We talked about the counterbalancing of the negative effects on public opinion of the NYE's sex attacks scandal by mass media. In the article from Financial Times that we mentioned, "Women and children refugee numbers crossing into Europe surge", it is told that only 3 of the 58 suspects of the NYE's sex attacks in Cologne were refugees. Like if that made anything better.
As I wrote in January: "Although finally it was admitted that mostly refugees had taken part in the attacks, in the beginning, that much was denied. Like if the possibility that the attacks were committed by previous migrants and not refugees was better... It is better for those, like Merkel, who have opened the doors of Europe to muslims, but not for the common citizens." Now they tell us again they were not refugees.
That shows how silly they think common readers are. So they are not new migrants, they are "old" ones, "locals"... What's the idea that they are trying to sell us? "Don't worry about more refugees coming, we are already fucked up"?
If they were not refugees, how came there were a thousand men celebrating New Year's Eve alone? Where were their wifes and girlfriends? Because some of them must have wifes or girlfriends... They had to be at home. How can this be? Because that's what women do in Islam; stay at home.
And as I wrote in the same article in January: "One way or the other, one truth stands: the rights of women in muslim societies, are worth nothing. One could argue "They are not muslims, they were drinking and partying", yet they come from Muslim countries, and Islam and women rights are just not compatible; just like Islam and democracy are not compatible."
As I wrote in January: "Although finally it was admitted that mostly refugees had taken part in the attacks, in the beginning, that much was denied. Like if the possibility that the attacks were committed by previous migrants and not refugees was better... It is better for those, like Merkel, who have opened the doors of Europe to muslims, but not for the common citizens." Now they tell us again they were not refugees.
That shows how silly they think common readers are. So they are not new migrants, they are "old" ones, "locals"... What's the idea that they are trying to sell us? "Don't worry about more refugees coming, we are already fucked up"?
If they were not refugees, how came there were a thousand men celebrating New Year's Eve alone? Where were their wifes and girlfriends? Because some of them must have wifes or girlfriends... They had to be at home. How can this be? Because that's what women do in Islam; stay at home.
And as I wrote in the same article in January: "One way or the other, one truth stands: the rights of women in muslim societies, are worth nothing. One could argue "They are not muslims, they were drinking and partying", yet they come from Muslim countries, and Islam and women rights are just not compatible; just like Islam and democracy are not compatible."
No comments:
Post a Comment