Tommy Robinson

[husaberg]

That would be your classic Ad Hominem my Dear Husa.

I should point out, for the record, I don't hate all of Islam.

There are parts of Islam I believe to be incompatible with Western Ideals (which I hold to be objectively the best set of principles that Mankind has yet created, as evidenced by the success of the nations that hold dear to them)

I believe that within Islam, not enough is being done to cast out the salafist/Wahhabist traditions, and I believe the reason for this is because they are fundamentally adhering to the Qu'ran and the surrounding Hadiths.

Until that perception amongst the wider Islamic community changes, then we will have issues.

I further believe that a large degree of Western Guilt has stopped our leaders from adequately and honestly discussing and addressing the problem and objectively there is a problem, we don't see this behaviour from Sikhs or Buddhists or Taoists etc.

I finally believe that some of the cultural attitudes (forced marriage, honor killings, acid attacks etc. etc.) that certain groups have brought over from their country of origin are completely unacceptable and we need to give these people an Ultimatum of sorts - If they wish to stay in the UK, that means that have to adopt the bare minimum of UK principals. If they want to continue with their traditions that are in conflict with those bare minimum of principals - they can fuck off.

Edit: Furthermore - I believe there is a STRONG causation between the success of the country and the adoption of those principles and the failurea of their country of origin and their continued use of those barbaric traditions.

That's a lot of I believes mine was a simple observation based on your posts.

[husaberg]

I don't think .

I know right Cheers....

The media ban served to protect the community and the victims and to ensure justice was served.
Judging by your own reaction and that which AKA tried to make happen it seems it was needed
Nothing AKA did speed up the process or made it happen, he just used it as a platform for publicity..

.
Then you've got people saying that Pedophiles can Fuck off. We've not done anything, there's been no pogroms, no Mosques have been burned down, no lynchings - so Pray tell Husa, exactly how is it that My reaction is requires that the Government protect Pedophiles?.

[Katman]

I know right Cheers....

A little out of context there but I'll leave TDL to speak for himself.

[TheDemonLord]

That's a lot of I believes mine was a simple observation based on your posts.

Absolutely there is, as a lot of them are value judgements. I put it to you that there is a fair amount of evidence (anecdotal, empirical and circumstantial) to back up each of those beliefs - so it's not an irrational set of propositions.

I know right Cheers....

Again, you are setting up a false equivalence and you are ignoring the findings of the Rotherham report. I could turn a blind eye if the Rotherham report had found only one or two instances of complicity, but that isn't what they found - at multiple levels there were endemic, repeated issues that were causal to this.

A few people getting pissed at Islam is not the same as the systematic rape and torment of Girls. The only group that the UK Government has been protecting is the scum that had been carrying out these crimes.

[husaberg]

Absolutely there is, as a lot of them are value judgements. I put it to you that there is a fair amount of evidence (anecdotal, empirical and circumstantial) to back up each of those beliefs - so it's not an irrational set of propositions.



Again, you are setting up a false equivalence and you are ignoring the findings of the Rotherham report. I could turn a blind eye if the Rotherham report had found only one or two instances of complicity, but that isn't what they found - at multiple levels there were endemic, repeated issues that were causal to this.

A few people getting pissed at Islam is not the same as the systematic rape and torment of Girls. The only group that the UK Government has been protecting is the scum that had been carrying out these crimes.

Its not a false equivalent.
Because on one hand you are saying a small group of peoples activities and threats and deeds are not relevant to the whole community.
But on the other hand you are saying a small group of peoples activities and threats and deeds are relevant the whole community.
That's not logical.
You need to take a step back and realise it was a small group of individuals that perpetrated the crimes, not a race or religion.
Did you look at the people that were convicted because at least 4 were not even Islamic. Some were Caucasian women born in the UK.

[TheDemonLord]

Its not a false equivalent.
Because on one hand you are saying a small group of peoples activities and threats and deeds are not relevant to the whole community.
But on the other hand you are saying a small group of peoples activities and threats and deeds are relevant the whole community.

It absolutely is a false equivalency - because you are ommitting the actual crimes that have been committed against potential crimes that could be committed.

That's not logical.

That's why it's a fallacy

You need to take a step back and realise it was a small group of individuals that perpetrated the crimes, not a race or religion.
Did you look at the people that were convicted because at least 4 were not even Islamic. Some were Caucasian women born in the UK.

Except you are ignoring the cultural and religious factors in these case(s) - and it wasn't just one crime in one area, there have been multiple near-identical crimes - all perpetrated by the same set of cultural and religious beliefs.

In fact - lets put it in perspective here:

Of the 56 offenders convicted since 1997 for crimes relating to on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16, three were white, 53 were Asian (in the UK - Asian refers to someone of Indian/Pakistani descent) of which 50 were Muslim,

Since you know that I love maths:

That gives us 89% of pedophile grooming is from Muslims
and
94% of Pedophile grooming is from people of Pakistani/Indian descent.

