Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations

[butchersapron]

Jfc are some of you really defending that Henning/WSWS article?

Are we/they?

 

[Casually Red]

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...

No, there are some ...quite a few im sure..lefties on here who are perfectly capable of accepting the simple fact that hundreds of north African migrants sexually assaulted hundreds of women in cologne on new years eve . And that it was initially covered up by the german establishment .
There are however a handful of arseholes on here attempting to advance the lie that it never happened, that it's a media police conspiracy , that anyone angry about it is a fascist...and that only they truly right on have any right to be angry...and they arent so theres nothing to be angry about. Unless one is a racist and fascist .and all that jazz . They identify as left wing, but primarily they are wankers, liars and sad cases regardless of whatever orientation they profess .

And now we have a left wing article , from a left wing organisation posted on here making the case that it's a lie. Anyone who even remotely derives a different reading to that is, plainly, a disingenuous , cynical lying bastard who is merely cheering a team..go migrants !!...and not doing any left wing position the remotest favour. Because they're advancing idiocy. That article is a fucking disgrace, disgusting. The pits. And anyone shuttting their eyes to its message of outright denial is a complete fucking wanker. But then again it was written by a wanker to appeal directly to other wankers. So it'll be defended by a handful of wankers on here who'll swear blind they see no wrong in it .

 

[crossthebreeze]

Are we/they?

well what do you think of the article then?

ETA: and andysays has clearly defended it

 

[andysays]

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.

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.

 

[butchersapron]

well what do you think of the article then?

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.

 

[Casually Red]

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.

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.

 

[Casually Red]

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.

Horseshit. The articles as plain as day .

Disingenuous horseshit .

 

[andysays]

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.

Which is why you just call people wankers and degenerates...

 

[bimble]

Does anybody else think there may be a problem here that is worth worrying about ?
I know swsw is a fringe website.
I understand also that the swp has been decimated by inhouse rape denial/ apologism.
My experience here of calling out that article as a piece of shit has been .. not very friendly.
butchersapron Your silence is loud, sadly. Because you are not a fool. Do you have a view on the article?

 

[andysays]

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.

 

[Anudder Oik]

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.

Crossthebreeze just did in post 4588

 

[Casually Red]

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.

Why bother when you're outright ignoring crossthebreezes post ...and the bloody article itself .

 

[crossthebreeze]

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.

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.

 

[bimble]

Are we/they?

Do you have an opinion on the article?

 

[Casually Red]

I am on the left. I have every right to dissent and disagree with shite that is written as dogma.

Me too. And that shit is particularly blatant in this instance . And obviously well received and not just by a few on here going by the comments. It's what the inane elements of the left actually want to hear .

 

[butchersapron]

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.

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.

 

[irf520]

I really can't understand why anyone would want to defend that article.

Yes you can. You just don't want to acknowledge it.

 

[andysays]

Crossthebreeze just did in post 4588

Why bother when you're outright ignoring crossthebreezes post ...and the bloody article itself .

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"

 

[bimble]

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.

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.

 

[butchersapron]

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, 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.

This is beyond pathetic.

 

[Casually Red]

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.

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 with these bozos .

 

[bimble]

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.

 

[butchersapron]

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 .

Surly silence - fantastic.

Let's all just tell the truth (about race).

 

[DotCommunist]

That's the hyper sensitivity that has led to the plot being completely lost I reckon .

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

 

[irf520]

What does your revolution look like , I want to know.

Probably like the Khmer Rouge. Or maybe like the sacking of Constantinople in 1453.

 

[Casually Red]

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"

Your plainly defending the article. The article plainly makes the case the cologne rapes are a fuss about nothing that never happened . Your plainly turning a blind eye to both . Just as the cops and media did . You've an axe to grind for sure . No doubt about it.

 

[DotCommunist]

Probably like the Khmer Rouge. Or maybe like the sacking of Constantinople in 1453.

or like what nearly happened at the gates of vienna eh?

 

[butchersapron]

...damn socialists....

 

[bimble]

...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.

I was trying hard to elicit an opinion out of you for a reason,out of respect, because i thought that your refusal to comment on that wankstain of an article meant something. Your refusal to engage is sad.

 

[Casually Red]

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

It was you doing the obfuscating, around migrants vs refugees . Repeatedly. Just as that scum article has done . And you were called on it , hence your chip. Your no better than the cunt who wrote it. He may as well have plagiarised yourself .

The root of any confusion on here is ..or rather was...a bunch of cunts, including yourself, deliberately confusion mongering . Although I think that's become crystal clear by this point. There's no confusion any more, just a bunch of disingenuous shits grasping at straws like it achieves something .