How One of the Most Peaceful Corners of England Was Turned into a State of Anarchy by Libyan Cadets

Paul Bracchi, Daily Mail, November 8, 2014

Until last night, the Libyan flag was still flying at full mast over Bassingbourn Barracks. Before it was lowered, it was perhaps the most visible sign, at least from the outside, that things have been far from normal at this military establishment for some months.

Inside the 200-acre site near Cambridge, an old aircraft hangar has been converted into a mosque. Signs are displayed in Arabic. The living quarters have been refurbished to reflect Muslim religious and cultural sensitivities (individual shower cubicles replacing open-plan washing facilities because Islam forbids a man from seeing another man naked).

Even a monument erected in honour of U.S. servicemen–who took off for sorties over Nazi-occupied Germany in B-17 bombers from the former RAF base–was fenced off when cadets from post-Gaddafi Libya arrived in Bassingbourn in June.

Why? Because it was thought the statue, featuring the propeller of a B-17, would upset them; U.S.-Libyan relations have been strained since President Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Tripoli back in the Eighties.

It has been five months since the tricolour flag of post-Gaddafi Libya was first hoisted alongside the Union Jack at Bassingbourn, to mark the start of a training programme to give leadership skills to a total of 2,000 hand-picked Libyan cadets to help their war-torn country. Until yesterday, there were 236 Libyans at the base. But far from teaching leadership, it seems their sojourn to the UK had the opposite effect.

Drunkenness, theft, violent clashes with British troops and in-fighting between the Libyans themselves had become an almost daily occurrence. More disturbing, allegations of a male rape and sexual attacks on three local woman are now being investigated. Meanwhile, the lanes and cul-de-sacs in the vicinity of the barracks have been teeming with police dispatched in an attempt to allay local fears.

It was easy to forget, as yet another squad car and marked van passed along the quaint High Street this week, that this is Bassingbourn-cum-Kneesworth (pop; 3,500).

This village is often described as one of the most peaceful in the country. It is a place where the theft of a bike, say, or a potted plant, would most likely make headlines in the local newspaper. Could anyone living here ever have imagined a scenario where a sensibly-dressed young woman would be advised to ‘cover-up’ her bare arms when she bumped into a group of Libyans at the bank in the middle of the afternoon? Well, that is exactly what happened a couple of weekends ago.

Perhaps most extraordinarily, the suggestion to cover up was made by a British soldier–a member of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, in charge of the Libyan party.

Could anyone have imagined, either, that a girl living near the barracks would be told, by British military police one morning, to stay at home for her ‘own safety’? Or that police armed with Heckler & Koch submachine guns and Glock pistols would be spotted standing near Hattie’s coffee shop in the early hours of the morning?

One local who saw them as he drove through the village said they were the kind of officers you’d normally expect to see at an airport or the scene of a terrorist alert.

The situation in Bassingbourn made headlines this week when shocking details emerged of the behaviour of the Libyan soldiers.

An angry David Cameron told the House of Commons that the Libyans’ conduct was unacceptable and insisted none of the cadets should be granted asylum here. He then said the Government programme to train Libya’s army would be scrapped and all the trainees deported.

The head of the British Army, General Sir Nicholas Carter, admitted the behaviour of Libyan soldiers who went on the rampage outside their barracks was ‘beyond the pale’. But behind the heightened security, behind Mr Cameron’s stern words, behind the decision to finally send the Libyan troops home in disgrace, is a story of betrayal and broken promises.

Residents say they were given cast-iron assurances by the Ministry of Defence last year that the soldiers would not be allowed off the barracks (there is a shop and other facilities on the huge site) during the rolling programme of 24-week courses in basic infantry and command training for up to 2,000 Libyans.

We now know, though, that the rules were relaxed–without consulting the local community–to allow recruits out on ‘carefully- managed daytime escorted trips’.

This is Whitehall parlance which in practice meant the Libyans being driven in a minibus to Cambridge, or another nearby town or village, and then being told to be back at the bus at a certain time. Residents were also assured the men had been ‘vetted in advance for medical, physical and behavioural suitability’.

We now know, however, from a senior Libyan officer, that some of the young men–who hail from remote areas–had never seen a woman before other than their mothers and sisters and were totally unprepared for life in Britain.

Not all the soldiers were to blame for recent events. But five cadets are in police custody following a series of sex assaults in Cambridge last month. One in ten of the men, by the MoD’s own admission, refused to obey orders.

A culture of what can only be described as near anarchy seems to have prevailed inside the barracks–as evidenced by the compelling testimony of the wife of a British soldier based at the camp.

All cleaning brooms, for example, were removed from the establishment, she told us, because the Libyans began taking the broom heads off and using the handles as makeshift weapons against each other in mass brawls, which frequently broke out inside the base.

In addition, extra personnel had to be brought in at mealtimes to stop the Libyans repeatedly trying to steal knives from the kitchen.

Female British soldiers boarding at the barracks had to be accompanied at all times by male colleagues. ‘The women soldiers on site couldn’t be left alone,’ said the woman, who asked to remain anonymous. ‘It was not considered a safe place to be.’

The decision to allow the Libyan contingent to leave the compound unsupervised seems particularly scandalous.

Nor, insists the soldier’s wife, was it just women who were potentially at risk at Bassingbourn Barracks.

One young, slightly-built British soldier serving in the canteen attracted the attention of a group of his Libyan counterparts. They approached their translator with a question: Could they ‘buy him?’

‘They wanted him for sex,’ said the soldier’s wife. ‘They kept asking the translator how much “he” would cost so they could have him and rape him. I don’t know whether that is something that happens in their culture or not, but there just weren’t enough British soldiers at the base to cope with or control all of the Libyans.’

An extraordinary claim. And in the febrile atmosphere of Bassingbourn Barracks it is very possible that exaggerated or even baseless rumours have gained currency. However, the very fact they are believed reveals how serious the situation at Bassingbourn has become. Remember, too, that allegations of a male rape are among those known to be under investigation involving the recruits.

Only last Sunday, Libyan troops are alleged to have started a blaze in the supermarket inside the base. Firemen spent an hour at the scene.

The central question, however, remains what happened outside the camp. Why were these men who came from a country that resembles the set of a Mad Max film allowed to come and go almost as they pleased?

Until recent days, security was so lax, even those who did not obtain permission to leave the camp found no difficulty in ‘escaping’. Resident Carol Saunders, 50, told how she saw cadets jumping into taxis from the front of the barracks. On another occasion, she had seen them stocking up on bottles of high-strength vodka in a nearby store.

Down the road in Royston, more than £1,000 was reportedly spent on alcohol on a single visit to Tesco.

‘I know people who work in that branch and they told me Libyan soldiers sometimes take alcohol without paying for it,’ said one young woman. ‘They put the drinks under their arms and walk out.’

A few streets away, we met the young girl who had that encounter with a group of Libyans outside Lloyds bank last month.

The petite brunette, 24, who works in a cafe, was wearing the same work clothes as she was then: baggy pantaloons, crew neck top and short-sleeved cardigan. ‘One of the two British soldiers who was with the Libyans came up to me and said, ‘You might want to cover up because the Libyans are coming out,”’ she said.

‘Moments later, they did come out and they began looking me up and down as if they had never seen a girl before. They were ogling me, one also staring at me angrily.

‘So I don’t know if it was sexual thing or if he thought I should be wearing a burka or something.

‘It wasn’t even as if I was wearing anything provocative. Only my arms were exposed and some of my neckline. But I found the experience very intimidating.’

The incident occurred just days before another group of Libyans left the barracks and went to Cambridge, where they are alleged to have raped a man and sexually assaulted a string of women.

Two have already pleaded guilty to the assaults on the women. The men are said to have behaved ‘as a pack’ as they hunted down their victims, before groping them and attempting to put their hands up their skirts, magistrates heard last week.

News of what happened soon spread through Bassingbourn. On Facebook, a message from one resident read: ‘There has been an escape. Lock your doors and windows.’

Shortly afterwards, the barracks was put into lockdown. Units of the 2 Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers, were sent to restore discipline at Bassingbourn and the perimeter fence was lined with prison-style razor wire.

Yet, until recently, Bassingbourn Barracks was at the heart of the community. Thousands of people a year used the facilities on the 200-acre site, including a fishing lake, golf course, hockey pitch, badminton court and a winter sports centre.

Peter Robinson, head of Bassingbourn Parish Council, says: ‘The Ministry of Defence closed all facilities on site to local people on security grounds in March 2013, long before the arrival of the Libyans.’ Yet recent events, he says, have proved ‘their own security was leaky as a sieve’.

‘I think the MoD have handled the whole thing appallingly. They’ve lied right from the start. They always knew, presumably, that they would let these trainees out on their own, but we were told from the very beginning that they would never be let out unaccompanied.’

The MoD declined to address the specific allegations in this article, but said ‘appropriate measures’ have been taken to tackle the disciplinary issues.

Three coaches with the remaining recruits left the barracks in the early hours of yesterday. As the convoy disappeared, the Libyan flag was lowered for the final time.

At least four of the Libyans have claimed asylum, but the Prime Minister has indicated that this would not be granted. But, while their application is being processed, they will remain here.

Among the departing Libyans was Omar Al-Mukhtar, who was not one of the accused soldiers. This week he gave an interview to the BBC portraying the men arrested in connection with the sex assaults in Cambridge as the real victims. ‘They (the Government) didn’t tell us about British law and what’s the difference between right and wrong,’ he said.

Which makes the decision to let him and his compatriots loose on this corner of rural England all the more shocking.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    You import the Third World; you get the Third World.

    • Bobbala

      They import the 3rd world; We get the 3rd world.

  • JustJeff

    Just when you thought a military coup was all that could save Britain you learn their military doesn’t have balls either.

    • David Ashton

      The prospect of this possibility explains the careful neutering of our Armed Forces as defenders not of Queen and Country but of “democracy” albeit initially overseas, and the alarm caused when the late General Walker launched his Unison Movement.

      • IstvanIN

        As if democracy is suitable for all groups. Even among Whites it would be nothing more than mob rule.

        • Max

          Indeed, as when 220 million diversity sympathizers vote for the redistribution of 100 million productive white American’s wealth.

  • David Ashton

    Movie buffs may like to revisit and reflect on the village of Bramley End in the wartime film “Went the Day Well”.

    • Vesuvius

      Thanks….will watch tonight

  • Mary

    A peaceful, idyllic English village in dire need of diversity. What better infusion of diversity than a bunch of misogynistic Muslim boors? I’m certain all the villagers will happily benefit from the enrichment if they can just be as open-minded as the Muslims always are.

  • TruthBeTold

    An angry David Cameron told the House of Commons that the Libyans’
    conduct was unacceptable and insisted none of the cadets should be
    granted asylum here.

    In Camerons’ pea-brain, he believes this is one lone individual. He’s incapable of admitting the facts to himself and the British people.

    • none of your business

      Doesn’t he look forward to a muslim arab, indian or Pakistani premier soon?

    • M&S

      Remember what Gadhafi said: “Pay up or I will loose the hordes of Africa upon your shores.”

      We instead conned him into thinking he would be accepted back into the Western glee club and allowed to retire gracefully in favor of his son’s rise to power if he only gave up his nukes (CIA: “You are the drowning man, we are the lifeguards…”).
      We even sweetened the deal and let him erect a Bedouin camp in NYC and jabber on for hours at the UN, as though his message made sense to anyone but him.

      Then, seeing as he wasn’t going to get the 2 billion a year Israel does and which he thought was a done deal, the old shark started to talk about oil for gold and barter economics as a means to bypass a debt ratio which would have Libya paying future petro revenues out to 2120 or so for all the wartoyz he has already purchased and plowed into nothing.
      Gadhafi should have known such loose talk was a death sentence, just from what happened to Saddam in 2003.
      But he just wouldn’t shut up.
      So we then used a bunch of hired mercs in technicals to run him down and gun his brains out with the explicit help of SOF and drones to Hellfire the front and back vehicles in his ground convoy.
      Now we have all his oil as our own and the ‘Arab Spring’ has likely left Libya more impoverished than ever. But that little warning about the hordes of Africa apparently went unheeded…

  • IstvanIN

    An entire religion of perverts. Islam forbids a man from seeing another man naked So they go nuts when they see a naked man as much as they go nuts if they see any part of a woman?? Moments later, they did come out and they began looking me up and down as if they had never seen a girl before. They were ogling me, one also staring at me angrily. These “people” are freaks.

    • NoMosqueHere

      Well, their so-called prophet was a sadistic mass murdering child molester. What good can come from this insane, vile “religion?”

      • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

        Factually, the War of the Arab Expansion did not feature mass murders of people. The Arabs are famous for this because the point of Islam initially was to create a merchant empire. So cities were not destroyed, people were not slaughtered. They were considered too valuable. Christians mass murdered to a far greater degree.

    • none of your business

      “Might want to cover yourself” I usually leave home dressed for the weather. I usually don’t carry jackets and shawls around to cover myself.

      • Anna Tree

        I am not decent because of patriarchy demands. This is a usual mistake made by secular and religious people. Morals existed long before religions or patriarchy. Morals exist because they are by-products of the gregarious instinct and the need of happiness in the individual and group.

        For an individual to be happy he must be in a group that is happy. Therefor you shouldn’t steal or desire your neighbor’s wife/husband or kill etc. And you shouldn’t go naked etc… Nothing to do with gods or fathers. It’s all about a few rules to make the village life goes smooth. This doesn’t have to be enforced, it is common-sense, any girls can feel it, it is for our own happiness and safety. But unlike the burkas, clothes were created only to hide the genitals and then to hide from the harshness of nature, i.e. sun or cold.

        • 1gravity

          Ms. Tree is here expounding upon an axiom of modern feminism, and the multibillion dollar fashion industry: that lust is a male problem. That said, there is no defense to be made for the despicable behavior of the Libyans. Recall the mass rapes perpetrated by French colonial [Moroccan] troops in Italy in 1944.

          • Anna Tree

            I despise feminism because it is anti-white man in disguise. Please tell me where I said that lust is a male problem. I don’t think lust is a problem, it’s who is the object of lust than can be problematic. If it is your spouse or girl/boyfriend, then there is no problem. I think woman have lust too. We are told that in general women have less lust and so are less promiscuous. I saw that around me but I don’t know if this is innate or acquired. I can find reasons for both scenarios of the evolutionary and the social construct.

            I just think from my experience with my children of both sex that some morals are innate, including modesty and so I formed an opinion about this.

            I talked about girls in my sentence “any girls can feel it, it is for our own happiness and safety” because in the article, the soldier advised a woman to cover herself more. If he had advised a man, the subject in my sentence would have been “any boys”.

            I hope I was clearer.
            But maybe I misunderstand your post?

          • Whiteplight sees the Emperor N

            I have always found Feminism acutely hypocritical where this is concerned (as well as many other aspects of it). Exploiting the biological male response to visual stimulation for gain of any sort is okay, even encouraged, but if a male responds to it in any other manner other than to quietly buy, it is a problem that requires more legislation and laws to lock more men up.

          • none of your business

            The Pope at the time brokered a deal to keep them out of Rome at least but they rampaged in the rest of Italy. The tribe blames him for Hitler and the holofraud. The tribe cites his protection of the women and children of Rome as an example of racism.

    • Anna Tree

      In islam, there is no separation between the human being and the sex. The sex has taken over. islam sexualizes entirely the woman and the man. islam doesn’t think a man can control himself even with seeing a elbow or ankle or the hair on the head of a woman. And so asks women and men to obey and wear portable prison for
      the women and at least pants to the knee for men. Non-muslims men can because they are taught from a young age the separation of sex and mind or body. That said, culture is the fruits of our genes too.

      One of the words for female in Arabic is genital (awrat): Arabs and muslims see all the female body as a genital and therefore must be covered.
      The West forbid (or used to forbid… sigh) undecency on the contrary because we don’t think girls and women should be only a message of sex.

    • Singingbird1

      A friend of mine went to Morocco once on holiday.He said there were a lot of Moroccan children at the Airport to carry bagge.He said that most of the children were cross eyed.I wonder why that was then?

      • Anna Tree

        Muslims often marry between cousins (and so have many handicapped children. Read for example IEET “Cousin Marriage – 70% in Pakistan – Should it be Prohibited?” by Hank Pellissier or Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants“) but maybe those cross-eyed are just the consequence of not fixing lazy eyes.

        • Singingbird1

          Doesn’t in breeding make people a bit mad as well?

          • Anna Tree

            Yes the handicaps are physical and/or mental.

          • Singingbird1

            So the muslims act the way they do because they are mental then,because of in breeding.

          • Anna Tree

            Maybe in some cases. But there are mentally hadicapped people in every race and they don’t explode themselves in markets.
            I think Muslims are the first victims of islam. I think the problem is not the Muslims, the problem is islam.

            Killing extremists, wishful thinking about the Arab Spring, replacing Ahmadjenidad, Mubarak or Saddam etc won’t help, this is like killing the heads of the Lernaean
            Hydra from the Greek Mythology, they will pop back, because the enemy is the
            hydra itself, islam.

            Terrorism is to islam what blitzkrieg was to nazism, just a tool. We need to check the ideology behind jihad.

          • Singingbird1

            Thank you for your reply although I must admit I think I received a very thoughtful answer from yourself to a rather glib remark that I posted.
            You are obviously a deep and intelligent person but I am not concerned with analysing muslims and Africans.I just want rid of them.

          • Anna Tree

            No worries 🙂

          • none of your business

            The British health service estimates that about 60 percent of the mentally and handicapped children are the result of a thousand and more years of Paki first cousin, half sibling and blood uncle breeding.

  • RHG

    Gee, nobody tolds these degenerates about British laws and “the difference between right and wrong” concerning “rape”, which just goes to show that raping people in Libya must be acceptable behaviour and these are the types of people western governments are allowing into their countries.

  • JSS

    I find it humorous that the female British soldiers on the base had to be accompanied by males. Isn’t that sexist? We are assured by the Libs that the only reason we don’t have female delta force operators and seals is because of sexism. I know this article is covering events in the former UK but if anything the rot over there is even further advanced then anywhere else in the western world. According to liberal orthodox thinking female British soldiers should be just as tough and deadly as any male so having them escorted by males seems to be a pretty open admission of inequality between the sexes.

    • OyVey00

      It’s probably more like they were more interested in raping the women than in raping the men. Since they likely are in a group when they prey on you, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re male or female.

      • JSS

        The article emphasized that the women had to be escorted by males, not that the females just had to be escorted in general. Specifying males implies that the idea was for male soldiers to protect the females.

      • none of your business

        “Women are for babies, boys are for love”
        Old Arab saying.

  • WR_the_realist

    Just why is Great Britain training Libyan “leaders”? I’d give 10-1 odds they’ll wind up fighting for some group sympathetic to ISIS.

  • Middle Easterners and North Africans are genetically defective due to race mixing over thousands of years. They must be kept out of white countries. They all behave pretty much like these idiots in the story.

    One more thing. The US oligarchs, neocons, and other warmongerers must be be removed from power at the same time the US military is removed from the area.

    Let them all battle each other. It’s none of my affair.

    • none of your business

      Some scientists think that only the presence of the European and African slave girls prevented the Arabs from inbreeding themselves out of existence. 2,000 years of first cousin, half sibling and blood uncles to nieces has produced the highest level of physical and mental disabilities in the world. The British health service estimates about 60 percent of all disabled children in the country are the result of generation after generation Pakistani first cousin marriage.

  • OyVey00

    “Nazi-occupied Germany”.

    You learn something new every day. Apparently the Nazis were a foreign invader who occupied Germany. Wow, I never knew that.

    Seriously, this pseudo-historical doublespeak is almost as sickening as the article’s topic.

    • JSS

      The National Socialist weren’t “real Germans” but any negroid or Turk with a German passport is just as German as suar kraut and bratwurst. Of course when it comes to paying war reparations and guilt trips then we are only talking about White ethnic Germans. Liberal logic is always very muddled and incoherent as well as being stale and boring.

    • none of your business

      We’re living in black, gay and liberal occupied America.

  • Steven Barr

    This is why these people need dictators. Gadaffi, Saddam, Assad were/are the only thing standing in the way of anarchy but idiot leftists and neo cons couldn’t see that and still can’t.

    • JSS

      Actually “out greatest Allie” and “the only democracy” in the Middle East views a chaotic and fragmented Middle East as a benefit to themselves. They fear strong secular Muslim neighbors and we are kind enough to do their work on that end for them.

    • none of your business

      Asssad is a reddish brown haired fair skinned Alawite. They are secretive but most scientists consider them like the Berbers, an ethnic group that lived in Syria long before the 7th century Arab invasion.

      • TheDude

        He also got green eyes. His wife looks fairly white too.

      • Anna Tree

        The white elites, so indeed the Alawites and the Christians, are the descendants of the Levantine Whites. The Alawite ancestors converted to islam to save their own lives and lands while the Christians paid the jiziyah in submission (tax for Jews and Christians for not converting to islam), they are all now being killed, raped, enslaved and their descendants DNA arabized… like the Byzantines (Turcs) and the Phoenicians (Lebanonese) and the other Assyrians (Iraqis, Mandaeans etc) have been.

        The Berbers (Amazighs) indeed are the Carthagians, and so also descendants of the Phoenicians and later of Romans, but it seems to me they have been victims of arabization much more.

        • rightrightright

          They also got babies out of enslaved European women. You can see people in the Middle East in news reports who are clearly of proper European stock.

          • none of your business

            From about 1400 all the Turkish sultans Mothers were slave women from what is now Circassia, Caucasia, Ukraine and Crimea. Sultans did not marry.

  • Johnny

    As in the US, it’s not the royals that need to worry about their safety, it’s the subjects.

  • bilderbuster

    Is anyone surprised that the same governments that bombed German civilian cities to rubble during “The Good War” are now finalizing their plans by flooding Western nations with this filth?

  • none of your business

    ” men arrested in connection with the sex assaults in Cambridge as the real victims. ‘They (the Government) didn’t tell us about British law and what’s the difference between right and wrong,’ he said.”
    Very true. In Muslim culture and in the view of some Hindus the crime of rape does not exist. If a woman is anywhere a man can grab her it is not a crime to rape her. Even if she is in her own home behind a fence and locked gate and the house entrance doors locked she is still available for rape because she did not hide herself well enough.
    The European colonists changed those laws to the kind of rape laws prevalent in European societies but when the commies and liberals ran the Europeans out the Arabs and some Hindus went their old ways.
    Remember those 5 Hindus who raped and murdered a woman on a public bus? 4 would hold back the passengers and driver while one had his way. They are charged with death penalty offenses. Their defense counsel’s only defense is “In Hindu culture it is wrong for a woman to be out and about. Such conduct proves she is not respectable. Hindu culture allows any man passing by to rape a woman he deems not respectable.” In India the jury will convict the rapists murderers.
    In Muslim, especially Iran and Arab countries the out and about and respectability issues are in and of themselves defenses against a rape charge. Which means the rapists will not even be arrested and charged.
    Are you reading all about the wonders of multiculturalism Ambrose?
    Let’s post this all over the internet and email, tweet and facebook it to everyone you can.

    • TheDude

      Actually, rape is prohibited in Islam, and is a capital offense in sharia-abiding countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.


      • Ike Eichenberg

        One third of American college students would commit rape?

        They must have surveyed only HBCs or that “study” is quite flawed.

        “Actually, rape is prohibited in Islam, and is a capital offense in sharia-abiding countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.”

        Wiki seems to disagree with you:
        “However, there is no penal code in Saudi Arabia and there is no written law which specifically criminalizes rape or prescribes its punishment. If the rape victim first entered the rapist’s company in violation of purdah, she also stands to be punished by the law’s current holdings. In addition, there is no prohibition against marital rape or statutory rape.”

        In Saudi Arabia, rape cases usually target both the defendant and the victim, and in some cases, the victim can be sentenced to even harsher punishment than the assailant.”

        • TheDude

          You left out the first part of the sentence: “Under Sharia law generally enforced by the country’s government, punishment imposed by the court on the rapist may range from flogging to execution.”

          So I was correct. In sharia-abiding countries, rapists do get executed. Or at least punished in some way.

          They do judge the woman too, or what they call here victim-blaming, I grant you that.

          How are you so sure the study is flawed? You think of young men as saints or something?

          • Anna Tree

            Pedophily and rape don’t exist in islam. Only adultery and fornication.

            The articles you read were about rapists of muslim women. But then the victims were lucky to not be married (if married they did adultery with the rapist and so must be executed, if not married they did fornication with the rapist and so can be flogged.) And they were lucky to have four male muslim witnesses to give testimony for her. If they were not married, i.e. if it was only fornication, then to save her honor, the father may marry the victim to the rapist. This is the shariah. Of course some muslim countries will be a bit more westernized and can indeed punish the rapist and not punish the victim. This is rare.

            That said, bring me a muslim who has been punished for raping a non-muslim woman… That’s the problem. Non-muslim woman can be seen as lawful booty of jihad. allah allows in the koran the rape of the women kidnapped in war, as long as they are not married. This is why Yazidis and Copts are kidnapped and raped or forced to marriage. If married the muslims just need to kill the husband, that’s what “prophet” mohamed did, check Bane Qurayza etc Also if the woman is brought from another country, this annuls her marriage to her husband!

            Slave girls don’t need marriage. They are owned. Enslaved in jihad or bought at the market. For muslims to find wisdom in their wick sharia and islam and allah and mohamed, they found out that slavery concept is like a marriage. The day the slave is yours, is like a marriage ceremony. They are not married to their owner. The fact he owns them gives him the right to rape them.

            About marital rape: when a Muslim gets married to a muslima, the marriage means that the muslima answers yes, to all the time he will want ever wherever whenever to make sex with her. It is why marital rape is not mentioned in the koran. Because there cannot be rape in a marriage.The right to say no was taken from her the day she married him. When she agreed to marry him, it was a eternal yes to all the time he will want to have sex with her. Even on the saddle of a camel.

            So when the sharia says that slavery is like a marriage ceremony, they are not only sounding cruel and sarcastic but it is very cold minded: the sex slave cannot say yes or no as a married muslima cannot say yes or no. The muslima said a eternal yes when she married to you and the sex slave never had this one time choice anyway, the day she became your slave, the yes was utterd by the sharia law for her. muslimas are cattle, non-muslima are fishes: the Muslim needs to say a prayer when he kills a cow but he doesn’t need when he kills a fish: the fact of him catching it is in itself the prayer needed to kill it. A Muslim domesticates a cattle but catches a fish. He marries a muslima but enslaves a kafira or dhimmia.

            I am an atheist too. I studied islam for years a decade ago. It’s finding the truth about islam that made me rethink all the opinions I had back then. I came to realize how much we are brainwashed in so many issues by the elites, family, media, friends, school and of course by even ourselves, because of greed, naivety, taught self hatred, projection, wishful thinking, pathological altruism, ego etc. I became a race realist.

          • TheDude

            Yes, my understanding is that Islam started out as an ideology of war and conquest (thus all the slaves and booty laws).

            I usually don’t like to judge people by their Scripture too much, unless I see they’re taking it seriously on the ground. The Book of Leviticus says to kills blasphemers. Deuteronomy advocates stoning a bride to death at her father’s doorstep if she’s non-virgin, stoning adulterers to death, the whole nine yards. Both the Old and the New Testament clearly condone slavery.

            As for taking women as booty and slaves, that was common practice by Vikings for centuries.

            Women (especially upper-class) in the Victorian era weren’t allowed to go out unchaperoned a century ago, or it was seen as indecent.

            The State executed people for gay sex no earlier than the 1830’s in England.

            Trousers were seen as indecent for women before WW2 in America. I remember watching a documentary about dress codes where they showed how women attracted men’s attention by showing their ankles, at a time where some viewed skin around the ankle as indecent. I looked up a couple of the pictures they showed of that: one attached; here the other one: http://razzmag(dot)files(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2013/12/ifweliftourskirtstheyleveltheireye-glassesatourankles(dot)png

            Western countries only outlawed marital rape in the 1980’s and 90’s.

            All of these things have been both Christian and European. Which is why I roll my eyes when I see white people getting all outraged and self-righteous on the issue. Especially the conservatives. Because the only reason we’re not seeing those anymore in the West is long-standing efforts by the feminists and liberals they like to hate.

            White poeple may have always had the edge over Middle Easterners in terms of achievements, especially scientific. But when it comes to social attitudes, they’re just us a century ago (or more, depending on the country).

            The basis I think Muslims should be judged on is: how mainstream these ideologies are? How seriously are they taking these religious laws? It depends on the individuals, but overall, they do take some of seriously, like the concepts of martyrdom, (family) honor, and blasphemy.

          • OyVey00

            Good reply.

            I don’t think Islam is the problem here either. If anything, the strict rules of sharia law provide guidance to low IQ people who have no understanding of morals on their own.

            Actually, I guess their reasoning was like: “There’s no sharia law here, so we can do what we want and still go to heaven lol”.

          • gene

            Only someone of low IQ would even honestly consider such an excuse

          • Anna Tree

            It is obvious from your post that you don’t know what is the sharia.

            The Lybians did what they did to the Non-muslims in England BECAUSE the sharia allows it (and that is because allah in the koran allows/orders/doesn’t forbid it and “prophet” mohamed did it or didn’t forbid it).
            The sharia or islam is not about morals. Not our morals anyway. Not even Universal morals. Islam doesn’t follow the Golden Rule for a start: it’s okay to steal from unbelievers, to lie to them, enslave or kill them. I don’t say this: the islamic scriptures say this and 1400 years of islam in half of the world.

            You both are just projecting our Western ethics on islam. You are wrong from what I know about islam. I am ready to change my mind but I won’t hold my breadth.

            Please read my long post to TheDude if you have the time.

          • OyVey00

            I meant it provides guidance for them in their own countries, so that they are able to maintain a societal order with certain morals (yes, not our morals) and a rule of law.

            The question is: Do you think they would behave better if they were not muslims, but atheists, animists or something similar? If Islam is the main problem, why do the largely christian African Americans behave even worse than Arab muslims? Not to mention actual black Africans, whose countries are in a perpetual state of anarchy since the end of colonialism.

            If you look at an IQ map, you see that most Arab nations have an average IQ similar to that of African Americans. I think that this is much more indicative of violent behavior than their religion is.

          • Anna Tree

            Oh I wouldn’t care they follow islam in their country (I agree that in some cases it is good for them), but to consider the dangers it brings to us non-muslims over the benefits it brings to them is rational: I would prefer they would have stay polytheists or whatever. Indeed only authoritarian dictatures come up with those population and do control them, but Islam is not only aggressive to Muslims but to us, if not more.

            So yes, I think they would behave toward us better, because additionally to the natural/basic criminal behavior, harming us in islam is a religious goal (it gives them instant paradise as incentive) not only a mean or being mean.

            Your comparison is incorrect: it should be: do Arab Christians behave better than Arab muslims? Of course yes. Do Christan African Americans behave better than Muslims African Americans? I believe so too. Same with actual black Africans. If the criminality of someone is high, islam increases it. That’s why so many criminals are born Muslims in Western jails (up to 70% in Europe!) and why so many inmates in Western jails are converting to islam: it is quite logic for them to follow a “prophet”
            who himself was a killer, rapist, pedophil and adopt a religion that allows them to continue to do those crimes, as long as it is against Non-muslims (or in the case of pedophily they just need to marry their young victim)!
            I don’t know if IQ is more indicative than religion but I never said that IQ is not a cause to their behavior, I just said that islam is also a cause. I think islam makes it worse for example by allowing cousin marriage that decrease their IQs even more, beside the psychological problem the criminal orders/allowance of allah and the criminal behavior of mohamed add (I would say that I would trust more lower IQ Christian Arabs than higher IQ Muslim Arabs.)

            I think it is easier to criticize and destroy islam than to increase a man’s IQs… A low IQ is not contagious (to unwilling whites) and low IQs kill individuals, islam kills societies, freedoms and rights (even when whites fought), and mass-kill.

          • gene

            Understand the difference of the old testament and the new testament. Understand the difference of living under the law and living under grace instead of using the same tired argument that atheists, or Muslim apologists ALWAYS get around the bringing up

          • Anna Tree

            You are doing moral relativism, tu quoque, red herrings and more:

            1) I judge the muslims by their scriptures because I read them and I found out that terrorists really are following them. It is no interpretation, beheading tied prisoners, marrying children, enslaving non-muslims, jihad, beating women etc are all written there. When somebody says he wants to kill you, believe him. When the terrorists say they want to kill you because allah told them to do it in the koran and because “prophet” mohamed did it, believe them first (if you want, check it):

            Muslim extremists ARE EXACTLY following the orders or allowance of allah in the koran for jihad (koran 9:5 etc), child marriage (65:4), rape and slavery (4:24) etc They are exactly following the teachings and behavior of “prophet” mohamed who killed and mass-killed (read about the Banu Qurayza, Asma Bint Marwan, Abu Afiq etc), raped women taken as booty of jihad (Zuwayriah, Raihannah, Mariah the Copt, Safiya etc), was a pedophil (he had sess with his 3rd wife, 9 year old Aisha), enslaved and stole (Banu Mustalip, Banu Nadir, Khaibar etc… it’s how he attracted followers to his islam, he first preach quite peacefully for 10 years in Mecca but got only a few followers) etc… Muslim terrorists are sadly not giving a bad image of islam, they are good muslims, they are islam.

            As per islam “prophet” mohamed is the uswa hasana (the model of conduct of excellence), the al insan al kamil (the perfect human), that is THE best man ever, THE guide to follow for all mankind, all time and all places (koran 68:4, 33:21, 60:4, 60:6), therefore whatever he did is islamic and halal, he had slaves, he raped women taken as booty of jihad, he killed Non-muslims who didn’t accept the superiority of islam. It is why good muslims who follow islam will never say those things are forbiden. Unless they are deceiving, lying to protect islam, doing takiyah… because to say those things archaic or unislamic would mean to say mohamed was unislamic and the koran not eternal.

            Everything “prophet” mohamed did is halal (allowed), therefor islamic, and cannot be criticized or outlaw. It is why the sharia allows child brides, jihad and slavery. It is why the muslim countries didn’t sign the Declaration of Human Rights. it is why there are so many “terrorists”/”extremists” in islam: they are just good muslims; and it is why it is not only forbidden but not possible to moderate/modernize/reform islam because islamic “morals” are frozen in the “moral compass” provided by the behavior of a 7th century Bedouin warlord. To denounce or moderate, modernize, reform this moral compass is to destroy islam, that no muslims will do and they will kill those who do that (and they do kill, even in our non-muslim free countries).

            2) Yes there are extremists in every religion and non-religion but for example christians who happened to be killers, enslavers or pedophils are NOT following the teachings or behavior of Jesus. Because jesus never killed, mass-killed, raped, enslaved or ra&pe a child etc They are bad christians and christians can and are denouncing the pedophil priests, the inquisition or slavery. Muslims can’t because their model to follow just did those crimes and more.

            Indeed there is also violence in the Old Testament but there are 2 big differences with the koran:

            A)a) The violence in the bible is about a certain time (thousands years ago), a certain place (holy land) and a certain people (the Canaans who don’t exist anymore), while the sword verses of the koran have no limit in geography or time. See verse 9:5 “Kill the Non-believers WHEREVER they are found AND UNTIL there is no religion but for allah.” and there are still many Non-believers of islam, hopefully for a long long time, so allah is talking about a few billion people today.

            b) Judaism and Christianity were able to modernize, moderate and reform, the first through writings of rabbis, the second through Jesus.

            – – > Today, Jews and Christians don’t kill their blasphemers. Obviously they have actually quite a tough skin when nowadays art is a cross in a urine jar, shame on us to push them that way while not even be able to say the truth about mohamed, I am against double standard and I am against the hateful defamation of Christianity, how long one can rank the chains of an old dog… On the contrary just a innocent portrait of mohamed may cost you your head, or you job. Worse, it cost us our liberties and we didn’t get any security…

            Jews and Chritians don’t stone their non-virgin daughters or adulterers or sell them or enslave or go in the street and kill each others or an atheist or Hindu while singing to Jesus or Yaveh. muslims do. Every day, please visit TheReligionOfPeace com

            Can’t you see the difference?! Can’t you see you are a “useful idiot”? Check what moral relativism is. Anyway the fact that Judaism or Christianity or to be a Viking is bad doesn’t make islam not bad. That was a tu-quoque you did, the article wasn’t about a few hundreds Christians or Jews or Vikings harassing a British village. Your sentence about Vikings was feeble: what Vikings?! And why you go back only to the Victoria times, why not back 50’000 years ago and tell me how women were treated by European men there? And then you talk about 1830 last execution of gays when gays are hanged or stoned to death every day in muslim countries, following the sharia that unlike our laws, cannot be updated. Similarly you tell us that poor poor white women were forbidden to wear pants or show their ankles when millions of muslim women are forced to live under portable tents NOW and that also because of the shariah, that is as per islam the best laws for all mankind, all time and all places. The difference between the marital laws of Europe and the marital laws of islam is that laws in Europe can evolve while the laws of islam are frozen in the 7th century bedouin Arabia. Big difference.

            Muslims are here today and they are one billion and hundreds of
            thousands if not many many more, are openly wishing to kill us and rape our wives and enslave our children. And we don’t believe them.
            When Jews and Christians will enslave or kill “infidels” explaining their crimes by quoting the bibles, then I will criticize their religions. Right now, I have the right and the duty to criticize islam because it wants me and others dead or slaves and it is sadly doing so to animists, Christians, jews, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus etc. I don’t say that, the koran, “prophet” mohamed, the imams and millions of terrorists and sympathisers muslims say that. So yes right now, other religious or non-religious people are victims of islam and not the contrary.

            B) a) Moise and other jewish characters of the OT have done crimes, true, BUT they are not models to follow as per judaism. The OT is more like campfire stories for the Jews to learn what their god wants from them.
            b) As I wrote before, Jesus never killed, masskilled, enslaved, raped, tortured, terrorized, stole or hads ex with a child.
            c) “prophet” mohamed on the contrary did all of this and more. Therefore jews/christians CAN denounce their past, slavery, pedophil priests or the inquisition (and moderate/modernize/reform the OT) mohamed on the contrary killed, masskilled, raped women taken as booty of jihad, rape a child, enslaved, stole etc BUT as per allah, he is the uswa hasana, THE best man ever, THE guide to follow for all mankind, all time and all places. Everything he did is halal (allowed), therefor islamic and cannot be criticized or outlaw. It is why the sharia allows child brides, jihad and slavery. It is why the muslim countries didn’t sign the Declaration of Human Rights. it is why there are so many
            terrorists/extremists in islam: they are just good muslims; and it is
            why it is not only forbidden but not possible to moderate/modernize/reform islam because islamic “morals” are frozen in the “moral compass” provided by the behavior of a 7th century Bedouin warlord.

            I am an atheist and I think most people need religion in their lives
            and I have no problem with that. Actually maybe most people should have religion in their lives and I think that Jesus was a quite a good guy. I have a problem when a foreign violent religion forced itself on me or my country. I think I have the right and the duty to criticize and fight islam or any ideology that wants others dead or slaves.

            I am not naive to think all religions are equals, some are better than others, and obviously a religion that skin and dismember living young boys like the aztec religion or a religion that orders genocide, slavery or rape of those who don’t believe in their god like islam are evil.

            Don’t fall into Scylla while avoiding Charybdis. I personally wouldn’t complain about the scratches of the cat (christianity today) when a lion is opening his jaws on me (islam).

            3) You wrote: ” the only reason we’re not seeing those anymore in the West is ironically due to long-standing efforts by the very people they like to hate, namely feminists and liberals.”

            I am not sure. I can’t decide on the issue with the knowledge I have. But Michael Crichton’s “Edge of Chaos” is on my mind:

            Michael Crichton in his “The Lost World” touched the subject of how morality, social norms etc influence and impact humanity
            and its existence:

            “Why do complex animals die out? Why don’t they adjust?
            Physically, they seem to have the capacity to survive. There appears to be no reason why they should die. And yet they do.

            “What I wish to propose is that complex animals become extinct not because of a change in their physical adaptation to their environment, but because of their behavior. I would suggest that the latest thinking ill chaos theory, or nonlinear dynamics, provides tantalizing hints to how this happens.

            It suggests to us that behavior of complex animals can change very rapidly, and not always for the better. It suggests that behavior can cease to be responsive to the environment, and lead to decline and death. It suggests that animals may stop adapting. Is this what happened to the dinosaurs? Is this the true cause of their disappearance? We may never know. But it is no accident that human beings are so interested in dinosaur extinction. The decline of the dinosaurs allowed mammals –
            including us – to flourish. And that leads us to wonder whether the
            disappearance of the dinosaurs is going to be repeated, sooner or later, by us as well. Whether at the deepest level the fault lies not in blind fate-in some fiery meteor from the skies – but in our own behavior.

            We adjusted/are adjusting, but is it for the better? I don’t think so. I think some cultures think only about the group, others think only about the individual. I think white people had a good balance between the two, not perfect, the balance of the pendulum, but in the last few decades, we have broken the status quo and I think the delicate balance between the need for order and the imperative to change:

            (again Crichton, same book)

            “… complex systems [show] certain common behaviors. [… those
            seem] to arise from the spontaneous interaction of the components […] therefore called “self-organizing.”

            […] “two are particular interest to the study of evolution. One is
            adaptation. We see it everywhere. Corporations adapt to the marketplace, brain cells adapt to signal traffic, the immune system adapts to infection, animals adapt to their food supply. We have come to think that the ability to adapt is characteristic of complex systems – and may be one reason why evolution seems to lead toward more complex organisms.”

            […] “But even more important,” he said, “is the way complex systems seem to strike a balance between the need for order and the imperative to change. Complex systems tend to locate themselves at a place we call ‘the edge of chaos.’ We imagine the edge of chaos as a place where there is enough innovation to keep a living system vibrant, and enough stability to keep it from collapsing into anarchy. It is a zone of conflict and upheaval, where the old and the new are constantly at war.
            Finding the balance point must be a delicate matter – if a living system drifts too close, it risks falling over into incoherence and
            dissolution; but if the system moves too far away from the edge, it
            becomes rigid, frozen, totalitarian. Both conditions lead to extinction. Too much change is as destructive as too little. Only at the edge of chaos can complex systems flourish.”

            He paused. “And, by implication, extinction is the inevitable result
            of one or the other strategy – too much change, or too little.”


            4) You wrote “But when it comes to social attitudes, they’re just us a century ago (or more, depending on the country).”

            Yes, like the Africans or the Australian Arborigines are a few hundreds years behind too?

            There is a reason for that. It is because people shape their cultures. Cultures are the fruits of our genes, they are evolutionary constructs. They may imitate as long as we help them and are around but left by themselves and most will go back to what they are naturally.

            Social attitudes are evolutionary constructs too. I consent that there may be a few exceptions, that maybe if Iran can throw islam, they may improve. We hope that Eastern Europe without communism may improve too. But did communism create the Russians or the Russians created communism to their image? Did shia islam created the Iranians or the contrary? Time will tell for some, but for others I am quite sure. A thing I am sure if we can’t have wishful thinking. We need to stop being pathological altruists and put the oxygen masks on ourselves before putting it on others: we are not on a plane and we can’t save but ourselves. We tried and we almost died. We almost kill our own children! We almost became the Abrahams of a new albeit secular religion, willing to sacrifice our child to please the gods of diversity.

            They are one century behind, how can they ever reach us? If we didn’t fall for liberal leftism, we would be already another century ahead! Our progress was exponential it seems to me…

            What do you want? That we pause until nobody is behind? Actually the sad part is that we did. Even in the schools we tried. Again the Abrahams of the new religion.

            I don’t even know if we will be able to go back to our pace. Evolution doesn’t wait. We were quite lucky in the lottery and I hope we didn’t spoiled the ticket…

            I think the next decades will decide.

            I am an optimist realist (and a mother), the alternative is unthinkable: I don’t think about it, we will make it. We must.


            5) I wrote earlier about the fact that Muslims are not the problem, islam is. That Muslim terrorists are sadly not giving a bad image of islam, that they
            are good muslims, that they are islam. Then I wrote that cultures and religions are the fruits of our genes, like IQs or our nasal bridge, that they are evolutionary constructs.

            You wrote “As for these Libyans, I don’t think they have been motivated by religion. Or if so, indirectly, through the culture instilled by Islam. They just look to me like uneducated, sexually frustrated low-IQ’s.”

            Not only they have been motivated by religion (read the koranic verses who allows sex slavery in jihad or the sword verses, ask me if you want my info) but sadly it is their religion that makes them uneducated and sexually frustrated low IQs. Uneducated because there is no needs for books when the koran is all what a Muslim needs, as per the koran of course. Sexually frustrated because of the separation of the sexes, decreased numbers of potential wives because of polygamy and in certain countries child brides, and the poverty (men are too poor to buy wives, i.e. pay the dowry). Low IQs because of miscegenation/the local IQ curve or centuries of cousin marriages in-breeding (read for example IEET “Cousin Marriage – 70% in Pakistan – Should it be Prohibited?” by Hank Pellissier or Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 “More stillbirths among immigrants“).
            What you see as causes are just in fact consequences/symptoms.

            Now I will tell you that fortunately, most muslims are good people, but it is because they don’t really follow islam, they are cherry picking the verses their conscience allows. The gene pool is not completely a monolyth in the Arab world and muslims are of different races. Nevertheless, they are giving a false good image of islam. Consciously or not, they are Trojan horses and some/many could turn truer muslim any day, it’s the muslim roulette, so tick tick tick

            That is the magic of the “psychological dissonance” at play.

            “Yes the muslim mind is quite capable of hearing hip hop and having a infidel girlfriend while learning from the koran that he has to kill infidels. The muslim mind is capable of holding “pedophily is wrong” and at the same time revering “prophet” mohamed who had sess with a child. Capable of holding “it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion” and revering a verse of the koran like 9:123 “O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).” as perfectly valid and be unable to see the contradiction MOST of the time. Deception is truly the farthest thing for most nice muslims. They really do believe the moderation they tell
            us all the time. They really do believe that “Islam is the most moral, is the middle way, is a religion of peace”.

            However, for some nice muslims for one reason or another reading and becoming close to the quran becomes necessary due to the vissicitudes of life for after all that seems to be the main personal use of religion. For those muslims the psychological dissonance tends to get resolved and one ends up with the nice young iranian american student driving his SUV into a crowd of his fellow students, or an american soldier who had been serving his country with his kaffir citizens lobbing a grenade
            into their tent, or a siddiqui born and bred in england and working with kaffirs and their children feeling the need to tie a bomb and blowing himself and the kaffirs to bits. It is only recently that for a very few the dissonance is resolved and they choose apostasy and a walk into freedom. So yes, tick tick tick … is how the kaffirs have to view ALL muslims amongst them.”

          • Ike Eichenberg

            Anna Tree corrected your misconceptions on Islam quite well.
            Rape is not a capital crime under Sharia law period.

            I know the study is flawed because I have common sense and a good understanding of the leftist’s mental illness, Liberal Delusional Disorder.

            The “study” sounds like typical feminist propaganda.
            The political left operates under delusions, much of the “research” conducted and produced by leftists is designed to fit whatever political objective they are promoting.

          • TheDude

            I wasn’t praising Islam. I don’t care about the religion itself, as a doctrine. I just said that rape was punishable by death in sharia-abiding, which it is.

            I agreed with much of what Anna said by the way.

            As for the study, if you don’t want to believe because “leftists bla-bla-bla” then suit yourself.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            I didn’t say you were praising anything, I said you were mistaken that rape is a capital crime under Sharia law.

            It is not… period. Adultery or fornication is the crime depending on the marital status of the rapist.
            If and only if there are four male witnesses or the rapist provides a confession.

            You only posted a link referencing the alleged “study.”
            Post a link to the actual work and I’ll be happy to discuss it further.

            But I’ve been around long enough to know that one third of American male college students are not going to rape a woman even if they knew they would get away with it.

            If you don’t have the common sense to see that is preposterous then suit yourself.

          • TheDude

            Again, I said it was a capital offense in “sharia-abiding countries”, not “under Sharia law”. And it is a capital offense in those countries. From that I concluded rape was prohibited in Islam. Apparently, it’s not. Okay.

            As for the rape thing, I don’t think it’s that unconceivable. One of the major reasons crimes are punished is deterrence. If there wasn’t deterrence there would be a lot more crime. It’s not unconceivable to see theft increasing by a lot if people knew they would get away with it. Same for rape.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            Yes, one of the reasons we punish crime is to deter others, but that does not logically support the contention that one third of college males would commit rape if there was no possibility of punishment.

            Post the study and we can see how silly it is.

            I know for a fact that the feminist left has absurd definitions for what constitutes rape. These are delusional people who believe if a woman gets drunk and has consensual sex it is rape because women are not able to consent under the influence.

            With my knowledge of the left, and the fact on it’s face the claim sounds absurd, I conclude it is absurd.

            But like I said find the study and we can see the mental gymnastics used to make such a claim.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            “And [rape] is a capital offense in those countries. ”

            We already covered this:

            “there is no penal code in Saudi Arabia and there is no written law which specifically criminalizes rape or prescribes its punishment.”

          • Anna Tree

            Deterrence for the criminals and some more people I presume.

            But most law abiding decent citizens need neither the stick nor the carrot. I am ready to concede some need for stigma but mostly we have our own moral compass from a guilt-based culture. This comes after years of good brainwashing (i.e. education) from our parents about what is good and what is wrong 🙂

            Here what Ali Sina, a Ex-muslim says on the issue:

            “The Western culture, is guilt based. The Eastern culture is shame based.
            For us Easterners, everything is about image and how others see us. The opposite of guilt is innocence. If your ethos is guilt based, you have an inner police that stops you from doing wrong because doing wrong makes you feel guilty. If your ethos is shame based, all you care is to preserve your image. The opposite of shame is honor. You can do wrong but as long as no one sees it, your image is not tarnished and you can still be seen as an honorable person. In a shame based culture, wrong and right have no meaning. It is all about shame and honor. If the stain of shame is removed, even if it means the murder of your own daughter, honor is restored.
            These are two very different worldviews. Unless we understand them we will not be able to make sense of Muslims and their minds. ”

            (if you want, read “Bring back stigma” by Roger Scrutton)

          • gene

            Quite the little quisling.aren’t you.

          • Anna Tree

            #1 You wrote ” I said that rape was punishable by death in sharia-abiding countries, which it is. At least in some cases.”
            – – > When you should write “I said that rape was punishable by death in some sharia-abiding countries.”

            #2 You wrote “Concluding from that that rape is prohibited in Islam isn’t that far-fetched. If it isn’t, okay.”
            – – > Not only this is a propositional fallacy, faulty cause/effect, single cause fallacy etc but if you would have written #1 correctly, then you wouldn’t have made the mistake in #2.
            If it isn’t, no, it’s not okay: you are misleading your audience. I want to believe by ignorance and not on purpose. That could be fixed if you would study islam before talking about it. Reading what some Muslims or “useful idiot” say about it can be incorrect. What I know about islam, is not what Muslims or islamocritics says, and not what happened in 9.11 or other events, what I know is what I read in the islamic scriptures. Direct source.


            But most importantly, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that a third of the people would rape if they were able to rape. Where? In South Africa? In Detroit? What people are you talking about?
            Same with you opinion that there would be a lot more theft if people were able to steal.

            When our white countries were homogeneous, our doors were unlocked, young women were walking in the evening without being catcalled, moreover raped!
            I remember. This still is real in small white towns.

          • none of your business

            Iran has a huge population of prisoners who have committed religious and political crimes. At times many of the prisoners are young unmarried women and girls who got caught up in anti government movements. Some get the death penalty. According to the Iranian version of Islam, a virgin cannot go to heaven. So the night before the execution the girls are raped so they can go to heaven.
            One can of course argue that male prison guards will rape women prisoners out of lust and convenience. But only Islam makes it a religious duty.

          • gene

            Crawl back into your spider hole muslim apologist.

      • none of your business

        In Islam, an woman who is under the control of a man can be raped by him without punishment. That means a cab driver can rape a woman passenger because he controls the cab.

  • Yves Vannes

    First they rape your underaged daughters and groom them to be prostitutes, then they attempt to kill the queen, then they fire shoulder rockets at the police, they have ruined the cities and now they are to ruin the countryside. Where are the British? What, need to wait for another election? In the meanwhile just sit back and watch your cities burn, your women rapes and your civilization pulled down around you?

    From looking at the present state of Europe, wouldn’t it have been better off under German rule?

    • IstvanIN

      They also set 15 year boys on fire.

    • gene

      The UK is ruled by weak, the effeminate, and the corrupt. I wish England was an armed society because there is no longer any defense against the Muslim trash that has polluted the country. The English people have to hang as traitors the George Galloway types and purge their government of the utterly worthless and corrupt politicians, and drive out the muslim invaders.

  • Conrad

    “Even a monument erected in honour of U.S. servicemen–who took off for sorties over Nazi-occupied Germany in B-17 bombers from the former RAF base–was fenced off when cadets from post-Gaddafi Libya arrived in Bassingbourn in June.”

    How ironic.

  • TheDude

    The Libyans… Primitive quadroons whom even their North African neighbors joke about their moronity, like how they have “DO NOT EAT!” written in big letters on soaps, or “THIS IS THE LAST STEP!” on the last steps of the ladders. Or so did a Tunisian guy tell me.

    The broom fight brought vivid images in my mind. Check what they did to Gaddafi using a broom when they caught him.

    • none of your business

      So they can read?

  • MBlanc46

    Their countries are always in a state of “near anarchy”. And yet our elites fantasize that they’ll leave that all behind when we invite them into our towns and cities. Next time for sure.

    • TheDude

      Libya is actually in outright anarchy. They have two governments, each one saying they’re the legitimate one. On the ground, fighting militias and Islamist groups rule the roost, when they’re not at each other’s throats. It barely deserves the “country” designation right now.

      • It is a shame that S. Africa destroyed their stockpile of unconventional devices just before the ANC took over. They could have made a tremendous export bonanza by selling one 16 megaton soda-spray device to each side…

    • gene

      Arabs/Muslims aren’t fit for a democratic society. Have you noticed that the only relatively stable countries in that region are ruled by an absolute dictator.

      • MBlanc46

        One-man rule is all they’ve ever had.

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    Apes running wild.

  • AndrewInterrupted

    I sure hope medical researchers isolate the white guilt virus soon.
    It’s worse than Ebola and HIV combined.

  • rightrightright

    White soldiers are required to sit on their hands when the blacks and browns trash, maim and kill, whether on the battle field or at home in their barracks. The maintenance of PC is deemed more important than a soldier’s life or freedom. The military in charge of these Libyan savages could have brought them under control had they been allowed to do their job, restrict their travels across the countryside and punish them as necessary.

    One of these scum was interviewed. He blamed the British army for not explaining the difference between right and wrong in this country and for not preventing their rampage. An obvious grab for the victim spot which is so, so islamic. It is also funny in a bitter way. Our leaders here preach on and on about our ‘shared values’ (with Moslems). Obviously there are no shared values. These Libyans are the proof.

    • gene

      As an American, I see the native English people as living in a nightmare scenario comparable to Orwell’s vision of the future. England desperately needs a revolution to save England

  • Sloppo

    So the British government was teaching mentally retarded savages how to become deadlier fighters. I suppose that was supposed to make the world a better place somehow.

  • The problem is that you only brought over 2,000 of them. You really should’ve brought over 34 million, preselected for criminal transgressions, and then offered them a fast track to British citizenship. The US has done this – why haven’t you? Are you racist?

    You really have some catching up to do over there. Also once you bring over a large group like that: millions instead of two thousand, you’ll find that they’re really an asset to your country rather than a disturbance.

    Threatening to send the four applying for asylum back? If I was one of those four I’d never accept that. I’d just walk out, take the tram to London, and you’d never catch me (at least until I applied for benefits or had my share of jollies with the kafirs…)

    • gene

      The “assets” you speak of have already made quite a contribution in Northern England by reordering the practice of sexual slavery to an industrial scale. Even Londonistan has benefited from the transformation of a once grand city into the dystopian wasteland we all aspire to.

  • gene

    Multiculturalism demands integration between the civilized and savages. and with absolutely no differentiation between modern Western culture and the culture of 13th century barbarians. When you mix a gorilla and a fair madien, the result is always a gorilla.

  • scutum

    Diversity is just great isn’t it? It’s hard to believe what has happened to Britain, which was once the standard bearer for Western Civilization. Well they have the socialists and communists in labor to thank for it. We in the US have the socialists and communists in the Democratic and Republican parties to thank for our diversity.

    • Singingbird1

      Yes you are right my friend.But don’t let it get you down.The Tide is turning and we shall overcome,we shall overcome if we all stick together.
      I am from England and there is another Parliamentary bye election this month at Rochester in kent.I am hoping UKIP will win which everybody predicts they will.The Tide is turning all over Europe and it will happen in America.

      • Vesuvius

        I hope you are right…I salute your optimism

  • Fredrik_H

    Same thing happened in Sweden. As part of a deal made around the time of Ghadaffi’s ousting, Sweden (or at least the filth that pass for our politicians) offered to give medical aid to those wounded in the fighting.

    Arab corruption and nepotism however, meant that instead of patients needing specialist care, our hospitals received soldiers who expected some kind of shore leave – looking to liqour it up and possibly have sex with blonde, swedish women. Many of them apparently became quite aggressive when they weren’t allowed to roam free and use the hospital as some kind of hotel.

    To add insult to injury, actual patients were moved so these libyans could have the place for themselves (which was probably for the best).

  • LeonNJ

    The whole damn society has to do a 180 all because a few hundred wildlings arrive. My blood boils.