Now, are you trying to assert that the Cultural and religious factors didn't have a part to play when there is a correlation of 90+%?

[husaberg]

It absolutely is a false equivalency - because you are ommitting the actual crimes that have been committed against potential crimes that could be committed.


Since you know that I love maths:

That gives us 89% of pedophile grooming is from Muslims
and
94% of Pedophile grooming is from people of Pakistani/Indian descent.

Now, are you trying to assert that the Cultural and religious factors didn't have a part to play when there is a correlation of 90+%?

The fallacy is yours though.
Perspective yeah....
Wow so using your logic your ethnicity says its fine for me to pin the label that says you are a serial killer.
Seeing as most well known serial killers belong to your ethnicity and all.
All non Caucasians are well with in their rights to do so launch hate websites against your ilk, protest in the streets convict you in the media before a trial etc

PS your maths is faulty because you are only using the data from one case it also doesn't include the fact that their are over 3 million people of Indian or Pakistani decent in the UK.
thus 0.001%. is hardly a telling statistic to condemn a whole race as being complicit in raping and grooming children.


Especially considering your ethnic groups demographics' percentage in the UK and Irelands 67,000 convicted paedophiles
Studies suggest

Paedophiles tend to be shorter than average in height, and are three times more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous. The majority of the sample (81.5%) identified as Caucasian

[Katman]

All non Caucasians are well with in their rights to do so launch hate websites against your irk,

Does his ilk irk you so much you can't even find the right words?

[TheDemonLord]

The fallacy is yours though.
Perspective yeah....
Wow so using your logic your ethnicity says its fine for me to pin the label that says you are a serial killer.
Seeing as most well known serial killers belong to your ethnicity and all.
All non Caucasians are well with in their rights to do so launch hate websites against your irk, protest in the streets convict you in the media before a trial etc

Sure - all you need to do though is provide some form of proof that a combination of my Religion (oh dear!) and my cultural values permit me to kill people en masse.

And that, is where your argument falls apart.

PS your maths is faulty because you are only using the data from one case it also doesn't include the fact that their are over 3 million people of Indian or Pakistani decent in the UK.
thus 0.001%. is hardly a telling statistic to condemn a whole race as being complicit in raping and grooming children.

and yet, for the white demographic - it gives us a percent of 0.0000005%

So from that basis someone of Pakistani descent 2000% more likely to commit that type of Crime. Why do you think that is? There is something unique related to that demographic that is causal. Your refusal to admit it, is the same refusal that lead to the cover-up in the first place.

Is it all Muslims or all Pakistanis? No, of course not - but you have to come to terms with the fact that of the people that commit this type of crime, it's nearly all Muslims and Pakistanis and furthermore there are reasons as to why this is.

Especially considering your ethnic groups demographics' percentage in the UK and Irelands 67,000 convicted paedophiles
Studies suggest

That's a bait and switch - we aren't talking about all Pedophiles, we are talking about a particular type of pedophillic crime.

[Kickaha]

I remember that well - the Mosque had produced something like 10 different terrorists who had successfully carried out attacks - someone finally got pissed off at the police inaction and decided to go vigilante - I don't condone said action, but it isn't like it's without it's reason.

You're living in the past, there was a big shake up in that place that stopped all that and that was over a decade ago

Police said he Darren was radicalised online within the space of a month, he also claimed "Dave was driving", seeing as he was a Tommy Robinson follower we should be able to blame all of them though

[Banditbandit]

Not of a specific case, but I can give a specific of a type of case - namely where a Sharia court adjudicates over the dissolution of an Islamic marriage and strips the woman of all her rights (property, children etc.) that she is granted under Western Law.

I'll deal with this one first - In Islam women hold property ...

Women often entered marriage with substantial capital in the form of mahr and the trousseau provided by their family, which they were not obliged to spend on family expenses, and they frequently loaned money to their husbands. Because of this, and the financial obligations incurred, talaq could be a very costly and in many cases financially ruinous enterprise for the husband. Many repudiated women used the divorce payment to buy their ex-husband's share in the family house.

Talaq is a form of divorce - where a man casts away a wife .. Khul is divorce by mutual consent.

Khulʿ is a contractual type of divorce that is initiated by the wife. It is justified on the authority of verse 2:228:[5]

It is not licit for you to take back anything you have given them unless the two of them fear that they cannot conform to the bounds of God, no blame attaches to them both. If the woman gives back that with which she sets herself free. These are the bounds set by God; do not transgress them.

