15 Year Old Syrian Refugee Killed in Bremen

74 posts in this topic

55 minutes ago, john g. said:

I went to a boys´ only school in the 60s, klubbnika. A grammar school. No girls! Shame! Mind you, sometime in the late 60s, the only woman teacher turned up (maths teacher) and she wore a mini skirt...and that school had two floors and she used to go up the stairs (and be stared at by some of us boys in puberty...)...that was not easy...

:D

 

I don´t think we even knew what made us feel horny!!!

:rolleyes:

(PS: I failed my maths 0 Level!!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL.Brilliiant. it reminds me of the time I was in catholic schools and we use to drool over the PE teacher

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Insigna said:

>What is your point? not sure what you are trying to say. Forget Amnesty international or the UN for all they are worth and put down what you think. Do not tell me that Germany is not driving a pro refugee agenda. And as it so happens, there has been a terrorist attack in Afghanistan again today, well, that is going to be gravy for the German govt as far as keeping them here, isn't it?  >the very fact that,  that t policy he wants to bring in will give them double protection is an insult to the German people . What double protection is a German citizen entitled to? None except being threatened of racism and Islamophobia if they dare raising their voices.

I do not care what ME and the international community thinks. I am myself an immigrant in Germany but guess what I work over 50 hours a week, pay for my healthcare, shitt loads of taxes, have problems making ends meet and I am keeping those fuckers without insurance that one of them is not going to blow me up, put a knife under my throat or want to rape me whilst I am out and about. 

What is your point? 

I don't want to forget Amnesty International or the international community, that is a direct result of my values and political convictions and won't change. Whether western countries attempting to define, represent and protect universal human rights wish to forget about them is to a great degree their problem. In recent history, almost all military presence of the west in the east has been based on or justified by these things so who can say... It is also known that the west does not observe the protection of these equally but again, historically is in the habit of excusing violations as errors or unwanted practices. Where new politics takes Europe in regards to these is to be seen but ultimately, it is not a refugee issue. It is a European issue. Refugees will always find places to go and there will always be people fighting for human rights. And maybe Afghani women will get a bit of relief from being taught feminism and women's rights by armies, who can say? 

 

What I'm trying to say is... What is being done to refugees in many countries is way below international standards of human dignity - as defined by the west. We cannot ignore this, can we? Unless we wish to belong to the ranks of certain dictators that have no regards for these - but yes, we are always proud of overthrowing them. And reports are bad. We are all failing. Whilst we actually believe that we are doing a lot, we are actually producing very poor work. This is what I'm saying.

 

Better work for everyone is possible. This is also what I'm trying to say. 

 

Does this mean that the average European has no right to complain about anything? Of course not. And not everyone who doesn't like what is happening is a racist blah blah blah - although most people fall into the trap of that discourse, perhaps because it is the most easily available. 

 

But it isn't even about Syrians or these recent refugees actually. Ulrich Beck coined the term Merkiavelli to explain what was going on and in a book written a decade before the chaos in Syria explained this mechanism rather clearly. It is more or less the same thing happening today, this time through refugees. That's all I'm saying. 

 

One danger in this is that whatever becomes "doable" to a minority becomes doable to masses as well. Loss of rights always starts from the fringes and moves inward- same in sexual rights, same in welfare rights. Whatever rights we agree to take from refugees will pave the way for this actually. One historical example of this is the persecution of homosexuals within the Nazi Party. Exactly the same thing happened to transsexuals in my country in the 80s during the military coup. More recent examples can be found in social welfare / healthcare practices in many countries. One recent example is the situation of Polish people. We lose. You too can lose. 

 

As for "double protection". You have the same kind of protection as refugees. Only you are not using them right now because your country is not war-ridden, your house is still one-piece, you are not being attacked on a massive scale because of your religion, race, etc etc. If these happen to you (I hope it never does) you will be able to use these rights and "protections" as well. Ironically, they were mainly defined after some German citizens had to leave Germany in mases, that's when the international community came together to protect human dignity. 

 

As far as I remember, these legal statutes were developed around that time too, to make travel easier. So yes, you have those rights. Unless you wish to undermine them yourself. This has nothing to do with how much you earn, how much you contribute to the society etc. It is inalienable dignity, so they are yours even when you are unable to contribute to any society in any way you would like to. You will be protected even when you have nothing, and especially when you have nothing. That's the beauty of it. People who want this, want this for everyone. You are not losing out on anything. 

 

But yes, this moral superpower thing is not working for anyone. When it favours our everyday interests over universal values, everyone naturally asks what use this "universality" means.  That's where the right will always be stuck or will have to leave some other interests. And European leaders sitting on gilded chairs and welcoming refugees (with Wagner playing in the background) does not convince anyone - has been called commedia d'ellarte here actually. It doesn't mean Europe cannot represent these, but politics based on inside/outside may not. 

 

Again, ignoring problems caused by new arrivals does not help anybody - doesn't help the refugees, either. They too are affected badly when these are ignored. Neither does it help though when these are discussed in colonial ways or invalid generalizations like sexual urges of the eastern male etc etc because they will not solve problems. That is just about culture and identity, per usual using the female body as a site for establishing sexualized hierarchy - has happened millions of times in colonial history, times of empires etc. 

 

We can discuss about solutions about  this if you are interested - men (almost only men) - men who probably never protested against any rape this way before- walking behind rape placards and then calling women of Muslim countries oppressed is not exactly a solution, is it? How?  Funnily, that's actually the very thing we define as a form of oppression in these parts of the world. Neither is it a solution to put "educational" notices in swimming pools about how bikinis do not mean desire. Seriously.

 

So yes, I am interested in these and we can speak if you like. Whatever tickles your fancy :) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for segregated education, again it has little to do with Islam only but usually becomes a problem when Muslims ask for it. I'm 40, when I was 12, I sat for national exams for secondary school and high school. There were private schools and state schools but private "foreign ones" were better. One German, one Austrian school giving abitur to Turkish students. Both segregated. American School, segregated. French and Italian schools, segregated. this is 90s. 

 

2010, big crisis in Israel. 30 thousand parents in Jerusalem and 20 thousand parents in Bnei Baruch protested against mixed education - not of girls and boys only but also of Ashkenazi and Sephardic students. 

 

Nowadays, here, all arguments about segregation are backed not with requirements of Islam but by the neuroscientific arguments of Simon Cohen Baron of Cambridge University, Autism Research Centre. He says the difference between males and females starts from the time in the womb and goes on, so segregated education is scientifically the best. 

 

We can find this problematic, but does the solution lie in differentiating between "good" theories about segregated education (neuroscience) and "bad" ones (Islam) when the former is actually used to back the wishes of the other? Is it really effective to select and separate these? If we don't like one, I believe we should oppose all. So why not focusing on these super modern neuroscientific theories a bit? They even sort of justify stalking by explaining how some people are hardwired for it. Cambridge University Press publishes this sort of stuff in its journals (Spectrums mainly) a lot and deserves serşous criticism IMHO. The new neurosciences seem to be as deterministic as many other things. 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who do not understand:

The situation of one Muslim murdering the other is not a coincident.

A short example:
Have you ever asked your self what is the war in Syria all about ? well - it is not about one country against another, it's not about one religion against another - it's Muslims against muslims. and not only terrorists but also civilians from different groups with different beliefs. why do they murder each other ? because Muslims have many streams, each one does not agree with the other - and there are at least two known streams of muslims which are well known to solve everything with brute violence.

So a situation of one muslim refugee murdering another muslim refugee is pretty plausible. 

It's not like in the western world that an argument is being solved using communication, negotiation or the law.

They can kill each other easily over a religious argument, territory, and just about anything else! and murder is not a new thing for them - it's being done in their home countries all the time.

How do I know ? a couple of years of serving in the places where those people are originally from.

cheers
 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What shocked me the most about this whole fiasco, was the fact that the fake refugees tried to burn a homeless man who lost all his belongings.

 

Regardless of what you think and believe on the subject of mass migration, that is just pure f**kin sick.

 

It is not even religion but just pure evil.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dannys said:


It's not like in the western world that an argument is being solved using communication, negotiation or the law.

 

Your own home country is not part of that western world then?

 

Quote

They can kill each other easily over a religious argument, territory, and just about anything else! and murder is not a new thing for them - it's being done in their home countries all the time.

 

 

"According to a 2013 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), between 2005 and 2012, the average homicide rate in the U.S. was 4.9 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the average rate globally, which was 6.2. However, the U.S. had much higher murder rates compared to other countries identified in the report as "developed", which all had average homicide rates of 0.8 per 100,000.[42] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany and Italy (0.9).[48][44] A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per capita homicide rates over the last 30 plus years on average, of major cities, New Orleans' average annual per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2012) is the highest of U.S. cities with average annual homicide totals that were among the top 10 highest during the same period."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dannys said:

It's not like in the western world that an argument is being solved using communication, negotiation or the law.
 

 

Good luck to you solving "arguments" using communication, negotiation, the law at the face of ethnic cleansing (as your state says) conducted by ISIS, Al-Nusra, Al-Qaida and whomever. 

 

What were you doing there "serving"? Organizing book clubs with these guys? and carrying a bouquet of flowers in your hand? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dannys said:

For those who do not understand:

The situation of one Muslim murdering the other is not a coincident.

A short example:
Have you ever asked your self what is the war in Syria all about ? well - it is not about one country against another, it's not about one religion against another - it's Muslims against muslims. and not only terrorists but also civilians from different groups with different beliefs. why do they murder each other ? because Muslims have many streams, each one does not agree with the other - and there are at least two known streams of muslims which are well known to solve everything with brute violence.

So a situation of one muslim refugee murdering another muslim refugee is pretty plausible. 

It's not like in the western world that an argument is being solved using communication, negotiation or the law.

They can kill each other easily over a religious argument, territory, and just about anything else! and murder is not a new thing for them - it's being done in their home countries all the time.

How do I know ? a couple of years of serving in the places where those people are originally from.

cheers
 

Yep, the tendency of the men from these cultures to solve their conflicts with violence instead of negotiations also can be seen in the higher number of violent crimes among them in the West. It's not a coincidence.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2017, 6:16:23, dannys said:

It's not like in the western world that an argument is being solved using communication, negotiation or the law.

 

Like the American Civil War?  Maybe that's too long ago...let's update the list a bit

1945 to 2000

 

Still too distant?

Since 2000

 

 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read 'it would be all over the news' I understood that if right wingers had carried out the attack it would be all over the news - that it was the right wing, not that someone was killed.

 

I would have thought that would have been clear given that the murder was in the news.

How did it get dragged in to a discussion about the right wing?

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that already implicit in all these discussions about representation? 

 

Even if we go back to the original post and start discussing it in the light of some research, the same thing may be bound to happen as it is implicit in the question and expanded from there. 

 

So, the topic is about ethical journalism (objective etc etc). Ethical Journalism Network published its report last week, it is titled  Ethics in the News: EJN Report on Challenges for Journalism in the Post-truth Era.

 

It is reported that Brexit increased in the media across Europe racism, extremism and political propaganda; the biogtry, sexism and polarizing discourses that emerged during Trump' election process has shaken people both inside and outside the country; the crisis in journalism covers not only the west but also the east; war-mongering between India and Pakistan has turned into a war of information; hate speech has increased across Asia. Also mentioned is the dangers of naming women murders in India and Pakistan "honour killings" and how this increases the social and cultural pressure on women.

 

So, the assumptions about how German media represents whom is not backed by this report by this organisation that states that they have no political affiliations. 

 

Still, if this doesn't suffice or is not considered credible, reports from other independent sources can also be discussed (if provided), documentation from all these sources can be required etc etc. 

 

The report: 

 

http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/publications/ethics-in-the-news

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on this? Did they catch those who did it?

It has been awfully quiet ont his subject.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now