One dead in knife attack in Hamburg supermarket, motive unclear

[simple1]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

"....there wasn't a solution on the table to assist the front line countries....."   How about refusing to accept any immigrants UNTIL cleared and forcefully deporting back to Libya those that had already arrived. The way to stop your basement flooding is to turn off the water, not pick up a bucket.

 

"The worst thing European countries could do would be to invite in hundreds of thousands of refugees...." you got that part right. The self fulfilling prophesy will occur whether you pander to immigrants or not, or do you think they are suddenly going to adopt western attitudes and women's rights?

I believe it is against forum rules to change the meaning of posts by incorrectly quoting. So, to repeat what I said "at the time there wasn't a solution on the table to assist the front line countries in a timely manner." To add I understand there is still not a legal governments to government agreement in place to return boat people to Libya. Refoulement would be in breach of internationally accepted Rule of Law.

 

Regards your second paragraph I do believe you have experienced the 'swoosh' moment regards the meaning of my quote. However, obviously some would have cultural norms contrary to accepted Western standards. There again there are plenty of Christian heritage citizens who are of the same type, where to deport them? 

 

I understand some Western governments have or are in the process of getting legally actionable commitments from those being assessed for refugee  / migrant status, the outcome being laws so those in breach can more easily be removed from the host country i.e. less onerous legal criteria. 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by simple1

[halloween]

35 minutes ago, simple1 said:

I believe it is against forum rules to change the meaning of posts by incorrectly quoting. So, to repeat what I said "at the time there wasn't a solution on the table to assist the front line countries in a timely manner." To add I understand there is still not a legal governments to government agreement in place to return boat people to Libya. Refoulement would be in breach of internationally accepted Rule of Law.

 

Regards your second paragraph I do believe you have experienced the 'swoosh' moment regards the meaning of my quote. However, obviously some would have cultural norms contrary to accepted Western standards. There again there are plenty of Christian heritage citizens who are of the same type, where to deport them? 

 

I understand some Western governments have or are in the process of getting legally actionable commitments from those being assessed for refugee  / migrant status, the outcome being laws so those in breach can more easily be removed from the host country i.e. less onerous legal criteria. 

 

So leaving out "in a timely manner" changed the meaning of your statement? A very fast solution would be a simple statement that migrants are not welcome, and that aiding and abetting such immigration would be regarded as an act of war. When faced with a crisis, prompt action is required, and laws can be changed to suit the needs of the occasion.

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, halloween said:

So leaving out "in a timely manner" changed the meaning of your statement?So leaving out "in a timely manner" changed the meaning of your statement? A very fast solution would be a simple statement that migrants are not welcome, and that aiding and abetting such immigration would be regarded as an act of war. When faced with a crisis, prompt action is required, and laws can be changed to suit the needs of the occasion.

Yes. The rest of your post is a mixture of far right rhetoric and naivety / ignorance as to processes for enactment of transnational law.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by simple1

[bert bloggs]

Here is a good idea ,why dont muslims who do not want to fit in ,dress and stick to the laws of that country just stay in their nice muslim countrys ,then we can all be happy .

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Here is a good idea ,why dont muslims who do not want to fit in ,dress and stick to the laws of that country just stay in their nice muslim countrys ,then we can all be happy .

 

There's a dress code?!

[onthesoi]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There's a dress code?!

 

Englander shirt and union jack shorts....

[dick dasterdly]

On 7/29/2017 at 7:13 AM, rooster59 said:

The police said the man had suddenly started attacking customers in the shop, with no immediate indication of any political or religious motive

Have the authorities yet stated the motive behind the attack?

 

Or why he hadn't been detained once his refugee status had been denied?

 

Not to mention that he was an immigrant recognised as a known potential threat - but still hadn't been detained.....

[simple1]

47 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Have the authorities yet stated the motive behind the attack?

 

Or why he hadn't been detained once his refugee status had been denied?

 

Not to mention that he was an immigrant recognised as a known potential threat - but still hadn't been detained.....

A few reported versions, currently not 100% clear; use Internet search

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by simple1

[dick dasterdly]

48 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Have the authorities yet stated the motive behind the attack?

