It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Child Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs in the U.K.

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan
So there's something I've never really had answered properly, and I have asked on quite a few message boards...

Why exactly did the British government think that it would be a good idea to allow boatloads of immigrants to come in the first place? Taking these two things into consideration:

England is a tiny country.
There isn't much room at all. Is it really so wise to bring in loads of new people when the land isn't so vast to begin with?

England already has an established culture with a long history.
Countries that already have a long history and a solid cultural foundation don't necessarily get along so well with foreigners. This doesn't have much at all to do with racism, but more to do with the fact that a country deeply settled in its cultural roots won't mix very well with a new and very different culture being introduced. And Muslims are very different to West Europeans. Different like oranges and peppers.

All I can say at this point is "What did they think was going to happen?" Did these politicians in Europe who were espousing mass-immigration honestly think it was going to have a happy ending?

Older countries are too set in their ways and have a difficult time adapting to new cultures being introduced into their society; conversely, the immigrants also have a difficult time adapting to the ways of the new land. From what I've observed in my life so far, it's only the younger countries that can really make immigration work. Not the older countries. I grew up in Canada, so all my life I've been used to being around people who look 'different', and it doesn't bother me at all. I went to school with kids who all had very different backgrounds, whose parents or grandparents came from places like Japan, China, India, Poland, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Scotland, England, etc. I'm a mix of Welsh and Dutch, and a small amount of Aboriginal (aka Native American). We got along anyways because we all had one thing in common: We were born here, we grew up in the same country together, speaking the same language. We sound the same linguistically, and even if some of the kids didn't have western parents, they would usually have a 'western' outlook because they grew up in this society and that made sense to them more than anything else.

In my opinion this isn't harmful to our society because we are a developing country that didn't really have any deep cultural roots or set ways. TL;DR - Older countries, leave the immigration to younger countries whose society is still somewhat in the new construction phase.




While your post appears to be firmly rooted in logical thought. You may have overlooked the fact that records of the muslim presence in the U.K. date back to the fifteenth or sixteenth century.

Is 500 years not long enough to belong??




posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackNWhite
[Quote]

Every 2 minutes, someone in the U.S. is sexually assaulted.

1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. Among all victims, about nine out of ten are female.

Age of sexual assault victims

15% are under age 12
29% are age 12-17
44% are under age 18
80% are under age 30

Ages 12-34 are the years with the highest risk
Girls ages 16-19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of sexual assault.

www.rccmsc.org...



Sure,sexual assaults are only commited by evil muslims. Christians are so nice to their women. Deny ignorance


WELL SAID!



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: wrkn4livn
No, your right. But their religious book tells them it's ok. Big dif

a reply to: hudsonhawk69



Read the bible sometime sunshine it's says basically the same stuff...



posted on Feb, 24 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Gryphon66


Try as you might to divert the facts away from the Muslim discussion at hand to other religions and the US consent laws, the fact of the matter is Mohammad was a known pedophile. Therefore some in the Muslim religion feel justified and obligated doing the exact same thing as the person on which their whole religion is based. It's in the Hadith. Or do you consider this an "opinion piece" also?

"Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
The greatest evidence of Muhammad’s lust may be demonstrated in his marriage to a six-year-old girl named Aisha. Muhammad was about 53 years old when he betrothed his child bride. Later, at the age of nine, Aisha was handed over to the prophet to consummate the marriage. The Hadith records this account:"
bigfaithministries.com...



Read the bible sunshine... You'll find that the similarities to the Qur'an quite astounding.

discover-the-truth.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
While your post appears to be firmly rooted in logical thought. You may have overlooked the fact that records of the muslim presence in the U.K. date back to the fifteenth or sixteenth century.

Is 500 years not long enough to belong??

You're right, but I doubt there were as many back then as there are now. Technological advancements such as air travel make mass-immigration much easier than it would've been 500 years ago.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: tony9802
NO it's not, I get the feeling you might be the person who shoots out of irrational fear..you likley have no business owning a gun.
What you gonna sit in your living room with your chopper and wait for the muslims..give me an f'n break.
Rape is rape by whoever does it and it seems all cultures, religeons, politicians.. royalty engage in it..in Britian anyway.



What I guess you fail to realize is that most Americans can legally carry a concealed firearm, and furthermore it is LEGAL to use deadly force to stop someone from harming another person.

In other words: if I see the Nigerian retards hit Lee Rigby and pull out a knife to start hacking his head off, I can end both of them right there. You can do the same to a rapist.

I'm genuinely disappointed that law-abiding UK citizens have been ripped of the right to defend yourselves from sick, sick monsters. What's worse is that you continuously import them and inflict them upon yourselves.

At one friend's business, 6 out of 7 employees carry concealed. I dare you to try an armed robbery there.


Grandfat her kills attempted rapist.

^^Bunch of real winners there... are these the guys who you don't support shooting ?

.
edit on 25-2-2015 by 8675309jenny because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

Yes, the title of the thread is "Child Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs, etc." The OP clearly states that the ACTUAL subject is the child abuse in Rotherham UK (or more exactly, uses the tragedy to attempt to make political points with ludicrous unsubstantiated claims). In the course of that discussion, which you and I are both participating in, you made the comment that somehow President Obama would characteristic what was going on.

Do you remember? Here you go:


originally posted by: UnBreakable
And if you ask Obama to address this he would say Christians probably did this during the Crusades and Inquisition hundreds of years ago. And other apologists would say the Westboro Baptist church is doing this right now. Lets's not acknowledge for what it is, it wouldn't be politically correct.


Is Obama relevant to the Rotherham UK situation? No.

Is what Christians did (or didn't do) in the Crusades relevant? No.

Are we discussing "other apologists" or the Westboro Baptist Church? No.

That's your first entry into the thread, so, please don't insult any reader's intellect here by claiming that YOUR posts have been on-topic.

Summarizing what you went on to post that I took exception with:

The problem in Rotherham UK is a direct result of "religion."

When asked what religion, you responded with ISIS and Boko Haram.

When asked if your claim was that Islam (at large) was the religion that you were pointing to you said no ... and have then proceeded since to prove that your contention surely is that Islam, the religion is fault here, and you have ignored every piece of evidence that demonstrated that the problem is world-wide, in all religions, in all countries, and that it is utterly specious to argue that child abuse in Rotherham is a function of Islam alone.

My statements have been clear and certain: the abuse in Rotherham happened in a Muslim community, specifically, Pakistani.

The crimes were ignored by the local authorities, and the reason for that was not "Islam" but was their own cowardice at trying to protect the reputation of their town.

It wasn't "political correctness" it was good old fashioned fear of civic embarrassment, as is stated clearly in the official report.

Those officials should be charged with conspiracy to conceal a crime, at the very least.
its not pakistani community its muslims in general. How dare you defend muslims in the u.k? Just today a bbc poll a 3rd of british muslims sugested violence was ok in response to cartoons of mohammed. These people are not pakistani but they are muslims www.dailymail.co.uk...
m.youtube.com...
edit on 25-2-2015 by disregard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: disregard

I'm not defending anyone here but if you're quoting stats you need to be talking who they asked, sample size, demographics, location, age - It means nothing to say "a third said this...".



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: disregard

I'm not defending anyone here but if you're quoting stats you need to be talking who they asked, sample size, demographics, location, age - It means nothing to say "a third said this...".

its on the bbc site. They spun it on the news by saying a majority of muslims disagree with violence for cartoons of the prophet. But a third agree.
It stinks. The 3 girls who left for isis has had way more coverage then any victim of the abuse.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: disregard
That's pretty sick then and a great example of how the media manipulate weak minds.


1,000 Muslims were surveyed across Britain from 26 January to 20 February
.

According to Wiki -

Islam in United Kingdom is the second largest religion with results from the United Kingdom Census 2011 giving the UK Muslim population in 2011 as 2,786,635

So if BBC asked 1,000 that's a whole 0.036% of UK Muslims.

Not even a 10th of a percent of the Muslim population based on 2011 figures.

And that's in the news? Pathetic, cretinous, manipulative, money driven headline.

(I'll apologise now if my figures are wrong, I'm no mathematician).
edit on 25-2-2015 by and14263 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-2-2015 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: disregard

How dare I defend Muslims?

Friend, take a minute and reread. You won't find any defense of anyone from me.

What you will find is an attempt to emphasize the actual facts and evidence before us in this question, and to counter other claims with additional evidence.

The actual report from the official investigation in Rotherham is available several times within the body of the thread.

As to your obvious distaste, dislike, ... whatever, for Muslims, I can't help with that.

I find all religions equally appalling, personally.

Even so, facts are still facts.

Best,



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

May I say that, even through we have crossed verbal swords a time or two on this site, your responses here are perfectly logical, reasonable and exhibit exactly the spirit of the ATS that I became a member of.

I realize that "atta boys/girls" are specifically restricted, but I am hoping for a bit of indulgence just this once.

Your post went directly to the flaw in disregard's argument and used clear evidence to counter it.

That's just a beauty to behold! Thanks.





posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: disregard
Just today a bbc poll a 3rd of british muslims sugested violence was ok in response to cartoons of mohammed.


The BBC did no such thing.


But 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks.


Some sympathy. Whether you or I agree with the position I'd wager that's far more likely to be indicative of some holding the perspective that actions were motivated by what was perceived as certain amount of provocation. Neither you nor I have to agree with that consideration as presenting any valid degree of mitigating circumstances whatsoever but to refuse to accept that others may hold such a perspective and instead blindly label them as condoning certain actions - that's simply twisting the report into your own ugly narrative.

If the situation genuinely concerns you (and judging by your words that seems a gamble) you'd benefit your cause by not spouting hysterical bull# so that those who care to look into it are instead met with facts as opposed to disposable propaganda. At present you are not helping - hype and hysteria only muddy the waters. If you want the facts to be known, don't shroud them in lies no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel. If, that is.

Once more:

One in four (27%) British Muslims say they have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

"Some sympathy for the motives". Only certain mindsets would interpret that as happily condoning the response.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Lots of great posts in the thread:


originally posted by: Mark Harris
If the situation genuinely concerns you (and judging by your words that seems a gamble) you'd benefit your cause by not spouting hysterical bull# so that those who care to look into it are instead met with facts as opposed to disposable propaganda. At present you are not helping - hype and hysteria only muddy the waters. If you want the facts to be known, don't shroud them in lies no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes you feel. If, that is.


That observation explains why I make 99% of the posts I make. We're supposed to be favoring facts here.

Mark, what do you see as the basis for this ... fact free ... line of reasoning that so many take? Not only fact-free but either obvious untruths or gross (and preventable) ignorance presented as fact?
edit on 9Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:33:31 -060015p092015266 by Gryphon66 because: Slight mod at the end.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks. I U2U'd so as not to clog the post but my U2Us rarely get through to people.

As of today I am making a concerted effort to be a bit more facts based and less emotional.

Let's see what happens.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Point is Sunshine, is that as demonstrated by the op article, there is still an accepted culture in the Muslim community that thinks that the so-called mythology of pedophilia practiced by Mohammad is still acceptable today. Ya, the article you posted says there are instances of non-Muslim religious culture where child abuse was accepted a millennia ago. These people have evolved where it is no longer tolerated as a way of life, while those Muslims highlighted do not. The others have moved out of the stone-age, *Snip*. Where it's ok that Mohammad practiced child abuse, if you look at the New Testament of the Bible, which your article conveniently doesn't address, Jesus doesn't practice nor condones it.


edit on 25-2-2015 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/25/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
While your post appears to be firmly rooted in logical thought. You may have overlooked the fact that records of the muslim presence in the U.K. date back to the fifteenth or sixteenth century.

Is 500 years not long enough to belong??

You're right, but I doubt there were as many back then as there are now. Technological advancements such as air travel make mass-immigration much easier than it would've been 500 years ago.


True...

I do wonder if we would be better off noting the things we have in common with those around us rather than our differences. Issues like these will always be complex. Especially in place like the middle east where a blood feud could date back thousands of years!



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Point is Sunshine, is that as demonstrated by the op article, there is still an accepted culture in the Muslim community that thinks that the so-called mythology of pedophilia practiced by Mohammad is still acceptable today. Ya, the article you posted says there are instances of non-Muslim religious culture where child abuse was accepted a millennia ago. These people have evolved where it is no longer tolerated as a way of life, while those Muslims highlighted do not. The others have moved out of the stone-age, Jackwagon. Where it's ok that Mohammad practiced child abuse, if you look at the New Testament of the Bible, which your article conveniently doesn't address, Jesus doesn't practice nor condones it.



Actually you'll that child abuse in western cultures is referred to as "one of the last socially acceptable crimes". Despite things like pedophilia and the abuse and rape of young girls being illegal it is rarely reported in western cultures. This shows how readily acceptable these behaviors are in western countries.
I just don't these imagined differences between muslim and western cultures that you describe.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I think you begin to see what efforts to analyze evidence are faced with in the topic.

The OP is an opinion piece, from a stated far-right political perspective, that makes little reference to actual fact, but instead relies on quotations from UK tabloid newspapers.

Then, of course, the mythological figures of Islam are condemned for their child abuse, as compared with mythological figures in Christianity (YHVH in particular) who do the same thing or worse (abuse/rape children, see the meaning of the term "almah" ... it's not best translated "virgin" but "girl-child" or "young girl" or "young woman").

I would be the first to state unequivocally that religion creates and/or justifies a myriad of human suffering and injustice.

To suggest, however, that suffering is limited to purveyors of Islam, is just dishonest.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The Muslim community in Rotherham reacted with the same disgust we all feel both for the acts and the coverup:



This has left the leader of a Muslim organisation in Rotherham furious.

"In the name of what community cohesion and political correctness? Not in the name of my community," said Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth.

"I'm truly disgusted to see such a report in my home town of Rotherham.

"The fact these guys were predominantly Pakistani heritage men should not be a reason for providing a cloak of invisibility."


and further ...



His words were echoed by Shoki Adbo, a bank worker from the town, who said: "I'm a Muslim and if I saw a Muslim person doing something like that then they would not be a Muslim to me."

Mr Farid added: "We were lost for words when we saw this report.

"It doesn't come out [that it's one person] from this part of Rotherham and one individual from that part of Rotherham, it always turns out to be a circle of friends."


BBC News




top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join