Sex crimes in Europe by North African and Arab men

Post Reply New Topic

A commitment to multiculturalism should not be seen as a reason to deny problems in any particular culture or to scapegoat one culture for all the evil that human beings do, even if that culture is generalized as "the West."

To declare that radical, violent jihad, ISIS or Salafism are primarily a reaction to Western Hegemony is wrong on many levels. Doing so infantilizes the men and women who have labored to create these movements and spread violence and death in their behalf by denying their agency in their own decisions. It also brushes aside the tremendous history of violence that accompanied the faith before there was any such thing as Western Hegemony--a tradition from which the modern proponents of violent Jihad draw inspiriation. It also ignores the reality that exactly the same kind of horrific violence is projected from the same radicalized ideology on non-western victims all over the world.

Of course it's true that Muslims are upset about their corrupt governments, Israel and so many infidel living well, but this doesn't excuse those who turn to crime and terror from responsibility for their actions any more than those who defensively join movements like PEGIDA in response to the intrusion of alien culture in their homeland are somehow excused from responsibility for the racism and xenophobia that they sometimes promote or the violence that such ideology results in.

An appeal to contested authority is seldom convincing, but it's hard to imagine one less convincing than "many academics agree that I am right."

If it were true that "radicalization is provoked by hostile western attitudes to non-western cultures" then we would expect to see the same kind of radicalization from non-muslim groups, but this does not happen. Where is the radicalized response from Pacific Islanders to western hegemony? Where are all the violent Hindus striking out at western targets across the globe? The Mayans? Sendero Luminoso? There is nothing similar to the global Jihadi culture of mass murder and suicide from any other source, even those where suicide bombing is common (e.g., the LTTE and their many brutal attacks in Sri Lanka).

There is a specific problem with violent Islamism. Denying it won't help. There is a real problem with these particular street crimes in Germany right now, and blaming it on Western Hegemony or the natural propensity of men everywhere to rape women is not acceptable or helpful.

It sounds like the government is moving toward some considered responses. The moves toward prosecution and deportation of the perpetrators that have already been made seem like a good thing but they need to work on the harder problem of prevention.

It would seem to me that the European Union should establish a real border with non EU countries and that immigration for any reason, including political asylum, should require a transition period with applicants taking a civics course something along the lines of that required for naturalization in the United States.

Only those people who are ready to accept the rule of law, religious freedom of others, general principles of human rights and the social contract should be permitted residency. Those who do not accept these core values and principles should be deported. Those who lie about this, swearing to live under the law but then creating propaganda against it and committing crimes, should be deported.

Multiculturalism protects all cultures even the most savage and backwards ones on the planet. You don't have assimilate or embrace to our values and we have to tolerate incidents of mass rape like this in because this because they're "marginalized" and it's their culture and no one culture can be better than another right?

I don't care what shade of color someones skin is, I don't care how foreign someone's name sounds, everyone like foreign food, superficial stuff isn't what I care about. It's about values and culture, I don't think it is wrong to make some qualifications for who we allow into this country and I don't think it's wrong to ask this since your god isn't real no matter which one you're talking about so I don't see the need that foreign faith and culture to be maintained at all cost when they can and do change all the time. It's all about integration and assimilation, if you can't maintain national harmony then what are you doing? Like I said before I do not really care about big business's "need" for unlimited cheap labor. I want people to come to America that want to be Americans, it's easier for us having a sort of civic nationalism as well as being a nation made up of immigrants whereas Europe is divided down ethnic/cultural lines.

You know like those people that obsess about Japanese culture so much, those are the type of people(well maybe not them specifically) that I think should become Americans, someone that actually wants to be an American and will leave behind their old world and ways. It should be a privilege not an entitlement, we don't owe anybody outside this country anything.

I will overlook the obvious patronization here. Ad hominem attacks will not help your case / arguments.