 

Or why he hadn't been detained once his refugee status had been denied?

 

Not to mention that he was an immigrant recognised as a known potential threat - but still hadn't been detained.....

 

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

A few reported versions, currently not 100% clear; use Internet search

 

I rest my case....

 

The attack happened nearly a week ago, and yet the 'authorities' are staying quiet from the original statement of "motive unclear".....

[simple1]

24 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I rest my case....

 

The attack happened nearly a week ago, and yet the 'authorities' are staying quiet from the original statement of "motive unclear".....

I ask again why people immediate jump to conspiracy BS. Your comment is not an accurate summary, it's an ongoing investigation with media updates, charges have yet to be made. As you can't even bother to do basic research, an example media report from yesterday...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/31/hamburg-knife-attacker-had-islamist-motive/

[dick dasterdly]

39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I rest my case....

 

The attack happened nearly a week ago, and yet the 'authorities' are staying quiet from the original statement of "motive unclear".....

 

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

I ask again why people immediate jump to conspiracy BS. Your comment is not an accurate summary, it's an ongoing investigation with media updates, charges have yet to be made. As you can't even bother to do basic research, an example media report from yesterday...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/31/hamburg-knife-attacker-had-islamist-motive/

So a media source pointing out that he was a known problem immigrant - is  the same as the authorities  saying nothing further than their original report "motive unclear"?

[7by7]

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 5:30 PM, Morch said:

 

See you're back to the quoting practices which makes replying to your posts cumbersome, and serve to muddy the waters. Oh well...

let's see how long this one lasts....

 

As expected, you jumped right in with that wide brush - well done. Of course, nothing to actually address the point - how would an average person to know who's who? Why wouldn't it be reasonable to expect the apprehension based on generalizations? Mind, I'm not saying that's a good thing - just that this is how people often react and think. Bashing them ain't gonna change much.

 

What I meant is what I meant. People, generally speaking, do not take well to abrupt changes, especially if these are perceived in  a negative manner. Not too complicated, and no real need to heap too many interpretations on that. I'd wish you wouldn't turn each and every topic to a discussion on things in the UK, past and present, but do not hold my hopes high.

 

So after the usual rose tainted "historical review" there's a one liner (if that) acknowledging an issue. Not that this is expanded upon, as the obfuscation mode kicks in. 

 

Condemnations (which are not quite what you habitually make of them) are not an answer. As far as alleviating fears and suspicions their effect is limited. It usually comes after something horrible happened, it doesn't last, and there are always those not going along with the program praising such actions. What you consider "proof", is nothing of the sort, and is mostly irrelevant to the issue even if it was otherwise. And no, you do not have to re-post all them tired links and pics. Same goes for the nonsense (and it's exactly that - was addressed on many previous topics) about Muslim communities aiding authorities. Again, not quite as presented, and irrelevant to the issue. Your personal experiences and views are your own, and doubt they could be even taken as representative of all those living in your town. Regardless, there are plenty of posters presenting alternate experiences and views, which you usually dismiss  offhand.

 

On the off chance you don't get it - when people's way of life comes under perceived threat (which could be anything perceived in a negative manner), rational arguments don't always cut it. All the more so, when these arguments originate from authorities and from parties deemed untrustworthy.

 

As for suggestion - authorities ought to take into consideration public sentiment before embracing policies or introducing changes which are likely to be resisted. Not to say that anything should be put to a referendum or that all policies are destined to be popular. But refusing to address public sentiment, bashing anyone who takes a different view and adopting a faux moral high-ground are not really helpful. Better information, less ambiguity/moralizing when addressing issues, and moving at slower pace are.

 

Notably, the only comment you can come up with is another irrelevant harping on a faux point. Should this be taken as an indication that you do not see any issues with how things are/were handled?

 

 

Coming to the last bit...

 

I have actually spent a while in Kolkata, same goes for other cities of similar conditions. As said, I doubt the point was about the specific city per se, and more to do with the poverty associated with it.  Europeans overestimating Muslim population (or perhaps, immigration figures) relates directly to the issues discussed above. It is a pity that you seem to be unable to discuss any of it without regularly resorting to tarring the views of those not agreeing with you.