It is further based on a hadith in which Muhammad instructs a man to agree to his wife's wish of divorce if she gives back a garden received from him as part of her mahr. A khul' is concluded when the couple agrees to a divorce in exchange for a monetary compensation paid by the wife, which cannot exceed the value of the mahr she had received, and is generally a smaller sum or involves forfeiting the still unpaid portion

If the husband pressures his wife to agree to khul' instead of pronouncing talaq, which would let him avoid attendant financial responsibilities, the divorce is considered to be invalid.[5] Like talaq, khulʿ takes place out of court.

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

Now, we know that cultural practices frequently differ from the religion - as exampled by the difference benweet Christinity and cultural practices.

ISLAM does not strip the women of rights and assets.

And of course, there are different legal schools in Islam - i is NOT a unified system of thought.

[Banditbandit]

Well, I'm not fans of any of those groups - the difference is - they've been relatively good at keeping the Rhetoric strictly Rhetorical.

Only 'relatively' good ..


"US citizens and legal residents have committed 80 percent of terrorist attacks since 9/11"


https://www.vox.com/2015/11/23/97657...rrorism-threat

SUre - some of these a jihadis . the rest

Of the 28 deadly homegrown terrorist attacks, only 10 of those attacks were related to Islamic extremism. The other 18 attacks were led by right-wing extremists, including, most recently, the mass shooting on November 27, 2015 that killed three and wounded nine at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

And then there are ones like Timothy McVeigh .. 186 people killed in that one ..

[Banditbandit]

People like Maajid Nawaz for example - who is a very moderate Muslim - was labelled as "An anti-muslim Extremist" by the SPLC (although as of a few hours ago - they've now admitted that he isn't) - I think that is proof enough that people like Maajid are not in the majority.

This is interesting ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim...ward_terrorism


here's the stats

In Asia, 58% said it is never justifiable, 12% said it is sometimes justifiable, and 15% said it depends.
In the post-Soviet states, 56% said it is never justifiable, 8% said it is sometimes justifiable, and 20% said it depends.
In the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, 85% said it is never justifiable, 9% said it is sometimes justifiable, and 4% said it depends.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, 66% said it is never justifiable, 17% said it is sometimes justifiable, and 11% said it depends.
In the United States and Canada, 50% said it is never justifiable, 47% said it is sometimes justifiable, and 2% said it depends.
In Europe, 69% said it is never justifiable, 12% said it is sometimes justifiable, and 11% said it depends.

The results of these polls show that, in ALL areas, the majority (more than 50%) say Terrorism is NEVER justified.

I believe that shows the majority of Muslims oppose terrorism.

[Banditbandit]

Then why haven't we seen German Grooming gangs? or US grooming Gangs? or Australian grooming Gangs? or Jewish grooming gangs? or Sikh grooming gangs?

Interesting .. white men groom alone - Asians work in gangs .. Notice ASIANS not Muslims (Asia has a multitude of religions, including Islam.)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8101941.html

[Banditbandit]

I've not said all people from the Middle east are rapists, however - there is a combination of cultural attitudes towards women AND teachings within the Qu'ran that are uniquely combined to create this phenomena.

So yes, I can explicitly blame a religion and a community if their values/teaching are what allowed this to happen. This is the part that you have to acknowledge - it's why this particular type of crime was carried out by groups of people with a number of common traits - namely where they were from and who their god was.

To try and spin this differently is to deny the very problem - which is what the British government and political class did for Decades, until such time that the working classes had enough.

rape and sexual violence is not permitted in Islamic texts. It is of course something that causes harm to other humans, which is not Halal (permissible) and, in early Muslim communities, rape was a crime punishable by death.

Chapter 23:1-6 in the Quran. It reads:

“And successful are the believers who guard their chastity … except from their wives or those that their right hands possess.”

The reference is about sexual relations, which are forbidden with any woman unless she is a spouse or ‘those their right hands possess’. To be clear, this means a concubine, bondmaid or a slave, but intercourse has to be consensual. Rape is forbidden as it is violent, and Islamic texts legislated for the proper and honourable treatment of slaves.

Even consensual sexual relations with a slave were not permissible if it caused harm and abuse elsewhere (e.g. to a wife) as all parties involved would be affected.

Furthermore this is not an entitlement. Concubinage and interpersonal relations with various bondmaids/slaves was already occurring at the time the Quran came about and subsequent passages list restrictions as a starting point to help to bring about the end of slavery. In any case, marriage was encouraged (Chapter 24:32) with slaves.

In fact, slavery was never endorsed by Islamic texts; rather it was something inherited from pre-Islamic cultures (pre-600s) that needed to be voluntarily and gradually weeded out of society through manumission, which was highly encouraged (Chapters 24:32-33 & 16:71). Islamic texts list a plethora of avenues to free slaves, as it was seen as a highly virtuous act. It’s difficult to find any references on how to make slaves out of people; rather the focus is always on ending slavery.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a6875446.html