• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Europe submits voluntarily

Status
Not open for further replies.
In what way aren't they vetted?
In the way that everybody who shows up at the borders, or even just floats anywhere off the coast of Africa gets into Europe and gets to live for years, if not the rest of their lives. Even if they are an Afghan who lived in Iran (and thus is no refugee) and who served time in Greece for almost killing a young woman. He was able to come to Germany in 2015 because they let everybody in, no questions asked. Of course he then raped and murdered a young woman, and that was completely preventable if anybody in Germany bothered to check his criminal background when he tried to get into Germany in the first place.

The hoops refugees need to jump through to get permanent residency are already absurdly difficult.
I very much doubt they are "absurdly difficult", but the point is not how difficult it is to get asylum claim approved but that while they are awaiting their asylum decision they live in Germany or Sweden or other EU countries and receive benefits. They also do not live in closed refugee camps but can move around freely. Even when their asylum request is denied, they can appeal for several years and continue to live in European countries. That was the case of an Iraqi who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl. He had committed crimes while in Germany and had his request denied a year and a half before the murder but he continued to live freely in Germany while he exhausted a gazillion of appeals. It is absurdly difficult to deport these mass migrants, even when their requests have been denied and even when they have committed crimes.
Asylum-seeker arrested in Iraq over rape and murder of girl in Germany
Telegrqaph said:
Mr Bashar has been living in Germany since arriving with his family during the migrant influx of 2015. His asylum claim was rejected in December 2016 but he appealed against the decision and was allowed to remain in Germany while the case was ongoing.
The same Iraqi also raped an 11 year old girl together with a 14 year old Afghan.
Iraqi murder suspect also raped 11-year old girl: German prosecutors
Reuters said:
The 20-year-old identified as Ali Bashar is suspected of raping the girl in March and sexually assaulting her again in May with a 14-year-old Afghan, the public prosecutor’s office in Wiesbaden said.
Police arrested the Afghan suspect who originally was known to German authorities as a witness in the murder case of the 14-year-old, Susanna Feldman, the office said.

It's layer upon layer of redundant bullshit. Don't confuse the right to stay in a refugee camp with permanent residency or a work permit. I think you are confusing them.
I am not. I think you are making too big a distinction here. These mass migrants do not live in closed refugee camps. They live in open dormitories and have full freedom of movement. That's how they are able to rape and murder all these people.

That's how statistics of rare events work. I've done statistics at university. I know how to read them.
I've taken statistics at university too. MATH3770. I understand how they work too. Sure, if you have a rare event, there will be more oscillation. But for your expectation to be true (i.e. that there is no difference between mass migrants and native population) and one year shows significant difference toward the mass migrants, you'd expect other years to show difference toward the native population. Since pro-mass migration media and powers that be (politicians like Claudia Roth and Mona Sahlin) would be shouting from the rooftops about any statistics showing Muslim mass migrants being less likely to commit crimes, we can be reasonably confident that such never happened. So, the only data we have show migrants being significantly more likely to commit violent rape. Obviously, we should continue to collect data, but we should not assume that more data will let the effect disappear merely because of your pro-mass migration bias.
 
Meanwhile, here in sunny Australia around 60 young African migrant hoodlums go in a rampage and wreck a house in the well to do suburb of Hawthorn in Melbourne. Residents said " they've never seen anything like it!"

Well, they better get used to it because it will only get worse. It seems police like their counterparts in Europe have lost control of law and order, not just in predominantly the western suburbs where muslim migrants congregate, but even in other non muzzie areas. In the not to distant future, all of our cities will be under siege by these incompatible savages to Western values and democratic civilasation.

Apparently you've never seen the Movie Project X. This is not the kind of thing only dark skinned immigrant do.

All too common since the Muslim exodus into Western nations.

I've had second thoughts on this. I think you should be impressed. These foreigners have almost completely assimilated. They've adopted the western practice of having a booze drenched house party and almost completely destroying the house.
 
Assimilated? In your dreams perhaps, not in reality! A gang of 40-50 Somalis, not one member an Australian is not assimilation.

Besides, their imams teach them "to not make friends of unbelievers."
 