 

If you consider half a line admitting there is a problem, then a deluge or words attempting to explain it away or touch on anything but, that's not really much of a discussion. Your stance on "Islamic Terrorism" amounts a series of "arguments" aimed at minimizing the issue, or disassociating it from Muslims and Islam. Again, not much room for discussion there.

 

 

Should be enough material here for you to go down multiple secondary points, while dodging the original issues raised. Here we go again...

As I attempted to explain to you previously, I sometimes break my quotes from posts containing several individual points into their individual points so I can better respond to each point individually. That you deem this 'cumbersome' and serving to 'muddy the waters' astounds me. Why don't you want people to see each individual point in one of your posts addressed individually? 

 

But as you find this clarity so objectionable, I wont do so this time.

 

By asking how the average person is expected to know who is who, I assume you mean how is the average person expected to know who is an Islamic terrorist and who is a law abiding citizen who happens to be Muslim. Well, the simple answer is that they don't. How does the average person know whether a youth in a hoody on a dark street is a mugger or just an innocent person on their way home from the pub?

 

Your response seems to indicate that you believe the generalisation prevalent in some sections of the population that all Muslims should be presumed guilty until proven innocent is acceptable!

 

As someone who is often, wrongly, accused by certain members here of apologising for and even excusing Islamic terrorism, I find it very odd to now be lambasted by you for acknowledging that it is a major problem!

 

I am astounded that you consider the continuing worldwide condemnation of Islamic terrorism and specific acts of Islamic terrorism, condemnation which has been coming for decades, coming from Muslims of all walks of life to be irrelevant! You now seem to be one of those who complain that Muslims say nothing  but dismiss their words as irrelevant when they do! The only surprise is that you have not used the tired old response that they secretly support the terrorists and are lying to us in order to deceive us!

 

That you dismiss as nonsense the intelligence received by the security services from members of the Muslim community as 'nonsense' is simply another attempt to dismiss the efforts of the vast majority of law abiding Muslims and paint them with the secret terrorist supporters brush!

 

Please enlighten me as to what you mean by "authorities ought to take into consideration public sentiment before embracing policies or introducing changes which are likely to be resisted?" 

 

What policies?

 

What changes?

 

Your post contained much content, but little substance. Instead of dismissing what I say as "irrelevant harping on a faux point" maybe you should address the issues yourself, instead of falling into the tired 'All Muslims bad" generalisations, perhaps you could actually present some real arguments to counter my points.

 

My personal experiences are, as you say, my personal experiences. But as I live in a European town with a substantial Muslim population I consider then to be more relevant to the realities than the views of members who post from 6000 miles away and get their information from the likes of Pamela Gellar, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch etc. and believe the rubbish such sites publish about no go zones, Sharia law areas etc. 

 

My stance on Islamic terrorism is simple, and has oft been stated before. 

 

Islamic terrorism is evil and a major threat; arguably the biggest threat we face today. 

 

We are not going to defeat that threat by alienating the innocent Muslim population. We need them on our side, and thankfully the vast majority of them are. How long will they continue to be so if they are marginalised, discriminated against etc. merely because they share the religion of the terrorists?

 

Yes, suspects should be watched; but arresting and holding people merely on suspicion that they may commit an offence can easily have the opposite effect to the desired one. Remember internment without trial in Northern Ireland? That turned into a successful recruiting tool for the PIRA; not a deterrent!
 

As for my stance on Islam itself; whilst having no religion myself, I do believe in religious freedom. However, there are some aspects of the more ultra orthodox Islam which I find objectionable. But, then, these same aspects appear in ultra orthodox Judaism and some Christian sects and are just as objectionable; especially when it comes to women's and LGBT rights. But no doubt you will dismiss this as irrelevant or a diversion.

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎02‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 9:27 AM, dick dasterdly said:

 

I rest my case....

 

The attack happened nearly a week ago, and yet the 'authorities' are staying quiet from the original statement of "motive unclear".....

Because, unlike internet warriors, the authorities deal in facts, not suppositions.

