Two teenage girls gang-raped by four 'Syrian nationals' in southern Germany

Tommy Monk wrote:More than 120 women now

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:More than 120 women now

And only 50 formal complaints filed.  You'll get more than that on one night in Morningside Park.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And only 50 formal complaints filed.  You'll get more than that on one night in Morningside Park.

Yet there was 120 plus in one night in one place, which really makes your view utterly absurd

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:
Yet there was 120 plus in one night in one place, which really makes your view utterly absurd

Keep in mind it was New Years Eve...a night of high revelry and hoopla.

Ben_Reilly wrote:My problem with this story is in the reporting. This is global news why? Because the perpetrators were Syrian nationals. If the perpetrators were German nationals, nobody would be paying any attention.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself the last time you read on an international news site about the rape of Germans by other Germans.

Ben_Reilly wrote:My problem with this story is in the reporting. This is global news why? Because the perpetrators were Syrian nationals. If the perpetrators were German nationals, nobody would be paying any attention.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself the last time you read on an international news site about the rape of Germans by other Germans.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You can't allow large numbers of new people to come into your country without some of them being criminals -- I don't know how people get the impression that any large group of people doesn't include some criminals.

Stories like this distort reality and eventually lead people to believe something along the lines of, "Oh, rapes were rarer than diamonds before these refugees came along!" Worst of all, they lead people to create new, fake scapegoats for pressing problems that existed well before the refugees came along.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You can't allow large numbers of new people to come into your country without some of them being criminals -- I don't know how people get the impression that any large group of people doesn't include some criminals.

Stories like this distort reality and eventually lead people to believe something along the lines of, "Oh, rapes were rarer than diamonds before these refugees came along!" Worst of all, they lead people to create new, fake scapegoats for pressing problems that existed well before the refugees came along.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You can't allow large numbers of new people to come into your country without some of them being criminals -- I don't know how people get the impression that any large group of people doesn't include some criminals.

Stories like this distort reality and eventually lead people to believe something along the lines of, "Oh, rapes were rarer than diamonds before these refugees came along!" Worst of all, they lead people to create new, fake scapegoats for pressing problems that existed well before the refugees came along.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't know why you guys don't seem to get this. Allowing refugees in is an act of mercy.

You've seen what they were going through, correct? The mass executions? Children being crucified? Heads on spikes? Villages of living skeletons eating pets and grass?

You don't allow atrocities like that to go on while you run a damn background check. That would be like refusing to let in Jews fleeing the Holocaust until you ran their criminal record.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't know why you guys don't seem to get this. Allowing refugees in is an act of mercy.

You've seen what they were going through, correct? The mass executions? Children being crucified? Heads on spikes? Villages of living skeletons eating pets and grass?

You don't allow atrocities like that to go on while you run a damn background check. That would be like refusing to let in Jews fleeing the Holocaust until you ran their criminal record.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't know why you guys don't seem to get this. Allowing refugees in is an act of mercy.

You've seen what they were going through, correct? The mass executions? Children being crucified? Heads on spikes? Villages of living skeletons eating pets and grass?

You don't allow atrocities like that to go on while you run a damn background check. That would be like refusing to let in Jews fleeing the Holocaust until you ran their criminal record.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't know why you guys don't seem to get this. Allowing refugees in is an act of mercy.

You've seen what they were going through, correct? The mass executions? Children being crucified? Heads on spikes? Villages of living skeletons eating pets and grass?

You don't allow atrocities like that to go on while you run a damn background check. That would be like refusing to let in Jews fleeing the Holocaust until you ran their criminal record.

I see you avoided my points again.
I have no issue with allowing many people in if as seen they are veyr much a family.
Even then there is question marks.
Second, this is about the enourmous amount and clearly something fishy, in how many more ofn these refugees are not with families but single young men questioning rightly if at all they are refugees and not migrants jumping on the bandwagon of a crisis. Again you keep avoiding this.
Third, what is wrongf with hold people in specially adpated areas of holding that are properly provided for, until people can be checked. What has happened has not been seen as an act of mercy by those who have been sexually absued, as nobody saw to off them any mercy when they were disgustingly attacked.
So again where is your moral compass pointing as it seems to wilfully ignore those who are suffering from a very disastreous open door policy.
Stoping using real refugee victims as a cover for what is a real problem that many people who are not refugees may have gained entry off the back of their real plight

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't know why you guys don't seem to get this. Allowing refugees in is an act of mercy.

You've seen what they were going through, correct? The mass executions? Children being crucified? Heads on spikes? Villages of living skeletons eating pets and grass?

You don't allow atrocities like that to go on while you run a damn background check. That would be like refusing to let in Jews fleeing the Holocaust until you ran their criminal record.

which is repaid as above

nice

ok lets look at the alternative

people get sick of it ...rapidly

and vigilante mobs start roaming the streets..(as has already happened in Finland)

then what


the authorities crack down on this

BUT the rapes continue (as is inevitable, becasue these "poor people" have a dubious at best "moral code", hammered into them by their "holy handbook")


so then what

we have the situation where "the authorities" are seen, rightly or wrongly to be siding with the "enemy"

elections come and .....oooops   suddenly the R/W (and likely an extreme R/W) is in power

either that or you have massive civil disobediance and rioting

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't know why you guys don't seem to get this. Allowing refugees in is an act of mercy.

You've seen what they were going through, correct? The mass executions? Children being crucified? Heads on spikes? Villages of living skeletons eating pets and grass?