Hmm, the muslim mayor of Londonistan likes free speech when it suits him;

Sadiq Khan has defended his approval of a giant 'baby Trump' blimp which will fly above London during a visit by the US President. Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan today challenged Mr Khan over the issue, suggesting he had approved it because of personal animosity towards Mr Trump. Mr Khan insisted there is freedom of speech and freedom to protest in the UK and he could not act as a 'censor'. He said: 'My views are irrelevant. The issue is 'Do they have freedom to protest, freedom to assemble and should they be allowed to do so? If it's peaceful and it's safe they should.' Morgan asked the mayor if he would have endorsed a giant black baby blimp of Barack Obama in protest during his presidency, or an image depicting Mr Khan as a pig despite that being offensive to Muslims. Mr Khan said: 'If it's peaceful and if it's safe. Look, I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste.'

DailyMail

Well except if it's a woman in a bikini eh ?
 
Hmm, the muslim mayor of Londonistan likes free speech when it suits him;

Sadiq Khan has defended his approval of a giant 'baby Trump' blimp which will fly above London during a visit by the US President. Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan today challenged Mr Khan over the issue, suggesting he had approved it because of personal animosity towards Mr Trump. Mr Khan insisted there is freedom of speech and freedom to protest in the UK and he could not act as a 'censor'. He said: 'My views are irrelevant. The issue is 'Do they have freedom to protest, freedom to assemble and should they be allowed to do so? If it's peaceful and it's safe they should.' Morgan asked the mayor if he would have endorsed a giant black baby blimp of Barack Obama in protest during his presidency, or an image depicting Mr Khan as a pig despite that being offensive to Muslims. Mr Khan said: 'If it's peaceful and if it's safe. Look, I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste.'

DailyMail

Well except if it's a woman in a bikini eh ?

What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?
 
Hmm, the muslim mayor of Londonistan likes free speech when it suits him;

Sadiq Khan has defended his approval of a giant 'baby Trump' blimp which will fly above London during a visit by the US President. Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan today challenged Mr Khan over the issue, suggesting he had approved it because of personal animosity towards Mr Trump. Mr Khan insisted there is freedom of speech and freedom to protest in the UK and he could not act as a 'censor'. He said: 'My views are irrelevant. The issue is 'Do they have freedom to protest, freedom to assemble and should they be allowed to do so? If it's peaceful and it's safe they should.' Morgan asked the mayor if he would have endorsed a giant black baby blimp of Barack Obama in protest during his presidency, or an image depicting Mr Khan as a pig despite that being offensive to Muslims. Mr Khan said: 'If it's peaceful and if it's safe. Look, I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste.'

DailyMail

Well except if it's a woman in a bikini eh ?

What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?

Exactly because he is a Muslim! Remember, this guy has refused time and time again to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah! He has a history of supporting jihad.

What do you think he would do if someone wanted to float a blimp of the terrorist and founder of Islam Muhammad over somewhere in London?
 
What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?

Exactly because he is a Muslim! Remember, this guy has refused time and time again to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah! He has a history of supporting jihad.

What do you think he would do if someone wanted to float a blimp of the terrorist and founder of Islam Muhammad over somewhere in London?

Demanding that Muslims denounce various extreme forms of Islam is dumb. I know it's common among the racist community to demand this, and they seem to think it makes perfect sense. But just think about it. When was the last time you publicly denounced KKK, the Nazis, the Crusades, Jehovas Witnesses, the inquisition, Joseph Kony and so on.

While Muslims have a Muslim identity, they don't represent anybody but themselves. They have no reason to denounce any Muslim they disagree with. They might do it anyway. But to demand they do it on cue is rediculous. He refused to play those journalists game, and he did the exact right thing IMHO.

How about starting with the assumption that a random Muslim will very likely disaprove of any strain of extremism, from any side and in any way? Then ask yourself, do I think that there's a small sliver of a chance that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah? Since, that's a no. Then why bother demanding that he denounce them? If you think he does anyway, I'd call you delusional.

On that topic, mosques and various Islamic advocacy groups around the world regularly go out and denounce terrorism. All the major ones condemn every single one, each time any act of violence is committed in the name of Allah. Just to shut up people like you. That doesn't prevent this rediculous demand to keep cropping up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats

How about thinking before you type next time? Is that too much to ask?
 
What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?

Exactly because he is a Muslim! Remember, this guy has refused time and time again to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah! He has a history of supporting jihad.