 

Proper investigation takes time; as with other similar cases the authorities will no doubt release the facts in due course.

 

One reason, of course, for not yet doing so is to prevent any prejudicial effect on his trial. A common practice in Western democracies.

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

As I attempted to explain to you previously, I sometimes break my quotes from posts containing several individual points into their individual points so I can better respond to each point individually. That you deem this 'cumbersome' and serving to 'muddy the waters' astounds me. Why don't you want people to see each individual point in one of your posts addressed individually? 

 

But as you find this clarity so objectionable, I wont do so this time.

 

By asking how the average person is expected to know who is who, I assume you mean how is the average person expected to know who is an Islamic terrorist and who is a law abiding citizen who happens to be Muslim. Well, the simple answer is that they don't. How does the average person know whether a youth in a hoody on a dark street is a mugger or just an innocent person on their way home from the pub?

 

Your response seems to indicate that you believe the generalisation prevalent in some sections of the population that all Muslims should be presumed guilty until proven innocent is acceptable!

 

As someone who is often, wrongly, accused by certain members here of apologising for and even excusing Islamic terrorism, I find it very odd to now be lambasted by you for acknowledging that it is a major problem!

 

I am astounded that you consider the continuing worldwide condemnation of Islamic terrorism and specific acts of Islamic terrorism, condemnation which has been coming for decades, coming from Muslims of all walks of life to be irrelevant! You now seem to be one of those who complain that Muslims say nothing  but dismiss their words as irrelevant when they do! The only surprise is that you have not used the tired old response that they secretly support the terrorists and are lying to us in order to deceive us!

 

That you dismiss as nonsense the intelligence received by the security services from members of the Muslim community as 'nonsense' is simply another attempt to dismiss the efforts of the vast majority of law abiding Muslims and paint them with the secret terrorist supporters brush!

 

Please enlighten me as to what you mean by "authorities ought to take into consideration public sentiment before embracing policies or introducing changes which are likely to be resisted?" 

 

What policies?

 

What changes?

 

Your post contained much content, but little substance. Instead of dismissing what I say as "irrelevant harping on a faux point" maybe you should address the issues yourself, instead of falling into the tired 'All Muslims bad" generalisations, perhaps you could actually present some real arguments to counter my points.

 

My personal experiences are, as you say, my personal experiences. But as I live in a European town with a substantial Muslim population I consider then to be more relevant to the realities than the views of members who post from 6000 miles away and get their information from the likes of Pamela Gellar, Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch etc. and believe the rubbish such sites publish about no go zones, Sharia law areas etc. 

 

My stance on Islamic terrorism is simple, and has oft been stated before. 

 

Islamic terrorism is evil and a major threat; arguably the biggest threat we face today. 

 

We are not going to defeat that threat by alienating the innocent Muslim population. We need them on our side, and thankfully the vast majority of them are. How long will they continue to be so if they are marginalised, discriminated against etc. merely because they share the religion of the terrorists?

 

Yes, suspects should be watched; but arresting and holding people merely on suspicion that they may commit an offence can easily have the opposite effect to the desired one. Remember internment without trial in Northern Ireland? That turned into a successful recruiting tool for the PIRA; not a deterrent!
 

As for my stance on Islam itself; whilst having no religion myself, I do believe in religious freedom. However, there are some aspects of the more ultra orthodox Islam which I find objectionable. But, then, these same aspects appear in ultra orthodox Judaism and some Christian sects and are just as objectionable; especially when it comes to women's and LGBT rights. But no doubt you will dismiss this as irrelevant or a diversion.

 

 

 

 

 

The usual fare.

 

I'm not really astounded that you pretend to be astounded by comments on your posting style. It's not like we haven't been through that on past topics. That it's easier for you to post the way you do, is one thing - responding to your fragmented posts is another, as the system makes it difficult when it comes to multiple nesting. It serves to make your posts seemingly orderly, not so with those trying to reply. But you already knew that.

 

Asking how a person is expected to know who's a potential danger can be applied to many situations. There was no implication, as you attempt to present, that I "believe the generalisation prevalent in some sections of the population that all Muslims should be presumed guilty until proven innocent is acceptable!". What I was addressing is a general phenomenon - people make generalizations, and that's part how people are. A fact of life. Nothing like the twisted meaning applied. Saying that it ain't nice is all very well, but is essentially irrelevant.