Malala stands for the right to education and for the right of all young people in her native Pakistan and in neighbouring Afghanistan to education. If there is any single entity that she has been very critical about, then that would be the Taliban and their misogynistic ways. "Western hegemony" hasn't prevented girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan from getting an education, that results from a biased and misogynistic interpretation of the Quran by extremist elements. So far, there is only one statement that she has supposedly made expressing concerns about US drone attacks in Pakistan, stating that that leads to terrorism. However, I emphatically and strongly beg leave to disagree with Malala on that account, because Pakistan has never been known for its "peaceful ways" and this was even before they had any problems with the "West".

Pakistan is a terrorist state, through and through, and has been since at least 1949, long before the West was even aware of the problems with Islamic Jihad. It has repeatedly attacked India and carried out acts of terror on Indian soil without provocation, and merely in the name of "religion". By no stretch of imagination can India be accused of "hegemony" in Pakistan. So, the argument that terrorism is caused entirely and exclusively by the actions (or inaction) of another entity is entirely spurious. Islamic terrorism is caused, on the contrary, by the faulty interpretation of religious texts and the overwhelming desire to enforce one's own culture and religion on another people because that is -- allegedly -- what the Quran demands (or so the Jihadists want you to believe).



I am curious to hear your definition of "multiculturalism". I define "multiculturalism" as the peaceful co-existence of different cultures, religions and races, with the innate understanding / acknowledgement that newly entering communities will eventually adopt and integrate into the dominant culture, even while holding on to their cultural ways in their private lives, thereby enabling all peoples (hosts and immigrants) to live mutually beneficial and productive lives.

It is when new immigrants refuse to integrate and want to stick their own, regardless of the disastrous effects of their actions that trouble erupts. A new immigrant into Saudi Arabia would not *dare* to go for a swim in her bikini or even walk around with her head uncovered because it's "her culture's way", right ? Or steal a loaf of bread with impunity and then expect to be let off with a slap on the wrists (as opposed to having his hands cut off as punishment) because that is how theft is punished in his own country... correct ?

I would never dare to drive a car in the roads of Riyadh, even though I have licenses from two different countries and consider myself a safe driver, and I don't agree with the Saudis that women should not drive. I am on their soil, and I have to abide by their laws, whether I like it or not, and not the other way around. So pardon me if I don't see why immigrants from the Middle East or the Subcontinent or Africa or wherever feel entitled to special treatment in Germany or America and feel that they should continue doing things their way, even when those things may be illegal in the host country ?

Again, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Expecting special treatment because it is the host's duty to bend over backwards to accommodate me and committing crimes because my entitlements were not met isn't going to work and will only lead to loose canons and hotheads like Trump - of all people - suddenly gaining popularity and even coming across as "reasonable". Case in point -- Somalis wanting to pray during the work hour on the employer's dime, and walking out en masse (paralyzing assembly lines and bringing production to a complete halt), and then protesting their firing by referring to the firing as an act of intolerance and maybe even "Western hegemony".

No, it just doesn't work that way.

How as a Muslim, do you hold feminist views without resorting to doublethink?

Over 500 offences, around 200 of which were sex offences, reported in Cologne.

LINK

An interesting observation is many choosing to be "radicalized" are doing so based on perceived wrongs in places and on people that have nothing to do with them. This seems to be the elephant in the room that nobody (even on anonymous forums) want's to address...

It entails:

don't say mean things to us or we'll shoot you!

Uh huh.

If you resort to radicalization and violence over mere words, you are the one with the problem (not to mention pointing out actual problems you see within say, Islam, Christianity, atheism or whatnot, isn't actually "mean words").

The elephant is islam which has hardly been ignored in this thread.

Good thoughts, but I wonder:
"First, America became "great" (rich + powerful) because we had an entire continent of untapped resources when everyone else was tapped out."

If this were the only reason (or even the "main" reason) then Africa and South America should be world powerhouses, no?

We need to look at immigration for the answer. Immigration with the added promise/hope of owning your own land provided the muscle to change our raw land into it's present form.

In Europe, and elsewhere, everything was owned/claimed by another. Immigration, essentially unregulated except for health concerns, brought people to this country to dedicate their lives to making a better life for themselves...and this power is what made this country great.....not coal deposits (everyone has those).

