Sweden: Nobody helped woman raped by 20 Muslim migrants — neighbors have “learned not to see or hear

Some gov'ts and terrorists do that.
The USA injects lethal injections. They used to hang people in the streets. Then an electric chair. Now some poison.

 

She voluntarily had sex with them in a stairwell? That's insane.

 

Good luck reasoning with this hollow cipher. You could mention, since he seems stuck on "Nazi" stupidity, that is was the real WWII Nazis who were allies of the people Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch oppose, so in that sense, it is he himself who is aligned with Nazis.

But he doesn't seem to have the tools to understand.

 

Like World War II perhaps? https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/the-alliance-between-hitler-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Next time you pull out your hoary old fake memes about right wingers creating terrorism maybe you should actually know something about what you are claiming. But that means you would actually have to think about what you claim, wouldn't it?

Perhaps if the Middle East were filled with nothing but terrorists you could claim a point. But the "we made them do it" argument is simplistic and not reflected in reality.

 

Who put Hitler into power?

Who invaded the Middle East and stole billions in resources?

Who was Hassan al-Banna and what caused him to become politically active?


Do your own homework and learn that historically speaking for every action there is a reaction.

 

Who loved Hitler's style and objectives and became willing accomplices in the Middle East for him?

Who made the 16th century tribes people of the region, like the Saudis, into incomparably rich and powerful rulers by finding for these people the one asset they had, oil, and buying it from them?
I should be so exploited and "robbed".

He was Hitler's ally and a crack pot who wanted a world wide caliphate with Islam as it's supreme ruler.

The subject was right wingers causing terrorism. If I was a history professor I would give you an F for simplistic thinking and unsupported poorly thought out
memes in place of intelligent analysis.

 

Who loved Hitler's style and objectives and became willing FINANCIERS for him on Wall Street?


I should be so exploited and "robbed". = The poor in those lands had their resources stolen and given to the elites. You would not want that if you were one of them.



"crack pot" is what people called Washington and others who sought freedom for their oppressors.




''unsupported memes'' - correction = all documented FACTS.

This may not be what you want to see but you have yet to refute any of the truths I've posted. Keep trying but you will again experience another FAIL.

 

This puts a whole different complexion on the OP.

 

Is this about Hitler's rise to power or conservative created terrorism and Islam? Your shotgun scattered approach promotes ignorance and invites ridicule. Good job.

Indeed I would not (assuming I had a right to profit from the petroleum discovered and recovered by Shell or any other large oil company...something the poor didn't have a hope in hell of doing themselves).
Why not take it up with the many rulers of Middle Eastern nations who turned their nations from blighted, poverty stricken sand patches
into something modern and impressive that has pulled the standard of living for every citizen (like UAE)?
I guess that wouldn't make your point, though. Pity.

It would be interesting to see the standard of living in Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc. where Western assistance has raised the lives of everyone and lowered mortality rates vs. countries like Yemen and Palestine where contact with the West has been restrained.
Which group do you think lead better lives in every single way? We both know, don't we.

LOL
Nice try, "Debate Master". George Washington never proposed a world wide theocracy where all other peoples and religions
were made to bow down to his favored God. What an "apt" comparison..........

How does it feel to fail? I have no reference point while you? Let's just say you are familiar with the feeling.

 

In the Islamic texts it shows that Mohammad APPROVED of his Muslims warriors raping captive non-Muslim women, so Muslims behaving badly to this very day is understandable - Mohammad is seen as the perfect example of human behavior by most Muslims today.

 

Do you think a PRO-Muslim source would dare publish facts that were detrimental to Islam!?

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! Islam values women plenty, I'll have you know!! In Islam, women are worth a whopping 50% of a man (Q4:11, Q2:282, etc) - so that means that Islam values women no less than god/Jesus/Bible do!! Checkmate, atheists!!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

Those wacky Modern Secular Humanists have women at 100% of man (what have they been smoking, GOD would never get anything wrong!!), but they are godless/soulless people, who deserve god's righteous torture in hell, so we don't really care what they think!!

 

My favorite post of the day!

 

a neutral source would be fine thank you.

 

If a source shows bad things about Islam then that source is considered "Islamophobic"!! See how that works?

 

Oh so their historic hatred is our fault, got it, but do you think anyone with half a brain will buy into it? Oh I guess libs.

 

yeah, well, your fellow right wingers bought into the idea that we needed to fight commies overseas so that we did not need to fight them here - ditto for the idea of fighting jihadists

and who financed the commies? it was your right wing Republican heroes

whose criminally imperialistic terrorist actions in invading the Middle East brought on the emergence of jihadists? you answer that one, pal

 

Hitler's rise to power?


Just a reminder that you mentioned the Nazis long before I did. Since you did so his emergence into power (which was caused by Republicans on Wall Street) is relevant especially in view of the fact that Jihadism's emergence during the same decade was also caused by Western imperialism into the Middle East.

Your pals in that party caused the rise of Bolshevism, Hitlerism, and Jihadism ~ all documented fact whether you choose to believe it or not.



Why not take it up with the many rulers of Middle Eastern nations ....?

Precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood did under Hassan al-Banna. They emerged because your pals in British Petrol and the Rockefeller owned monopolies exploited the people, stole resources, and enriched the wealthy while making the poor poorer.






Washington did not propose world wide theocracy, but he did fight against European imperialism in the US, just like al-Banna did in Egypt. People who defend the MB use the same justifications Washington and the Founders did.


No reference points? That's a laugh.




