butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Jfc are some of you really defending that Henning/WSWS article?
Are we/they?
Jfc are some of you really defending that Henning/WSWS article?
So again, you can't actually back it up.
I have already read the article and I have already told my "alternative reading" ie what I think it actually says. And the fact that you can't/won't even attempt to provide a specific example of what you're accusing the writer of tells it's own story.
But don't worry, that well known feminist casually red has blundered in with his attempts to further muddy the waters and scream about how it's all the fucking lefties here who are to blame, so I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it in no time...
well what do you think of the article then?Are we/they?
Which was idiotic, far as i can see.
You said "what it suggests to me is that the police have exaggerated, embellished and possibly fabricated details of the various crimes which have been reported to them, including sexual assaults".
Why would they do that? Because they are racists? The source you are using for that is a leaked report, currently under investigation for who leaked it. The police announced that NYE went off without incident.
You've just decided for me and others haven't you though? On the back of bimbles disgusting (and totally passed by without comment by you) use of it. What need i or anyone else? What need to get things right? Why bother? We all know the answer - lefties scared to/covering up muslim rapists. Why would i even need to read it to confirm this? It was confirmed before i even read the post that brought it up.well what do you think of the article then?
Jfc are some of you really defending that Henning/WSWS article?
Seriously - the first paragraph:
Two months after the New Year’s Eve events in Cologne, allegations of mass sexual assaults by refugees at the event, which dominated the media for weeks and served as the pretext for a clampdown on refugees, are increasingly being exposed as groundless.Now the perpetrators may not have been refugees, but those assaults happened - and to use the word groundless in that context is disgusting - or are we calling all of those women liars? You don't get the sense that they are only using the word to deny that refugees are the perpetrators, but rather to say sexual assaults did not happen.
Then Henning goes into how the only men being taken to court on that night are being accused/convicted of theft and other petty offences. He doesn't consider how much more difficult in general it is to get a rape conviction or even get a sexual offence in court than theft - and how much harder it would be when you are talking about multiple offenders in a crowd.
Then he says the reports of sexual assault at Cologne on New Years Eve were "vastly exaggerated". Apparently women didn't report the assaults on the night, and only 440 reports "less than half" of all reports were sex crimes. No suspects have been found for the two reports of rape (not suprising in a crowd).
Then various quotes saying one or some of the women are lying (although he has clearly extrapolated that to all the women).
All the way through, he's basically accusing the women who reported assaults in Cologne on new years of being racist, liars, and to blame for the racist media.
I wasn't commenting on if the article is correct (although TBH I think the idea that some members of the police might leak distorted info to support a racist presentation of this story is hardly controversial...), I was commenting on what it actually says/means.
You are conflating what the article says about police reports (exaggerated/embellished/possibly fabricated) with what you think it says about the storys of victims.
No one here or in the WSWS article has said that that victims are lying or are "in cahoots" with the police, that's either your misunderstanding or a deliberate fabrication, and you're siding with cunts like CR in making it.
That's perfectly obvious to anyone with a wit of sense who reads it . But to the wankers on here..no...just abuse Bimble for seeing it . And fling fash accusations all over the place.
The same disingenuous methodology used by that cunt of a writer has been used repeatedly on this thread. dot C being one glaring example . So they're hardly likely to see anything wrong with an article that says exactly what they've been saying. Waste of time even engaging with these dishonest , abusive pricks.
Horseshit. The articles as plain as day .
Disingenuous horseshit .
If it's as plain as you say, maybe you can actually give some specific quote from the article and explain where/how/why it's saying that women who report being assaulted are lying.
If it's as plain as you say, maybe you can actually give some specific quote from the article and explain where/how/why it's saying that women who report being assaulted are lying.
It wasn't bimble that first linked/quoted that article. sihhi linked to it to show how there was "lack of clarity".You've just decided for me and others haven't you though? On the back of bimbles disgusting (and totally passed by without comment by you) use of it. What need i or anyone else? What need to get things right? Why bother? We all know the answer - lefties scared to/covering up muslim rapists. Why would i even need to read it to confirm this? It was confirmed before i even read the post that brought it up.
Do you have an opinion on the article?Are we/they?
I am on the left. I have every right to dissent and disagree with shite that is written as dogma.
It doesn't matter who linked to it (and btw sihhi put his criticisms of WSWS out here well before anyone else - no one else seems to have any context about them at all - hence we're back to bimbles idea of this being a popular socialist paper) - i could not care less. I entered this part of the thread to correct bimbles outright lie that a quote from it that did not related to NYE did in fact refer to NYE - and to highlight that this way of doing things is sadly characteristic of her behaviour on this thread. It's done - i'm in that space that needs me to be the white left-liberal rape-muslim-aplogist. I'm not even here.It wasn't bimble that first linked/quoted that article. sihhi linked to it to show how there was "lack of clarity".
This clearly is an article written by a leftist man saying that rape didn't happen. While I think trying to appear to be anti-racist probably does come into it a bit, I expect his motivations are mostly about denying rape/women's experiences in general, rather than a defence of muslim men in particular.
I really can't understand why anyone would want to defend that article.
Crossthebreeze just did in post 4588
Why bother when you're outright ignoring crossthebreezes post ...and the bloody article itself .
You've just decided for me and others haven't you though? On the back of bimbles disgusting (and totally passed by without comment by you) use of it. What need i or anyone else? What need to get things right? Why bother? We all know the answer - lefties scared to/covering up muslim rapists. Why would i even need to read it to confirm this? It was confirmed before i even read the post that brought it up.
This, of course, is nonsense. You have nowhere to go after your shameful misuse of the article other than to suggest that people who pointed out your shameful misuse are are rape apologists.What is this post? Or the one by andy?
It's an acceptance of the article. Shame on you.
What does your revolution look like , I want to know. Where are the other 50% of the proletariat. It's a saturday night heartbreak this is.
This clearly is an article written by a leftist man saying that rape didn't happen. While I think trying to appear to be anti-racist probably does come into it a bit, I expect his motivations are mostly about denying rape/women's experiences in general, rather than a defence of muslim men in particular.
Surly silence - fantastic.Unless that particular writer has form for rape denial articles( which I doubt ) I doubt it somehow. This entire thread is chock full from start to finish of the very same type of argument, denial and disingenuous squirming and obfuscation that article advances . For all their faults the wankers responsible for the very same stuff on here don't strike me as misogynists . So it appears to me the un characteristic blindness and silence in this instance derives from another motivation . The refusal to accept basic reality...even to the blindly obtuse point of defending that shitty article, whether by arguing black is white or surly silence, has a race issue at its root. That's the hyper sensitivity that has led to the plot being completely lost I reckon .
Race trumps gender . We know we're we are now at least .
and here we see the foghorn at work declaring that his foghorning had nothing to do with the obfuscation of issues and his cries for civil defence squads (thats pogroms btw) were in no way contributory to ongoing confusion. You shiny shoed cuntThat's the hyper sensitivity that has led to the plot being completely lost I reckon .
What does your revolution look like , I want to know.
As far as i'm concerned, crossthebreeze's post is just as much a distortion of the article as you two and bimble are making, reading things into it that aren't there, claiming that when the author says one thing, he actually means another.
I've got no axe to grind for the WSWS, I don't know if everything the author says is true, and I'm not seeking to "defend" the article, but at least criticise the article for what it says, not for what you claim it says, which fits all to closely with your previous and on-going claims of these nasty degenerate socialists turning a blind eye as "foreign hoards molest western women"
or like what nearly happened at the gates of vienna eh?Probably like the Khmer Rouge. Or maybe like the sacking of Constantinople in 1453.
...damn socialists....
butchersapron I know what your opinion on bimble is but that does not interest me very much:
Do you have an opinion on the article?
On the idea that there was no mass sexual assault on NYE in cologne ?
I've asked you this a few times now but am not bored yet.
and here we see the foghorn at work declaring that his foghorning had nothing to do with the obfuscation of issues and his cries for civil defence squads (thats pogroms btw) were in no way contributory to ongoing confusion. You shiny shoed cunt