Now, with everything spoken for by our presently (vs. historically) indigenous people, many just come for the 'free ride", which is often far better than their hope for the future "back home."

"This is white privilege."????

NO, this is an example of your ignorance.

It isn't that we DON'T have crime in the United States......we have all of the crimes you can imagine, as do all "civilized" cultures. But what we DON"T need is people coming here and creating MORE crime. Can you understand that concept? We DON"T want people to come here to kill people, steal from people, rape people, it's just that simple.

We still like friendly immigrants to immigrate to our country.
As an example: We love to invite in Hindus from India, to enjoy, work, and live in our country.....is this called Hindu "privilege" because we would rather see peace loving people in our country rather than those who accept actual violence (killing, rape) as a legitimate expression of their religion?

These are thoughts many Muslims may not ponder. The reason is, I feel, because some Muslims already have all the answers, given to them by others. Why bother to consider Hindus or any other peoples when they already know Muslims have it harder than all others (according to what they've been taught by respected teachers).

And so there you have it: An ancient people who can not or will not change because of religious edict, compared to the rest of the growing changing world.

Muslims make the bed they sleep in. For them to say otherwise cheapens them even further.

More complicated than that...I'm old enough to remember "pan Arabism" which was an ideology based on the unification of all Arab people in one single nation. Any attack (perceived or otherwise) by Israel on Palestinians was seen by muslim people (even non-Arabs) as an attack on islam...today in the aftermath of the Gulf war where American/western troops marched into Bagdhad the islamic world has perceived this as an attack on islam where Iraq and Afghanistan were perceived to be occupied by "unbelievers" (even if it was for the benefit of rescuing the locals from Sadam Hussein and the Taliban)

The elephant is not islam but the perception that islamic hegemony is under threat. The latter is fueling recruitment of radicalized followers to ISIS but more importantly the muslim brotherhood and other shadowy organisations that represent a future long term threat. Fundementalist islam actually equates the incursion of unbelievers (even as peacekeepers) in islamic countries as invasions.

Actually, I'm trying to get you to openly reveal how nonsensical and odious your views really are, and succeeding.

The problem is with a minority of Muslims who are fundamentalists.Their view of the world is based on medieval history
when Crusading Christians indiscriminately slaughtered Muslim civilians,in the name of God.In those days Christians were just as much the equivalent of today's terrorists.We need the fundamentalists to somehow be persuaded to follow the actions of the majority of Muslims who are peace loving.
The incidents in Germany don't seem to be black & white as robbery could have been the main motive in some cases
but if it was gangs of immigrants then it shouldn't be swept under the carpet.

How does the old saying go?: "From your mouth to God's ear."

But first: As long as there are influential people in power resisting attempts at peaceful change, things will not change.

And second: If all of "majority of Muslims who are peace loving" can not dissuade the terrorists why do you expect them to listen to any non-believer?

And lastly: The fact is "the majority of Muslims who are peace loving" believe, as do the angry "fundamentalists", that they (the fundamentalists) are entitled, nay "instructed", by the Quran to interpret and believe and practice what they are told in the Quran, in their own, individual, manner, according to what they, the individual, believe is taught, including jihad. All of "the majority of Muslims who are peace loving" know this is true yet don't publicize it.

What number of Muslims are not peace loving? What number of them hold these extreme fundamentalist views? What is a vast majority? Here's what Democratic congresswoman Loretta Sanchez said herself, who sits on the Committee for Armed Forces and Committee on Homeland Security so presumably she would be privy to information we might not have access too.

“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is – it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to – that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible, and in particular go after Western norms.”

Now at what number does that constitute a legitimate threat? I'd be very interested in seeing that broken down into regions. This is beyond just the cultural issues with women.

I'm okay with whoever wants to live as we do in America embracing western values and integrating into our culture, I don't want hostile separatists.

The problem is that in Sunni Islam, ISIS has just as much religious authority as anyone else because it's totally decentralized. Anyone can be an imam and any imam can make a fatwa so all it comes down to is if there are people willing to listen to it and obviously Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has some followers.