You don't allow atrocities like that to go on while you run a damn background check. That would be like refusing to let in Jews fleeing the Holocaust until you ran their criminal record.

I see you avoided my points again.
I have no issue with allowing many people in if as seen they are very much a family.

what makes you think a "family man " wont indulge in this kind of activity than a single man didge? O.K maybe the chances are somewhat lower...but its not improbable

Even then there is question marks.
Second, this is about the enourmous amount and clearly something fishy, in how many more ofn these refugees are not with families but single young men questioning rightly if at all they are refugees and not migrants jumping on the bandwagon of a crisis. Again you keep avoiding this.
Third, what is wrong with holding people in specially adpated areas of holding that are properly provided for, until people can be checked. What has happened has not been seen as an act of mercy by those who have been sexually absued, as nobody saw to off them any mercy when they were disgustingly attacked.
So again where is your moral compass pointing as it seems to wilfully ignore those who are suffering from a very disastreous open door policy.
Stoping using real refugee victims as a cover for what is a real problem that many people who are not refugees may have gained entry off the back of their real plight. Where now the population of that nation is suffering from

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I see you avoided my points again.
I have no issue with allowing many people in if as seen they are veyr much a family.
Even then there is question marks.
Second, this is about the enourmous amount and clearly something fishy, in how many more ofn these refugees are not with families but single young men questioning rightly if at all they are refugees and not migrants jumping on the bandwagon of a crisis. Again you keep avoiding this.
Third, what is wrongf with hold people in specially adpated areas of holding that are properly provided for, until people can be checked. What has happened has not been seen as an act of mercy by those who have been sexually absued, as nobody saw to off them any mercy when they were disgustingly attacked.
So again where is your moral compass pointing as it seems to wilfully ignore those who are suffering from a very disastreous open door policy.
Stoping using real refugee victims as a cover for what is a real problem that many people who are not refugees may have gained entry off the back of their real plight

I'm saying -- how do you respond rapidly to a refugee crisis and run all those background checks?

Answer is, you can't. You either let the atrocities continue while you sit back, fat and happy and safe, or you commit what is indeed an act of mercy and start letting people escape that horror. I'm not saying there was no risk -- I'm sure Merkel knew that -- but it was a risk worth taking for the good of humanity as a whole.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I see you avoided my points again.
I have no issue with allowing many people in if as seen they are veyr much a family.
Even then there is question marks.
Second, this is about the enourmous amount and clearly something fishy, in how many more ofn these refugees are not with families but single young men questioning rightly if at all they are refugees and not migrants jumping on the bandwagon of a crisis. Again you keep avoiding this.
Third, what is wrongf with hold people in specially adpated areas of holding that are properly provided for, until people can be checked. What has happened has not been seen as an act of mercy by those who have been sexually absued, as nobody saw to off them any mercy when they were disgustingly attacked.
So again where is your moral compass pointing as it seems to wilfully ignore those who are suffering from a very disastreous open door policy.
Stoping using real refugee victims as a cover for what is a real problem that many people who are not refugees may have gained entry off the back of their real plight

I'm saying -- how do you respond rapidly to a refugee crisis and run all those background checks?

Answer is, you can't. You either let the atrocities continue while you sit back, fat and happy and safe, or you commit what is indeed an act of mercy and start letting people escape that horror. I'm not saying there was no risk -- I'm sure Merkel knew that -- but it was a risk worth taking for the good of humanity as a whole.

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I see you avoided my points again.
I have no issue with allowing many people in if as seen they are very much a family.

what makes you think a "family man " wont indulge in this kind of activity than a single man didge?  O.K maybe the chances are somewhat lower...but its not improbable

Even then there is question marks.
Second, this is about the enourmous amount and clearly something fishy, in how many more ofn these refugees are not with families but single young men questioning rightly if at all they are refugees and not migrants jumping on the bandwagon of a crisis. Again you keep avoiding this.
Third, what is wrong with holding people in specially adpated areas of holding that are properly provided for, until people can be checked. What has happened has not been seen as an act of mercy by those who have been sexually absued, as nobody saw to off them any mercy when they were disgustingly attacked.
So again where is your moral compass pointing as it seems to wilfully ignore those who are suffering from a very disastreous open door policy.
Stoping using real refugee victims as a cover for what is a real problem that many people who are not refugees may have gained entry off the back of their real plight. Where now the population of that nation is suffering from

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

which is repaid as above

nice

ok lets look at the alternative

people get sick of it ...rapidly

and vigilante mobs start roaming the streets..(as has already happened in Finland)

then what


the authorities crack down on this

BUT the rapes continue (as is inevitable, becasue these "poor people" have a dubious at best "moral code", hammered into them by their "holy handbook")


so then what

we have the situation where "the authorities" are seen, rightly or wrongly to be siding with the "enemy"

elections come and .....oooops   suddenly the R/W (and likely an extreme R/W) is in power

either that or you have massive civil disobediance and rioting

Your utter lack of faith in humanity never fails to disgust me

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Did you not read the next sentence?

ooopss

Even then there is question marks.

Please read before answering victor to save me wasting time

knickers

Ta

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:



Did you not read the next sentence?

ooopss  

Even then there is question marks.

Please read before answering victor to save me wasting time

knickers  

Ta

Ben_Reilly wrote:My problem with this story is in the reporting. This is global news why? Because the perpetrators were Syrian nationals. If the perpetrators were German nationals, nobody would be paying any attention.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself the last time you read on an international news site about the rape of Germans by other Germans.