcting other Muslims' moral behaviour. (In Indonesia, vigilantes first used sticks and stones to attack those they considered "deviant" in behavior before moving on to guns and bombs).[15]
• Intimidating and marginalising other Muslim sects, (an example being Lashkar-e-Jhangvi which has carried out violent attacks on Pakistani Shia for decades, and killings in Iraq.[15])

Robin Wright notes the importance in Salafi jihadist groups of

• the formal process of taking an oath of allegiance (Bay'ah) to a leader.[16] (This can be by individuals to an emir or by a local group to a transglobal group.)
• "marbling", i.e. pretending to cut ties to a less-than-popular global movement when "strategically or financially convenient". (An example is the cutting of ties to al-Qaeda by the Syrian group Al-Nusra Front with al-Qaeda's approval.[16]

According to Michael Horowitz, Salafi jihad is an ideology that identifies the "alleged source of the Muslims' conundrum" in the "persistent attacks and humiliation of Muslims on the part of an anti-Islamic alliance of what it terms 'Crusaders', 'Zionists', and 'apostates'."[17]
​

They think all main stream Sunnis and Shia are heretics and worthy of execution, and you want to let more of them into the USA?

Come on, use your common sense.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.
We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

It isnt evil, it is just naive.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

 

[Coyote]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps and then turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

 

[Coyote]

Just as an fyi Dogmaphobe, because I know you have little interest in events outside Muslim participation...rape statistics are not a simple black and white data dump. Child rape even more so. I've started threads on child marriages (which is child rape), on rape as a tool of war in the Congo conflict (horrific rape of women and even infants using implements like rifles); the rape of the Rohinga refugees in Myanmar's attempted genocide. You were always notable for your absence.

If you want to talk about rape around the world, let's do so. Do you know which countries have the highest incidents of child marriage? (Child marriage statistics are the only way I can think of the get accurate information on child rape around the world) Many Islamic countries and, surprise non-Islamic countries like India (ranked in the top ten) and Guatamala.

You want to stop child rape? Great! So do I. How do you propose to do it. Ring your hands, decry how evil Muslims are, and condemn them?

OR...how about supporting things that actually make a difference? (oops...but, they won't affirm your hate which is what this is really about right?).

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing. Police too afraid of being seen as "racially profiling" to properly act. Budget cuts to law enforcement in the UK (this has been a big problem). The fact that the victims are lower class girls, who were already vulnerable, and their reports weren't taken as seriously, and their communities largely ignored. Britain still has a pretty entrenched class system. If all those factors weren't in play, the rings would have been broken much earlier.

I've brought up all this before, and other posters have taken up the discussion - but you continuously claim bringing it up is "supporting child rape".

This isn't going to go anywhere because you've never actually offered a real solution or even addressed these points -EVER. So I know it's a wasted post.

TaTa...see you elsewhere

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing.

What an amazingly ignorant remark, even for you.

Good policing would only be to address the consequences of terrible mistakes that never should have been made in the first place.

The child rape rings exist because of concentrations of uncivilized savages who think that it's OK to rape children. They exist in England and in other parts of Europe because those places allowed themselves to be swamped with such savages immigrating from shithole countries known to be infested with them; and because of the complicity of worthless, sociopathic, cowardly scum such as yourself who defend these savages, and condemn as “bigots” those who dare to stand against them. And who, of course, have contributed to the very social environment that has allowed the police to be shamed and intimidated out of doing their jobs properly.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

This is a thread about Tommy Robinson, and the degree to which Muslim men are responsible for the massive rape of British children, and not all this extraneous, off topic stuff you always bring into threads such as these.

You call my opposition to it hate. I call your defense of it evil.

We will just have to continue to disagree, I guess,

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

I said nothing at all to indicate it is about me. that is just you getting hysterical.

if you cannot understand why I an offended by those of one culture systematically raping the children of another, you are beyond all hope.

the better question would be why aren't YOU incensed by it? if it were native British men raping thousands of Muslim children, you would be in an absolute rage. Reverse the roles, though, and your first reaction is to defend.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing.

What an amazingly ignorant remark, even for you.

Good policing would only be to address the consequences of terrible mistakes that never should have been made in the first place.

The child rape rings exist because of concentrations of uncivilized savages who think that it's OK to rape children. They exist in England and in other parts of Europe because those places allowed themselves to be swamped with such savages immigrating from shithole countries known to be infested with them; and because of the complicity of worthless, sociopathic, cowardly scum such as yourself who defend these savages, and condemn as “bigots” those who dare to stand against them. And who, of course, have contributed to the very social environment that has allowed the police to be shamed and intimidated out of doing their jobs properly.

She can't bring herself to criticize the actual rapists who target the children of the host culture, calling them "easy meat" while degrading them in the worst possible ways as a show of cultural superiority.

She chooses to go after the police, instead, even as she is contributing to the same mind set that is responsible for their inaction.

It is all very sick.

 

[Coyote]

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

Oh gee. I guess you must have missed all the on topic stuff since this thread is also about what Tommy Robinson represents as you pointed out to me in your posts.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

I said nothing at all to indicate it is about me. that is just you getting hysterical.

if you cannot understand why I an offended by those of one culture systematically raping the children of another, you are beyond all hope.

the better question would be why aren't YOU incensed by it? if it were native British men raping thousands of Muslim children, you would be in an absolute rage. Reverse the roles, though, and your first reaction is to defend.

So...let me clarify this before moving on. You are offended but have no desire to explore solutions? Is that correct? You are just hear to bemoan your impression of being "silenced" (that is about you) and be offended?

I find any rape of children offensive, but I am MORE interested in finding solutions than I am in sitting here proclaiming offense.

Solutions would certainly make for a more productive discussion then your endless claims of being offended.

So watcha got for solutions?

 

[Coyote]

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing.

What an amazingly ignorant remark, even for you.

Good policing would only be to address the consequences of terrible mistakes that never should have been made in the first place.

The child rape rings exist because of concentrations of uncivilized savages who think that it's OK to rape children. They exist in England and in other parts of Europe because those places allowed themselves to be swamped with such savages immigrating from shithole countries known to be infested with them; and because of the complicity of worthless, sociopathic, cowardly scum such as yourself who defend these savages, and condemn as “bigots” those who dare to stand against them. And who, of course, have contributed to the very social environment that has allowed the police to be shamed and intimidated out of doing their jobs properly.

She can't bring herself to criticize the actual rapists who target the children of the host culture, calling them "easy meat" while degrading them in the worst possible ways as a show of cultural superiority.

She chooses to go after the police, instead, even as she is contributing to the same mind set that is responsible for their inaction.

It is all very sick.

Well...I have to thank you for providing an excellent example of what is wrong in all this. I'm not sure if it's a deliberate ignorance or if it's that you just have not actually read any of the news related to it.

Here's some information to enlighten you.

'1,400 children abused' in Rotherham

Racism' fear
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

It should have been stopped and prevented

Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".

Prof Jay said the first of these reports was "effectively suppressed" because senior officers did not believe the data. The other two were ignored, she said.

The inquiry team found that in the early-2000s when a group of professionals attempted to monitor a number of children believed to be at risk, "managers gave little help or support to their efforts".

The report revealed some people at a senior level in the police and children's social care thought the extent of the problem was being "exaggerated".

Prof Jay said: "The authorities involved have a great deal to answer for."

A victim of abuse in Rotherham, who has been called "Isabel" to protect her identity, told BBC Panorama: "I was a child and they should have stepped in.

"No matter what's done now... it's not going to change that it was too late, it should have been stopped and prevented."​

Who failed them? They were failed on multiple levels: by the broken social services system, by police afraid of being labeled as racist, by a class system that doesn't take their complaints seriously, and by the rapists themselves.

How can this be fixed?