Why is the ME angry at the imperialistic West? Consider this:



http://www.lgic.org/en/Israel-terrorism-on-lebanon.htm

http://original.antiwar.com/news/2006/02/17/abu-ghraib-abuse-photos/

http://www.varesenews.it/2010/01/th...-east-through-the-eyes-of-robert-fisk/159379/

https://frenchimperialisminafrica.weebly.com/algeria.html



if you want more, I can give you plenty more

 

Christians lop off Algerian heads decades ago despite being ordered to keep peace with all men and to turn the other cheek in the Bible:

 

Yes, because you cited the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
as someone who was a reaction to republicanism! And he was an admirer and supporter of Hitler.

So now you blame all of the West and not just the republican party for jihadism? Great move on your part. This makes you just wrong now and not merely an insane paranoid person.
Now all you have to do is prove that republicans were the cause of Adolph Hitler's rise to power. Simple, right?

LOL is trite but really appropriate here. But why stop there?
Why not blame republicans for cancer and the great Mongol hoards? You have zero credibility so don't worry about looking like a fool.

Stole resources? You mean negotiated sales and created a market for the one commodity the Middle East had to offer, don't you?
Are the people in Oman, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia really relatively poorer now than they were at the dawn of the 20th century before the West pumped billions of dollars into their economies? You'd better document that.
Oh...right. You can't! It's all horse crap!

Whether they do or do not is immaterial. George Washington and the colonists fought for self determination to be free of the blood sucking English monarchy.
He did not stage a revolution to establish a world wide caliphate. Eff off!

The laugh is your blatantly obvious propaganda as references.

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about but I have to assume you are mumbling lmao

 

you know fully well what I'm referring
but, of course, it is typical of right wing pro war apologists to live in a state of denial - as all of you know, jihadists only emerged after foreign invaders stole their land, raped their women, killed their children, and occupied their territory
if you don't want a problem with them, get the hell out of their land and let them solve their own problems without foreign intrusion of any kind

 

✓ Anybody can see from the posts above that you mentioned the Nazis before I did. Nice try but an utter FAIL.


✓ Prove Republicans on Wall Street helped finance Hitler's rise to power?

Easy:





I have done so many times but will gladly do it again as the source for this information was CONSERVATIVE Antony Sutton.



✓ Negotiated sales and contracts for oil? Hahahaha! That's a laugh as those resources were stolen from the people. In fact the British invasion of the Suez in 1956 was about nationalism of oil reserves and can be traced to the land grab of the 1880s:


http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/modernworldhistorytextbook/imperialism/section_6/suezcanal.html


This imperialistic land grab led to the deaths of thousands and bankruptcy of Egypt. Now imagine if someone broke into your house on the grounds that they could make it 'better' and then forced you to "negotiate" in order to get it back. That is pathetically laughable beyond imagination.


✓ Blood sucking monarchy? Yeah, you do have a point there - the same blood suckers who invaded the Middle East countless times for the next 2 centuries. For every action there is a reaction - the Brits invaded the US and people like Washington emerged to fight them off. The same invaders attacked the Middle East and the Islamic Brotherhood emerged to fight them off as well. Nobody told the British, the French, the USA or anyone else to invade. It is a choice made by these imperialistic terrorists. Today there is instability in that region and violence (more correctly, counter violence). And you feel compelled to criticize me for pointing out those truths and using sources which prove my contentions rather than the actual causes of this counter violence. You call it "propaganda" "crap" and resort to personal attacks by referring to me as "insane paranoid". This despite my using historically documented fact and a conservative historian like Sutton. No, it's not me that is the problem, it is YOU who are. Kindly refrain from the personal attacks and admit to your defeat in this debate because you have utterly FAILED.

 

What you cannot see is I totally agreed that I brought up Hitler in response to your mention of the Muslim Brotherhood founder.
I guess you can't take yes for an answer.

I've never denied Hitler had his backers on Wall Street...only your broad brushed, impossible to document claim that republicans put him in power. You want me to repeat myself? It's absurd to claim conservatives were responsible for Hitler's rise to power.

On the other hand Hitler's party was a socialist one which is the very antithesis of conservatism. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372197/nazis-still-socialists-jonah-goldberg
So when you figure your way out of that one send me a postcard from fantasy land.

"Before the discovery of oil, some Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait were all poor and underdeveloped. They were desert kingdoms that had few natural resources and were without adequate financial resources to maintain the state. Poor peasants made up a majority of the population."

"Proponents of nationalization asserted that the original contracts held between an oil-producing country and an oil company were unfair to the producing country. Yet without the knowledge and skill brought into the country by the international oil companies, the countries would not have been able to even get the oil. Contracts, which could not be altered or ended in advance of the true end date, covered huge expanses of land and lasted for long durations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_oil_supplies

You think modernizing and enriching the backwards Middle Eastern nations is "terrorism". I disagree.

 

Another nice try, but an utter FAIL yet again.

Correction: the hallmark of conservatism. The proven fact that Wall Street CONSERVATIVES financed and enable him prove that point. Still don't believe it? Read CONSERVATIVE Sutton for proof.

Poor peasants made up the majority in the Congo when it was invaded by Christian King Leopold who proceeded to murder MILLIONS. Same thing in the Indian subcontinent when it was invaded by Christian Queen Victoria. Multiple MILLIONS were butchered but that does not justify genocidal murder.

Slavery apologists "justified" their invasions of Africa to promote slavery by saying they brought civilization and advancement to those innocents. This despite killing multiples of millions. That is imperialistic, genocidal terrorism. The only ones who suffered for committing these crimes were the Nazis and only because they practiced this on white Europeans. All other genocidal maniacs practiced it on Third World peoples and got off scot free.