 

Another "astounded", oh well. Let me try once more. You put a whole lot of stock by condemnations. Well, trouble is condemnation is a minimal reaction. It doesn't register much, unless massive and persistent. That you choose to see the situation as such is a choice, not necessarily reality and not how many others see it. Condemnations come after attacks. They are short lived. Have no real impact on people's lives. They do not prevent attacks. They are not always very visible. They are often accompanied by parallel reaction supporting attacks. They pale in compared to reactions associated with perceived slights to Islam or Muslims. They are irrelevant in the sense that their effect on people's perceptions is limited. They fail to make a mark. As for the pathetic "the only surprise is that you have not used the tired old response that they secretly support the terrorists and are lying to us in order to deceive us!" - yet another attempt to imply a view that isn't part of my posts.

 

With regard to the intelligence issue - you are welcome to look up previous topics where this was discussed at length. I said it then, and I'll say it now - gobbling up any public relations press release and taking it at face value is a choice. And, of course, there was no attempt to "paint them with the secret terrorist supporters brush!" - another dishonest claim. It is only in your imagination that a view can accommodate either/or options. Not accepting the version suggested does not automatically imply embracing a direct opposite.

 

Authorities ought to take into consideration public sentiment before embracing policies or introducing changes which are likely to be resisted. You're not clear what that's about? No inkling about policies? Changes? Right...Well, what I posted about had to do with how people perceive and react to the current asylum-seeker/refugee/migrant crisis and related issues. If the point of the faux questions was to embark on a tirade explaining away specific instances - save it, and try to read my posts again. Perhaps focus on such words as perceptions, apprehension and fear of change. Then try to apply these to how people view events, without applying the usual labels.

 

I have no desire to thoroughly "address" each and every of your usual talking points ("the issues"). They are not particularly relevant to what I posted, which is of a more general nature. It is funny how you expect your "points" to be "countered", without acknowledging that said "points" had little to do with what I was posting about, and which ultimately - you neither addressed nor countered. Apart from that - there were no "all Muslims bad" generalizations in my posts. Not even one. 

 

There are quite a few posters living in Europe, or spending a meaningful amount of time there on a regular basis - who do not fully subscribe to your views. And of course, not everyone who does not agree with you relies on extreme right wing sources. That's just another of your dishonest tarring attempts (while whining about the opposite). Not, by the way, that any of it is relevant to what I posted - which had to do with a more general take on things.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Morch

[balo]

Just another islamic nutter.  Next time you want to do shopping in Germany , bring a bullet proof vest . 

 

[dick dasterdly]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Because, unlike internet warriors, the authorities deal in facts, not suppositions.

 

Proper investigation takes time; as with other similar cases the authorities will no doubt release the facts in due course.

 

One reason, of course, for not yet doing so is to prevent any prejudicial effect on his trial. A common practice in Western democracies.

 

 

 

Whereas I'm sure that this incident will 'die a quiet death' with maybe a small paragraph in the newspapers.

 

 One of my main concerns is the authorities hiding the truth about a 'nutter' immigrant allowed to 'run free' and kill/hurt people- even though he was known to be a fanatic and had been denied 'refugee' status!

 

Edit - Incidentally, does anyone know what happened in the case of the 'nutter' who kicked a German woman down train station stairs whilst his friends looked on - completely unconcerned?

Edited August 4, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[Orton Rd]

23 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Because, unlike internet warriors, the authorities deal in facts, not suppositions.

 

Proper investigation takes time; as with other similar cases the authorities will no doubt release the facts in due course.

 

One reason, of course, for not yet doing so is to prevent any prejudicial effect on his trial. A common practice in Western democracies.

 

 

 

The Quran condones violent attacks in over 100 suras- fact

Some Muslims follow out attacks against non believers because of this- fact

Many apologists deny the connection- fact

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whereas I'm sure that this incident will 'die a quiet death' with maybe a small paragraph in the newspapers.

 

 One of my main concerns is the authorities hiding the truth about a 'nutter' immigrant allowed to 'run free' and kill/hurt people- even though he was known to be a fanatic and had been denied 'refugee' status!

 

Edit - Incidentally, does anyone know what happened in the case of the 'nutter' who kicked a German woman down train station stairs whilst his friends looked on - completely unconcerned?

Bulgarian with Slavic name - three years jail

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[7by7]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 10:57 AM, dick dasterdly said:

 

 One of my main concerns is the authorities hiding the truth about a 'nutter' immigrant allowed to 'run free' and kill/hurt people- even though he was known to be a fanatic and had been denied 'refugee' status!

Except the authorities are not 'hiding the truth.' They are investigating to discover the truth.

[Here2008]

Just now, 7by7 said:

Except the authorities are not 'hiding the truth.' They are investigating to discover the truth.

There is more than a little evidence which shows the Swedish authorities (for example) deliberately prevented the reporting of serious crimes committed by 'new comers'. 

[7by7]

On ‎03‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 1:41 PM, Morch said:

 

The usual fare.

 

I'm not really astounded that you pretend to be astounded by comments on your posting style. It's not like we haven't been through that on past topics. That it's easier for you to post the way you do, is one thing - responding to your fragmented posts is another, as the system makes it difficult when it comes to multiple nesting. It serves to make your posts seemingly orderly, not so with those trying to reply. But you already knew that.

 

Asking how a person is expected to know who's a potential danger can be applied to many situations. There was no implication, as you attempt to present, that I "believe the generalisation prevalent in some sections of the population that all Muslims should be presumed guilty until proven innocent is acceptable!". What I was addressing is a general phenomenon - people make generalizations, and that's part how people are. A fact of life. Nothing like the twisted meaning applied. Saying that it ain't nice is all very well, but is essentially irrelevant.

 

Another "astounded", oh well. Let me try once more. You put a whole lot of stock by condemnations. Well, trouble is condemnation is a minimal reaction. It doesn't register much, unless massive and persistent. That you choose to see the situation as such is a choice, not necessarily reality and not how many others see it. Condemnations come after attacks. They are short lived. Have no real impact on people's lives. They do not prevent attacks. They are not always very visible. They are often accompanied by parallel reaction supporting attacks. They pale in compared to reactions associated with perceived slights to Islam or Muslims. They are irrelevant in the sense that their effect on people's perceptions is limited. They fail to make a mark. As for the pathetic "the only surprise is that you have not used the tired old response that they secretly support the terrorists and are lying to us in order to deceive us!" - yet another attempt to imply a view that isn't part of my posts.

 

With regard to the intelligence issue - you are welcome to look up previous topics where this was discussed at length. I said it then, and I'll say it now - gobbling up any public relations press release and taking it at face value is a choice. And, of course, there was no attempt to "paint them with the secret terrorist supporters brush!" - another dishonest claim. It is only in your imagination that a view can accommodate either/or options. Not accepting the version suggested does not automatically imply embracing a direct opposite.

 

Authorities ought to take into consideration public sentiment before embracing policies or introducing changes which are likely to be resisted. You're not clear what that's about? No inkling about policies? Changes? Right...Well, what I posted about had to do with how people perceive and react to the current asylum-seeker/refugee/migrant crisis and related issues. If the point of the faux questions was to embark on a tirade explaining away specific instances - save it, and try to read my posts again. Perhaps focus on such words as perceptions, apprehension and fear of change. Then try to apply these to how people view events, without applying the usual labels.

 

I have no desire to thoroughly "address" each and every of your usual talking points ("the issues"). They are not particularly relevant to what I posted, which is of a more general nature. It is funny how you expect your "points" to be "countered", without acknowledging that said "points" had little to do with what I was posting about, and which ultimately - you neither addressed nor countered. Apart from that - there were no "all Muslims bad" generalizations in my posts. Not even one. 

 

There are quite a few posters living in Europe, or spending a meaningful amount of time there on a regular basis - who do not fully subscribe to your views. And of course, not everyone who does not agree with you relies on extreme right wing sources. That's just another of your dishonest tarring attempts (while whining about the opposite). Not, by the way, that any of it is relevant to what I posted - which had to do with a more general take on things.

 

There is nothing new in the above post.

 

That you have chosen to ignore my previous responses to your points and simply repeat your tired old clichés makes any further response by myself redundant. 

 

You will, no doubt, consider this to be a cop out; your choice.

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, Here2008 said:

There is more than a little evidence which shows the Swedish authorities (for example) deliberately prevented the reporting of serious crimes committed by 'new comers'. 

Examples?

[Here2008]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Examples?

 

Here is the Swedish Governments whitewash !  http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/

 

 

Look elsewhere for the truth ! 

[7by7]

On ‎04‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 11:10 AM, Orton Rd said:

The Quran condones violent attacks in over 100 suras- fact

Some Muslims follow out attacks against non believers because of this- fact

Many apologists deny the connection- fact

Yes, ISIS and their ilk do, indeed, use certain verses in the Quran to justify their terrorism.

 

Yes, Islamaphobes use the same verses to justify their bigotry.

 

But both groups, either deliberately or through ignorance, take those verses out of context in order to justify themselves.

Anyone who says the Quran advocates terrorism obviously hasn't read its lessons on violence

Quote

Only two groups in our society promote the “Quran teaches terrorism” myth: anti-Muslim pundits and Isis extremists. Both are wrong. 

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

 

"Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"

 

"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

 

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

 

No women's rights; condemnation of homosexuality and support for the slave owners right to do as they wish to their slaves.

 

All these verses come from the New Testament, where you will find many more similar if you care to look.

 

As for the Old Testament; way worse.

 

However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context changes the meaning completely.

 

[7by7]

32 minutes ago, Here2008 said:

There is more than a little evidence which shows the Swedish authorities (for example) deliberately prevented the reporting of serious crimes committed by 'new comers'. 

 

23 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Examples?

 

3 minutes ago, Here2008 said:

 

Here is the Swedish Governments whitewash !  http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/

 

 

Look elsewhere for the truth ! 

 But that is not evidence that the Swedish authorities are hiding the truth!

 

Where is your evidence that the report is a whitewash intended to hide the truth?

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

There is nothing new in the above post.

 

That you have chosen to ignore my previous responses to your points and simply repeat your tired old clichés makes any further response by myself redundant. 

 

You will, no doubt, consider this to be a cop out; your choice.

 

That's exactly what it is - a cop out. Same old story.

You ignore the issues touched upon in favor of re-hashing a bunch of faux "points, most having little to do with the post commented on. Then you whine about "ignoring" your "points", while tossing all them dishonest misrepresentations of views to boot.

 

Pathetic.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by Morch

[Here2008]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 But that is not evidence that the Swedish authorities are hiding the truth!

 

I might have given you more credit ---- however, YOU clearly believethat Sweden has not suffered a wave of violence/rape committed by new comers.  I suggest you ask a Swede for his/her opinion.

[watcharacters]

 

 

 

I feel positive towards Germany.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, ISIS and their ilk do, indeed, use certain verses in the Quran to justify their terrorism.

 

Yes, Islamaphobes use the same verses to justify their bigotry.

 

But both groups, either deliberately or through ignorance, take those verses out of context in order to justify themselves.

Anyone who says the Quran advocates terrorism obviously hasn't read its lessons on violence

 

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."

 

"Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"

 

"In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

 

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

 

No women's rights; condemnation of homosexuality and support for the slave owners right to do as they wish to their slaves.

 

All these verses come from the New Testament, where you will find many more similar if you care to look.

 

As for the Old Testament; way worse.

 

However, just like the quotes from the Quran; context is all and reading them in their proper context changes the meaning completely.

 

 

Here's another quote by the author, made on a separate interview: "I never said I speak for others. According to me, I do represent mainstream Islam. But mainstream Islam does not accept me. I represent the Ahmadiyya interpretation of Islam to the best of my ability."

 

Qasim Rashid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasim_Rashid#Controversy

 

 

I'm sure you are aware of the implication of the author exact religious affiliation, those who don't may want to read up here:

 

Ahmadiyya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya