Syrian Refugee Arrested for Murder of Teenage Girl in Vancouver

State policy as dictated by religious beliefs. Yes or no?
Sure but that also holds true for Hungary doesn't it? If anything more so since, as I said, its a democracy.
Jeez, still hung up on abortion, eh?
If you didn't notice, that tends to be an important issue for women.
Now where could an EU citizen that has the luxury of living within the schengen zone go to get an abortion? The current government is in power for one reason and one reaon only - its dedication to Hungarian sovereignty. Everything else is secondary.
Ever consider the same might be true for Islamist governments? That they're elections are based on one or two major issues? People tend to vote for them because of their anti-poverty track record and because of their disdain for the ruling party but that nuance is often ignored. But in the case of Hungary suddenly the nuance matters.
 
Maybe I failed in trying to properly articulate what I was trying to say. I never stated nor implied that you personally view women as lessers. I was trying to convey that other people could've made those assumptions, based on the things I mentioned. If you took it as some kind of personal attack, which was not my intention, my sincerest apologies.
I'll take that apology at face value.

Listen, kafir and I have been going back and forth on Islam, terrorism and Muslims in the west for years. He's a good dude and always on my list of favourite posters. Ask him, or anyone else I engage regularly if I ever get shitty without reason. Maybe the misunderstanding was on my part. So, frwh start to this shit show....

As for the treatment of women as lessers in Islam - do you deny that it is so. Do you deny that it is explicitly so rather than the implicit nature of repression you were trying to illustrate?
 
But wait a sec, the state policies of Muslim nations are constantly used against Muslims and have been ITT. You yourself made multiple references to institutional discrimination, that's state policy.
I think that, in fact, it would look worse for muslims if they used muslim opinion instead of state policies as an argument. Many muslim states are much more progressive than their populations. Egypt, for example, banned FGM, while the population still practices it. There are some exceptions like in Iran where the population is more liberal than the government but I think it's usually the opposite, although that can be said of many countries. Without institutionalized laws people would be killing each other, pedophiles I think would be much harsher treated by the average population than they're by law.
 
Sure but that also holds true for Hungary doesn't it? If anything more so since, as I said, its a democracy.

If you didn't notice, that tends to be an important issue for women.

Ever consider the same might be true for Islamist governments? That they're elections are based on one or two major issues? People tend to vote for them because of their anti-poverty track record and because of their disdain for the ruling party but that nuance is often ignored. But in the case of Hungary suddenly the nuance matters.
Lol. I was back two years ago and the church I used to go to is in disrepair and virtually abandoned. About 20% of Hungarians are atheists and most are culturally Christian only. The wesding I attended wasn't in a church. Like most of Europe it's not a religious country, but they're very aware of cultural differences between them and Islam.

True enough. Perhaps the most important one, or right up there with not being locked up for being a victim of rape or for showing too much skin or being allowed to get an education or leaving the house without a male escort, or or or. I'm not in denial, but lets not pretend that a country where public nudity is allowed (in certain places) is the same for women as Syria.

Point taken.
 
I think that, in fact, it would look worse for muslims if they used muslim opinion instead of state policies as an argument. Many muslim states are much more progressive than their populations. Egypt, for example, banned FGM, while the population still practices it. There are some exceptions like in Iran where the population is more liberal than the government but I think it's usually the opposite, although that can be said of many countries. Without institutionalized laws people would be killing each other, pedophiles I think would be much harsher treated by the average population than they're by law.
That's a fair point.
Lol. I was back two years ago and the church I used to go to is in disrepair and virtually abandoned. About 20% of Hungarians are atheists and most are culturally Christian only. The wesding I attended wasn't in a church. Like most of Europe it's not a religious country, but they're very aware of cultural differences between them and Islam.
Just because its cultural doesn't mean its less oppressive in practice. Look at Russia, does anyone believe Putin is a devout Orthodox Christian? Of course not but he still pushes a form of cultural chauvinism that uses religion in its justification that violently oppresses the LGBT community.
True enough. Perhaps the most important one, or right up there with not being locked up for being a victim of rape or for showing too much skin or being allowed to get an education or leaving the house without a male escort, or or or. I'm not in denial, but lets not pretend that a country where public nudity is allowed (in certain places) is the same for women as Syria.
Well of course Syria sucks now because it is a war zone but before the war Syria was one of those Muslim countries that had a fairly progressive government. Often the Arab dictatorships would justify their autocracy on the basis of the fact that their country is more progressive than it would be if it democratized. In the case of Syria not sure how true that is; the infamous Pew poll did not collect data on Syria.
 
I'll take that apology at face value.

Listen, kafir and I have been going back and forth on Islam, terrorism and Muslims in the west for years. He's a good dude and always on my list of favourite posters. Ask him, or anyone else I engage regularly if I ever get shitty without reason. Maybe the misunderstanding was on my part. So, frwh start to this shit show....

As for the treatment of women as lessers in Islam - do you deny that it is so. Do you deny that it is explicitly so rather than the implicit nature of repression you were trying to illustrate?

I hope you take my apology as sincere, I was being honest. I'm not going to deny that I often come across as confrontational - it's something I have to work on as a communicator.

Regarding your question, no, I don't deny that Islam does treat women as inferiors. I do believe that exposure to Western values, in which subsequent generations of kids who are born to immigrant Muslim parents slowly erodes that type of practice/thinking though - it is my opinion that this would be better for the women involved, rather than simply closing the door and telling them to fuck off.
 
I hope you take my apology as sincere, I was being honest. I'm not going to deny that I often come across as confrontational - it's something I have to work on as a communicator.

Regarding your question, no, I don't deny that Islam does treat women as inferiors. I do believe that exposure to Western values, in which subsequent generations of kids who are born to immigrant Muslim parents slowly erodes that type of practice/thinking though - it is my opinion that this would be better for the women involved, rather than simply closing the door and telling them to fuck off.
2 points.

1. of course it would be better for muslim women to be in the west opposed to being in muslim countries. nobody is denying that. (muslims countries are shit because of muslim thinking, and musliom women are mistreated largely because of muslim thinking) nobody is making the argument that we should limit muslims immigration for the sake of muslim women. the argument is we should limit muslim immigration for the sake of the citizens already in the west. if living in muslims countries is unsafe for women because of the muslim thinking/practice, then bringing muslims in to the west only makes it more dangerous for the western women. don't believe me? ask marrisa shen, or the 1000's of teenage girls who were raped by the muslim rape circles in the UK.

2. if people were talking about only bringing in women from these countries, instead of single millitary aged men, people would give alot more support to accepting refugees. but that is not what is happening. the murderer got into the country because his brother was granted refugee status 4 years ago, then some church decided to sponsor him and his 2 brothers, one of their wives and their 3 kids. of the 5 refugees we know the gender of 4 of them are male. that doesn't seem like a very good ratio of men:women if we are concerned about helping muslim women from these dumpster countries, does it? so much for prioritizing women and children for refugee status.
 
Last edited:
If a citizen murders a refugee, has the refugee saved a life, because you know that is one less citizen murdered? Just checking how this all works.
i wouldn't say the refugee saved a life. but if a citizen murdered ibrahim ali(a refugee) in june of 2017, then yes, it would have saved massira shen's life.
 
Last edited:
there are issues that face the unfortunate in canada as it is. but these idiots at that church wanted to virtue signal so instead of helping the local community they raised thousands of dollars to bring this piece of shit murderer and his brothers into the country, clothed them, fed them, game them a place to stay instead of helping the people in their own back yard. i guess you can only pat yourself on the back for donating soup cans for so long until you want to start bragging about how you're even more virtuous than the next man.
 
2 points.

1. of course it would be better for muslim women to be in the west opposed to being in muslim countries. nobody is denying that. (muslims countries are shit because of muslim thinking, and musliom women are mistreated largely because of muslim thinking) nobody is making the argument that we should limit muslims immigration for the sake of muslim women. the argument is we should limit muslim immigration for the sake of the citizens already in the west. if living in muslims countries is unsafe for women because of the muslim thinking/practice, then bringing muslims in to the west only makes it more dangerous for the western women. don't believe me? ask marrisa shen, or the 1000's of teenage girls who were raped by the muslim rape circles in the UK.

2. if people were talking about only bringing in women from these countries, instead of single millitary aged men, people would give alot more support to accepting refugees. but that is not what is happening. the murderer got into the country because his brother was granted refugee status 4 years ago, then some church decided to sponsor him and his 2 brothers, one of their wives and their 3 kids. of the 5 refugees we know the gender of 4 of them are male. that doesn't seem like a very good ratio of men:women if we are concerned about helping muslim women from these dumpster countries, does it? so much for prioritizing women and children for refugee status.

That's a fair point - I just don't think the problem is as dire as is often presented. It strikes me of the campaigns we've seen throughout history against all different groups of people - blacks are sub-humans, Indians are undignified savages, etc. - if the Internet was around during those times, there is no doubt in my mind that one could research and find thousands of news articles to somehow justify that type of generalizing. I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to condemn entire groups of people for the actions of some of the more disturbed among them.

Not only the women, but I believe men's attitudes (who are not already violent extremists) can change as well. Since you brought up some anecdotes, I'll provide my own. I live in San Diego, which has a large Iraqi population in East County. I went to high school with a lot of Muslims. They seemed like normal American kids. Maybe I'm naive, I don't know.
 
That's a fair point - I just don't think the problem is as dire as is often presented. It strikes me of the campaigns we've seen throughout history against all different groups of people - blacks are sub-humans, Indians are undignified savages, etc. - if the Internet was around during those times, there is no doubt in my mind that one could research and find thousands of news articles to somehow justify that type of generalizing. I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to condemn entire groups of people for the actions of some of the more disturbed among them.
you can't compare an ethnicity(which has no inherent beliefs) and an ideology that is 100% about beliefs
Not only the women, but I believe men's attitudes (who are not already violent extremists) can change as well. Since you brought up some anecdotes, I'll provide my own. I live in San Diego, which has a large Iraqi population in East County. I went to high school with a lot of Muslims. They seemed like normal American kids. Maybe I'm naive, I don't know.
that wasn't an anecdote. that was explaining how this guy got into canada and why the system is broken. this guy and his brothers got fast tracked into canada because some people put up some money for them(i don't know if they even have to go through the same vetting process when you get sponsored) to be reunited with their other brother. saying "it is my opinion that this would be better for the women involved, rather than simply closing the door and telling them to fuck off." is pointless when there are clearly cases where they only brought in 1 women out of 5 refugees like here.
 
i wouldn't say the refugee saved a life. but if a citizen murdered ibrahim ali(a refugee) in june of 2017, then yes, it would have saved massira shen's life.

Well then you may be missing my point.

If the murder rate of the new arrivals is the same as the domestic population then on a proportionate basis, for every civilian that gets murdered by a new arrival there is a new arrival that is murdered by a civilian. It’s a wash from a statistical view, as horrible and distasteful ad that sounds, and not meant in anyway to diminish the tragedy.

Many are argueing that if the refugeee was not here, it would not have happened. That is true but makes little sense from a targeting perspective. If refugees are murdering a higher rate then, sure let’s talk about that. But that is not the argument I was lampooning with my question.
 
you can't compare an ethnicity(which has no inherent beliefs) and an ideology that is 100% about beliefs

Ideologies are malleable. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Plenty of people have come to America, in much larger groups than Muslims, with some pretty fucked up beliefs. I believe that the US was founded with this in mind, and does it's best to accommodate by the institution of liberal human rights, secularism, and relatively equal treatment under the law. As long as someone can follow our laws, I don't care what they do.

that wasn't an anecdote. that was explaining how this guy got into canada and why the system is broken. this guy and his brothers got fast tracked into canada because some people put up some money for them(i don't know if they even have to go through the same vetting process when you get sponsored) to be reunited with their other brother. saying "it is my opinion that this would be better for the women involved, rather than simply closing the door and telling them to fuck off." is pointless when there are clearly cases where they only brought in 1 women out of 5 refugees like here.

Maybe anecdote was the wrong word - my mistake - and maybe the vetting process needs to be fixed. I'm still of the opinion that there will be outliers in any amount of data that you study, and I don't think that sweeping condemnation based on those outliers is the proper way to do things.

I realize that both sides of the argument (most arguments actually) often have legitimate points, even if I fail to acknowledge that sometimes.
 
Well then you may be missing my point.

If the murder rate of the new arrivals is the same as the domestic population then on a proportionate basis, for every civilian that gets murdered by a new arrival there is a new arrival that is murdered by a civilian. It’s a wash from a statistical view, as horrible and distasteful ad that sounds, and not meant in anyway to diminish the tragedy.

Many are argueing that if the refugeee was not here, it would not have happened. That is true but makes little sense from a targeting perspective. If refugees are murdering a higher rate then, sure let’s talk about that. But that is not the argument I was lampooning with my question.
how did you come up with this?

do you have statistics that show how many new arrivals have even been killed? let alone killed by the domestic population? murder rate has nothing to do with who the victim is.
 
Last edited:
Ideologies are malleable. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Plenty of people have come to America, in much larger groups than Muslims, with some pretty fucked up beliefs. I believe that the US was founded with this in mind, and does it's best to accommodate by the institution of liberal human rights, secularism, and relatively equal treatment under the law. As long as someone can follow our laws, I don't care what they do.
yes, they are malleable. that is why, if we need to bring in muslims(i don't know why it is so important to) we should bring them in from countries that have views/customs/laws most similar to what ever country they are going to migrate to.

i just don't see why it's so important that we MUST bring in muslims. if they are from a country/culture that is so different than the west that we would need to wait generations for their shitty beliefs to erode then why not just bring in people from a different country/culture that meshes better?
 
yes, they are malleable. that is why, if we need to bring in muslims(i don't know why it is so important to) we should bring them in from countries that have views/customs/laws most similar to what ever country they are going to migrate to.

i just don't see why it's so important that we MUST bring in muslims. if they are from a country/culture that is so different than the west that we would need to wait generations for their shitty beliefs to erode then why not just bring in people from a different country/culture that meshes better?

Progressives are just following orders. Asking them why we have to bring in large amounts of people that will just group up with each other is pointless.
 
how did you come up with this?

do you have statistics that show how many new arrivals have even been killed? let alone killed by the domestic population? murder rate has nothing to do with who the victim is.

No I don't have data and it is totally besides the point. And yes murder rates don't tell you who is being killed, I thought it was obvious, but let me state "all things being equal", then on average that is what would happen. Point is that even with new arrivals the murder rate stays the same in that scenario.

In othwords, saying that if the new arrival had not arrived X would not have happened, is meaningless. Unless they are doing X more than the domestic population, they are not increasing the prevelance of X on a per capital basis. So unless someone wants to frame the argument in those terms and back it up, it's just mindless scapegoating. Again people in this thread made the argument that if the refugee was not let in that this would not have happened.
 
Last edited:
Ideologies are malleable. Not everyone is a fundamentalist. Plenty of people have come to America, in much larger groups than Muslims, with some pretty fucked up beliefs. I believe that the US was founded with this in mind, and does it's best to accommodate by the institution of liberal human rights, secularism, and relatively equal treatment under the law. As long as someone can follow our laws, I don't care what they do.
These damn Italians and their love for the Pope and wifebeaters I guess?

Do you really think it's a good idea to bring in people, and I'm not saying that's the case with muslims, that would like to replace the constitution with a theocracy and will only follow the law until they have enough numbers to be dangerous?
Usually the response I get to that question doesn't really address it and goes into a tangent saying it will never happen because there will not be that many migrants anyway. That might be true but it's still stupid and basically proves the point that these migrants are dangerous and can only be let in in small quantities.
It should also be noted that many of these migrants only follow the law as much as to not get into jail. In Europe, places with large concentrations of muslims are safe havens for criminals and terrorists, most of the population there does not commit crimes directly but they are happy to turn a blind eye to their coreligionists. Look how long it took to find the surviving bomber in France when he hid in Belgium. Look at how long it took to figure out the grooming gangs in the UK.
 
Last edited:
These damn Italians and their love for the Pope and wifebeaters I guess?

Do you really think it's a good idea to bring in people, and I'm not saying that's the case with muslims, that would like to replace the constitution with a theocracy and will only follow the law until they have enough numbers to be dangerous?
Usually the response I get to that question doesn't really address it and goes into a tangent saying it will never happen because there will not be that many migrants anyway. That might be true but it's still stupid and basically proves the point that these migrants are dangerous and can only be let in in small quantities.
It should also be noted that many of these migrants only follow the law as much as to not get into jail. In Europe, places with large concentrations of muslims are safe havens for criminals and terrorists, most of the population there does not commit crimes directly but they are happy to turn a blind eye to their coreligionists. Look how long it took to find the surviving bomber in France when he hid in Belgium. Look at how long it took to figure out the grooming gangs in the UK.

Those are certainly some valid concerns - I'm not pretending to have all the answers. It is true that communities not far removed from their homeland also tend to protect their own. It is also true that crimes perpetrated by the malcontents in those areas largely prey on their own people, because they know that first generation immigrants often think they are causing trouble by reporting crimes, or there is a language barrier, etc. - so a lot of times they just don't report.

As far as Muslims becoming a large enough majority to change the laws of the country they inhabit - I guess that is certainly a possibility, but I don't think it's a realistic concern. Wouldn't there literally need to be hundreds of millions of them for that to happen? I don't know.
 
Seems to be a global problem. Europe same story.. sad
 
Back
Top