What do you think he would do if someone wanted to float a blimp of the terrorist and founder of Islam Muhammad over somewhere in London?

Demanding that Muslims denounce various extreme forms of Islam is dumb. I know it's common among the racist community to demand this, and they seem to think it makes perfect sense. But just think about it. When was the last time you publicly denounced KKK, the Nazis, the Crusades, Jehovas Witnesses, the inquisition, Joseph Kony and so on.

While Muslims have a Muslim identity, they don't represent anybody but themselves. They have no reason to denounce any Muslim they disagree with. They might do it anyway. But to demand they do it on cue is rediculous. He refused to play those journalists game, and he did the exact right thing IMHO.

How about starting with the assumption that a random Muslim will very likely disaprove of any strain of extremism, from any side and in any way? Then ask yourself, do I think that there's a small sliver of a chance that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah? Since, that's a no. Then why bother demanding that he denounce them? If you think he does anyway, I'd call you delusional.

On that topic, mosques and various Islamic advocacy groups around the world regularly go out and denounce terrorism. All the major ones condemn every single one, each time any act of violence is committed in the name of Allah. Just to shut up people like you. That doesn't prevent this rediculous demand to keep cropping up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats

How about thinking before you type next time? Is that too much to ask?

This Muslim Mayor actually called these " moderate " muzzies, [ remember no less a figure than the Turkish PM/President/Caliph and whatever titles he bestows upon himself Erdogan is on record as saying there'
s no extreme, or moderate muslims. Islam is one! ] himself called these " moderates" as uncle Toms.
 
Demanding that Muslims denounce various extreme forms of Islam is dumb. I know it's common among the racist community to demand this, and they seem to think it makes perfect sense. But just think about it. When was the last time you publicly denounced KKK, the Nazis, the Crusades, Jehovas Witnesses, the inquisition, Joseph Kony and so on.

While Muslims have a Muslim identity, they don't represent anybody but themselves. They have no reason to denounce any Muslim they disagree with. They might do it anyway. But to demand they do it on cue is rediculous. He refused to play those journalists game, and he did the exact right thing IMHO.

How about starting with the assumption that a random Muslim will very likely disaprove of any strain of extremism, from any side and in any way? Then ask yourself, do I think that there's a small sliver of a chance that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah? Since, that's a no. Then why bother demanding that he denounce them? If you think he does anyway, I'd call you delusional.

On that topic, mosques and various Islamic advocacy groups around the world regularly go out and denounce terrorism. All the major ones condemn every single one, each time any act of violence is committed in the name of Allah. Just to shut up people like you. That doesn't prevent this rediculous demand to keep cropping up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats

How about thinking before you type next time? Is that too much to ask?

This Muslim Mayor actually called these " moderate " muzzies, [ remember no less a figure than the Turkish PM/President/Caliph and whatever titles he bestows upon himself Erdogan is on record as saying there'
s no extreme, or moderate muslims. Islam is one! ] himself called these " moderates" as uncle Toms.

No, he didn't. It was perhaps not the smartest choice of words. But it's clear what he meant IMHO. You're so full of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0

How about focusing on what he's actually saying rather than possible alternative interpretations? We really don't need more snowflakes in the world.

I'm guessing you can't find the source to where he supports Hammas and Hezbollah?

And just to make it clear on the level of the outrage here. The thing that he got into most trouble for was saying that Hitler was a Zionist. Erm.... Hitler was certainly a supporter of the zionist movement. Which any thinking human would understand is what he meant. Getting upset about that is retarded IMHO.

I think Sadiq Khan, so far, looks like the whitest uncle Tom Muslim in history. The most castrated form of religion we'll ever get. I don't see the problem here?
 
Hmm, the muslim mayor of Londonistan likes free speech when it suits him;

Sadiq Khan has defended his approval of a giant 'baby Trump' blimp which will fly above London during a visit by the US President. Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan today challenged Mr Khan over the issue, suggesting he had approved it because of personal animosity towards Mr Trump. Mr Khan insisted there is freedom of speech and freedom to protest in the UK and he could not act as a 'censor'. He said: 'My views are irrelevant. The issue is 'Do they have freedom to protest, freedom to assemble and should they be allowed to do so? If it's peaceful and it's safe they should.' Morgan asked the mayor if he would have endorsed a giant black baby blimp of Barack Obama in protest during his presidency, or an image depicting Mr Khan as a pig despite that being offensive to Muslims. Mr Khan said: 'If it's peaceful and if it's safe. Look, I can't be the censor. It's not for me to decide what's in good taste or bad taste.'

DailyMail

Well except if it's a woman in a bikini eh ?

What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?

At best, he is inconsistent. You need to cast your mind back to when he banned the "beach body ready" bikini advertisements from London public transport.
 
What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?

At best, he is inconsistent. You need to cast your mind back to when he banned the "beach body ready" bikini advertisements from London public transport.

I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base. As the first Muslim in a position as he has he's got to tread extremely lightly.

I find it unlkely that he's pushed this through on his own. That would just feed the anti-Muslim paranoia. I'm convinced it was pushed through by the labour feminists. And he just rubber stamped it
 
I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing.
When the two become similar, that's a problem.
Note that Sadiq Khan had nothing against this Protein World ad ...
Protein.jpg

... but only this one.
protein-world-ad-today-150701_46b0852337bb0526da5457c1e0d43ed4.fit-760w.jpg


But of course that inconsistency is inherent in both Islam and radical feminism, so it's difficult to tell what Khan is following here, if not both.

He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base. As the first Muslim in a position as he has he's got to tread extremely lightly.

But London has a very significant - and rapidly growing - Muslim population. Most of them are followers of Labour because Labour is so islamophilic.

I find it unlkely that he's pushed this through on his own. That would just feed the anti-Muslim paranoia. I'm convinced it was pushed through by the labour feminists. And he just rubber stamped it
Again, it's pretty bad state of affairs when feminism/"liberal" politics and Islamism follow the same line.
 
An article that again shows how ineffective Europeans (specifically Germans) are when it comes to deportation of mass migrants.
Aus Deutschland abgeschobener Afghane nimmt sich das Leben
The article speaks about an Afghan who committed suicide after (finally) being deported. But let's look at this Afghan. Came to Germany in 2011, had his asylum request rejected in 2012 but was allowed to stay for 6 years, and would still have been allowed to stay, had he not committed crimes such as theft and assault. The deportations of rejected asylum seekers must go much quicker than this. Of course, some German parties like Greens and Left Party do not want any deportations to Afghanistan, even for criminals and Islamist radicals.
 
I'm guessing you can't find the source to where he supports Hammas and Hezbollah?
I guess he is leaving that to his boss Comrade Jezza.

And just to make it clear on the level of the outrage here. The thing that he got into most trouble for was saying that Hitler was a Zionist. Erm.... Hitler was certainly a supporter of the zionist movement. Which any thinking human would understand is what he meant. Getting upset about that is retarded IMHO.
We know what he meant by that. It's a disgusting attempt to link Israel with Naziism, a tactic very popular in anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian circles.

I think Sadiq Khan, so far, looks like the whitest uncle Tom Muslim in history. The most castrated form of religion we'll ever get. I don't see the problem here?
LMAO. Not really. He certainly wants more muzzies to flood into Europe. Once they have majority in London (only a matter of time, they are already a majority in many neighborhoods), he can dispense with the taqiyya altogether.
By the way, this is a now normal street scene in London under the rule of the Khan.
a0b5e66e8053403c4639aab114af47507cca4ab6.jpg

I do not see these people assimilating. Quite the opposite! They are creating a parallel Muslim society in midst of Europe.
 
What? Why are you saying this? Where's the news value? What makes you think that he wouldn't? Why would anybody think that? Is it because he's a Muslim, perhaps?

At best, he is inconsistent. You need to cast your mind back to when he banned the "beach body ready" bikini advertisements from London public transport.

I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base.

It's Londonistan, what do you think his base consists of these days ?
 
I'm pretty sure that's a labour thing and not a Muslim thing. He's the leader of a party. In democracies political leaders aren't elected as individuals. They don't get to tell people stuff unless they've already cleared it with their base.

It's Londonistan, what do you think his base consists of these days ?

According to Wikipedia, 69.1% of people in Greater London identify as either Christian or No Religion. Just 12.4% identify as Muslim. So regardless of what I, you, or anyone else 'thinks', the actual make up of his base must be predominantly Christian and/or atheist. 12.4% of the population is about a quarter of the numbers he needs to be elected, even if they voted as a bloc - which they don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom