In response to a recent response to me saying that anglo non-muslims also committ gang rape. Here are some examples:

WARNING- SOME OF THESE STORIES ARE GRAPHIC AND MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME READERS

"The Mount Rennie rape case is the only gang rape in Sydney during the 1880s that led to a full conviction of the participants involved in the crime.[1] The attack is sometimes referred to as the "Mount Rennie Outrage". The crime was a pivotal point in New South Wales history coming just after the introduction of the death penalty for rape in 1883, as well as a history of failure of other gang rapes trials in that time period.

Contents [hide]
1 The incident
2 Public reaction
3 Reaction to the sentences
4 Subsequent impact on Australia
5 References
6 Sources



[edit] The incident
The rape occurred on September 9, 1886. Sixteen-year old Mary Jane Hicks was offered a lift by a man named Charles Sweetman. She had been educated at a convent school and had only recently arrived in Sydney. Sweetman diverted the cab to Moore Park area, then an isolated piece of bushland in Sydney's suburbs. He attempted to rape her in the cab but she screamed for help. A group of around twenty men known as "larrikins" answered the call. They surrounded the cab and knocked on the door. They persuaded Hicks to leave with them. Sweetman fled in his cab and left Hicks to her fate.[2] However, the group of men proved not to be rescuers, but took her further away.

Various men held her down and took turns to rape her. Hicks fell into and out of consciousness during the ordeal. Some men attempted to rescue her but they were beaten back by the gang with bricks, stones and bottles.[3] At one stage during the attack, Hicks attempted to drown herself.[2] One author states that the larakins also mutilated her, but this is not reflected in any other commentary of the incident.[4]

Police found her at five the next morning in a state of exhaustion and extreme terror.[2] She claimed to have been raped by eight to twelve men. After a police search, she identified her assailants later that day. Fifteen men were arrested.

William Hill, Michael Donnellan, Joseph Martin, William Boyce, George Duffy, William Newman, Hugh Miller, George Keegan and Robert Read were tried for the crime. The death penalty for rape had been introduced in 1883. Justice Windeyer declared the crime as a "most atrocious crime, a crime so horrible that every lover of his country must feel that it is a disgrace to our civilization". Nine men were convicted and sentenced to death. Two were acquitted. Sweetman received fourteen years prison with two floggings for his part.


[edit] Reaction to the sentences
There was an outcry over the death penalty being too harsh for the nine men. In 1887, the Sydney Town Hall was said to have been packed to protest against the hangings. A deputation of 150 citizens attended the governor in support of the hanging. Five eventually had their sentences reduced to life imprisonment by the Governor. However, for the first three years they had to be served in fetters. The remaining four were hanged in January 1887. One of the men was seventeen.[7]"

Anita was walking alone along Newton Road, south of Blacktown Train Station, her handbag over her shoulder when the boys drove up beside her. The car stopped and Travers and Murdoch jumped out in front of Anita and dragged her kicking and screaming into the car.

From the moment Anita was in the car she was brutalised. She was ordered to strip off her clothes but refused. She begged them to let her go, saying she was married and that she had her periods.

The boys didn't listen. Travers and Mick Murdoch began ripping her clothes from her body and punching her around the face and head. Les Murphy who was sitting in the front got involved in the violence and leaned across and punched Anita in the face as well. Mick Murphy joined in by slapping her.

The first port of call was a petrol station. The boys pulled into a petrol station and filled the car using the money they had stolen from Anita's purse.

While at the pump Anita was held down on the floor of the car and beaten once more by the men.

As the car drove off, Travers climbed on top of the frightened woman and raped her. Mick Murphy did the same with a knife against Anita's throat.

When they got to the paddock on the secluded road, they threw Anita out onto the ground. Travers, Gary and Les all took turns in raping Anita again, beating her at the same time. Gary Murphy then made Anita perform oral sex on him.

The boys then dragged her through a barbed wire fence, gouging her body as they went. Anita was now so badly beaten she offered no resistance to the gang's continued brutal attack. She was barely conscious when they got her to the spot where she would die.

She groaned and tried to beg to be left alone and for them to stop the attack but they only increased their torment. Mick Murdoch raped her again while Mick Murphy made her perform oral sex. Les Murphy then anally raped her before Travers raped her again. Mick Murdoch and Gary Murphy tried to make her put both of their penises in her mouth but they failed to maintain erections.

Mick Murphy went crazy. He raped Anita again before bashing and kicking her into semi-consciousness. She just lay there gasping for breath, unable to move, unable to fight anymore. Les Murphy kicked Anita once more in the head before they all decided they had had their fun and returned to the car.

But Travers was worried, he thought she had seen his teardrop tattoo and would be able to identify him. Also the boys had called each other by their names. She had to die. The others urged him on. Travers marched back to where the beaten body of Anita lay. He sat on her back pulled her head back by the hair and slit her throat twice, like he had done to the animals so many times before. In the later autopsy report semen was found in the gash across Anita’s throat. Possibly Travers raped the gaping wound one final time before leaving her.

Anita’s head was almost severed from her body as she lay there semi-conscious gasping for breath that would not come - and bled to death.

Travers went back to the car smiling and boasting about the kill, even found it cool that he was covered in her blood. When later asked how he felt about the murder he responded " it didn't feel like nothing. I didn't feel anything at all." A heartless statement from a heartless man.

front bottom: The Movie[1][2] was a 2006 DVD produced by a group of Melbourne based high school students who refer to themselves as "The Teenage Kings of Werribee".[3] The film, depicting graphic violence and degradation of people in the Werribee area of Victoria, Australia, caused widespread controversy after excerpts were broadcast by television current affairs program Today Tonight on October 23, 2006, and led to a police investigation about the content.

[edit] Background
Believed to have been filmed in June 2006, the DVD shows twelve boys - all aged under 18 - making chlorine bombs, harassing a homeless man, throwing eggs at taxi drivers, participating in fights at local parties, and also shows media coverage of incidents that they claim to have been involved in.[3] Most controversially, the footage depicts the group assaulting and humiliating a 17-year-old girl, who has a condition described by The Age as a "mild development delay".[3] Several of the boys were filmed urinating on the girl, setting her hair on fire, forcing her to participate in sexual activity, and also throwing items of her clothing into the Werribee River, where the incident took place. During this time, one boy approaches the camera and states, "What the f---, she's the ugliest thing I've even seen."[3] The girl had previously communicated with two of the boys using MSN Messenger, and had arranged to meet them at a Werribee shopping centre; when she arrived, the group of twelve walked with her to the Werribee River.

It is alleged that the group posted segments of the DVD on YouTube during 2006, with a video entitled Pimp My Wife viewed over 2500 times.[3] On October 25, the video was removed from the website "due to terms of use violation."[4]

On 29 October rumours emerged of a sequel, titled CTM2, which apparently depicts some of the youths involved in the first DVD breaking into houses, smashing property, and defecating into kettles and cups. [5]


[edit] Police response
Detective Inspector Simon Clemence of Victoria Police's sexual crimes unit stated that the incident was being investigated: "At this stage I think it would be fair to say it is a rape and some indecent assaults as well. We have taken a statement from the girl and she states quite categorically that she was not a willing participant on what occurred on that particular occasion and that confirms the basis of the offence. At this stage the primary offence is the sexual offence and that's a serious sexual assault we are investigating."[6]

Of the DVD itself, he said: "It is quite disturbing, very disturbing actually. I can tell you I have seen the video and there is no humour in it. The girl is the victim of a serious crime, she's very traumatised, the parents are very traumatised, and anyone who thinks this is a bit of a joke perhaps must have a good look at themselves."[6]

The parents of three boys allegedly involved approached police, asking that their sons be formally questioned as part of the investigation. The move followed a police raid on the home of one of the group's members.[7]

On March 7, 2007, eight youths were charged[8] over the DVD and appeared in the Melbourne Children's Court on April 27, 2007 on charges of assault, manufacturing child pornography and procuring sexual penetration by intimidation.

Eight of the youths pleaded guilty and are likely to avoid prison, instead being required to participate in a sexual offenders program.[9] Four other youths who intend to challenge the charges will face court in September.

On 05 November 2007, all eight of the boys involved (aged between 15 and 17 at the time of offending) were ordered to participate in a rehabilitation program for male adolescents about positive sexuality. Seven had convictions recorded against them. Six were placed on youth supervision orders for between 12 and 18 months and two on probation for 12 months.[10]

Four escape jail over dildo rape prank15:07 AEST Thu Nov 29 2007
AAP
A group of four who raped a drunken male friend with a dildo while he slept and videotaped the attack have escaped a jail term.

The South Australian District Court heard on Thursday Brendan Phillip Hollands, Sian Catherine Whistler, David Kingsley McMahon and a 17-year-old girl had been drinking heavily on December 10, 2005, at Hollands' Aberfoyle Park house, in Adelaide's south.

During the night, the male victim, who had also been drinking, fell asleep when members of the group first placed three pegs on his penis then inserted a sex toy in his anus.

The antics were recorded on a mobile phone.




The court heard that when he woke the next day he found the pegs and had suffered pain and discomfort but the group did not tell him about the dildo.

Hollands, who had been the victim's friend since primary school, later downloaded the one and a half minute video to his computer and showed two other people the footage.

McMahon, 23, Hollands, 22, Whistler, 20 and the girl, who cannot be named, pleaded guilty in July to rape.

In sentencing, Judge Peter Herriman told the court each of them had frequently drank heavy amounts of alcohol and participated in sexual antics and taped exhibitionism.

Defence lawyers had argued the rape was "a young person's drunken escapade that got out of hand" but Judge Herriman said the "prank" had caused embarrassment, pain and humiliation.

The victim would also need corrective surgery for his injuries.

The judge said McMahon's actions were particularly aggravated as he was a probationary police officer who had since been suspended and was likely to be dismissed.

Judge Herriman was scathing of the group's initial behaviour.

"Not one of you had the courage, maturity, remorse or sense of guilt to approach the victim and tell him what happened or to apologise," he told the court.

Judge Herriman said each of the group had now expressed regret and he accepted defence pleas for suspended sentences.

Hollands and McMahon received suspended jail terms of three years with a non-parole period of two years while Whistler was sentenced to two years jail with a non-parole period of one year and four months.

The girl was given a 13 month suspended term with an eight month non-parole period.

All four were ordered to enter three year good behaviour bonds of $1,000 each.

Man 'gang raped' during Darwin holiday05:00 AEST Thu Sep 27 2007
By ninemsn staff

A male tourist on holiday in Darwin was raped by five men while walking home from a city-centre nightclub, according to reports.

A group of men reportedly jumped on the Victorian man after he left a well-known Top End nightspot at 4am.

The gang allegedly hit the man in the back of the head and pushed his face into the ground before sexually assaulting him.

The Victorian tourist, believed to be in his 20s, was on holiday in Darwin with his girlfriend, the NT News reports.

His girlfriend had left the nightclub an hour before he decided to walk back to their accommodation alone.

Police were not notified of the attack, reportedly because the man was too embarrassed.

He did not see the faces of his attackers.

The man has since returned to Victoria with his girlfriend.

It is unknown what injuries he suffered in the attack.

Well shame on you Gaybriel.


Take this trash down. >:(

Yes of course there are gang rapes committed by "anglos", but it needs to be compared per capita.   As far as Muslim men raping Muslim women - how would we ever know?  At least Aussie girls usually have the courage to report it, Muslim women would be murdered if they did.

Let's not forget the Skaf brothers.


Quote:

So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. The young women, and girls as young as 14, were "sluts" and "Aussie pigs", the rapists said. So now that some of the perpetrators are in jail, will those people who cried racism and media "sensationalism" hang their heads in shame? Hardly. The journalists, academics, legal brains and politicians who tried to claim last August that the gang rapes of south-western Sydney were just a run-of-the-mill police blotter story being beaten up by racists, scaremongers and political opportunists don't ever want to acknowledge the truth about that ugly episode in Australian history. They don't want to acknowledge the fear and tension that ran through a part of Sydney they rarely visit and can never understand. In August, when Judge Megan Latham handed out laughably lenient sentences to three men in one gang rape case, which were later more than doubled on appeal, she made a special point of debunking the race link: "There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences," she said. "There is nothing said or done by the offenders which provides the slightest basis for imputing to them some discrimination in terms of the nationality of their victims." Except that later one of the victims complained her victim impact statement had been "censored" of any "ethnic" references by prosecutors intent on a plea bargain. She was convinced she was raped because of her ethnicity. "You deserve it because you're an Australian," the rapists told her during the five-hour attack. It's just so inconvenient of the victims to insist on telling the truth.

Quote:

A Sydney man charged with sexually assaulting a practising Muslim woman allegedly told her to "let your Jesus help you" after she listened to Christian preachers and read the bible. The Sydney Daily Telegraph reports that the Iraqi Muslim man was alleged in Campbelltown District Court to have raped a Muslim woman as "punishment" for her reading the Bible. The court in Sydney's west yesterday heard Abdul Reda Al Shawany twice sexually assaulted the woman and then said to her: "Let your Jesus help you."

With attitudes like this - it's not surprising.


Quote:

Lebanese Sheik Faiz Mohamad, 34, has been quoted by a newspaper as telling a lecture at the Bankstown Town Hall, in south-western Sydney, that women who wore skimpy clothing teased men. "A victim of rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why? No-one to blame but herself. She displayed her beauty to the entire world ...," Sheik Mohamed was quoted as saying in the lecture. "Strapless, backless, sleeveless, nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent blouses, mini skirts, tight jeans: all this to tease man and appeal to his carnal nature." NSW Premier Bob Carr said the sheik could face criminal charges if he made comments which incited rapes. "If anything the sheik says in future appears to be an incitement to the crime of rape ... I just want to assure him that the full force of the criminal law will be brought to bear," he told reporters.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 9:47am:

Well shame on you Gaybriel. Take this trash down. >:(

why shame on me? this is reality man.

I find it as disgusting as everyone else. people seem to be very happy to discuss what happened with the 'muslim' gang rapes. but I put these up and am asked to take them down?

mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles

I never understood the principle of gang-rape.

Even if you look at the victim as a "thing" and not "a person". I wouldn't want my dick anywhere near my homies...

mod: deleted


Fricking commie ass gangbangers. :D

Quote:

mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles

Yes gaybriel - I must have missed the original accusations and didn't realise your thread was in response to something else.

mantra wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 11:46am:

Quote: mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles Yes gaybriel - I must have missed the original accusations and didn't realise your thread was in response to something else.

no no- I saw what was said- I was just responding to some comments in the thread which is why I made this one

sorry I wasnt trying to dismiss your comments- just to make it clear why I posted this

Looks like all or some of those rapists are muslims but I'm not sure if they are anglo at all.

don't think so!

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

don't think so!

why?

Quote:

mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles

The fact that one can point to someone else doing anything, does not mean that there is not a very big problem within this sector of the community. It is pointless to say, 'there is someone else' and it is fallacious reasoning. Was the fact that we were at war with the Empire of Japan, mean we were not at war with the Third Reich? That is what you are saying. Because there is something else, the problem I have referred to is not a problem.

But it is a problem - and no one - not even you can explain why this is a huge problem throughout the Western world, with islamic immigrants being over represented in crimes of gang rape against infidels. I have offered some theories about why, which have not been rebutted, the best that can be done is to say that there are people from other societies committing these crimes as well. So what. No one is as over represented on a per capita basis as the islamic immigrants, and why is that? You tell me. You've heard my view.

And ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. Calling people bigots or racists for noticing the problem is not going to make it go away either. It happened, and the people who perpetrated it made it an issue based on race as the motivation for it. The MSK defendants said, they did it because of Islam and this was a racist attack on muslims for them to be charged.

A cold war is still very much a real war - and we are at war. The jihad against the West is fought on all fronts, and this is just one front against us.

You didnt respond to anything that I quoted from Fjordman, just put up some rubbish about how there were other people involved in gang rape. I know that, you can take that as read. Because you can find one albino crow, does not prove that crows are not black.

tallowood wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 12:59pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:55pm: don't think so! why?

a few reasons- a couple I know definitely weren't muslim and the other reason is that the others I am unsure about occurred around the aftermath of the 'muslim gang rapes'. if they were muslim it would have been in the news article

Calanen wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:03pm:

Quote: mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles The fact that one can point to someone else doing anything, does not mean that there is not a very big problem within this sector of the community. It is pointless to say, 'there is someone else' and it is fallacious reasoning. Was the fact that we were at war with the Empire of Japan, mean we were not at war with the Third Reich? That is what you are saying. Because there is something else, the problem I have referred to is not a problem. But it is a problem - and no one - not even you can explain why this is a huge problem throughout the Western world, with islamic immigrants being over represented in crimes of gang rape against infidels. I have offered some theories about why, which have not been rebutted, the best that can be done is to say that there are people from other societies committing these crimes as well. So what. No one is as over represented on a per capita basis as the islamic immigrants, and why is that? You tell me. You've heard my view. And ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. Calling people bigots or racists for noticing the problem is not going to make it go away either. It happened, and the people who perpetrated it made it an issue based on race as the motivation for it. The MSK defendants said, they did it because of Islam and this was a racist attack on muslims for them to be charged. A cold war is still very much a real war - and we are at war. The jihad against the West is fought on all fronts, and this is just one front against us. You didnt respond to anything that I quoted from Fjordman, just put up some rubbish about how there were other people involved in gang rape. I know that, you can take that as read. Because you can find one albino crow, does not prove that crows are not black.

I've said why I posted this- which is to dispel the myth that gang rapes and purely a muslim thing. a lot of people think if muslims weren't here there would be no gang rapes. I think that's preposterous

as to the over-representation of muslims in rape cases. can you provide me with evidence of this apart from your word?

no I haven't looked at what you quoted from fjordman- maybe there's evidence there

I'll take a look now

Quote:

a few reasons- a couple I know definitely weren't muslim and the other reason is that the others I am unsure about occurred around the aftermath of the 'muslim gang rapes'. if they were muslim it would have been in the news article

How do you definitely know? Is it koranik intuition?

BTW, not all news articles reporting crime are mentioning the religion even if crime was committed by muslims.

ok I have read that stuff before and no it isn't evidence

first of all a tenuous link is given between immigration and increased reports of rape. I tend to agree with the woman quoted that a lot of his is probably due to the fact that rape is taken a lot more seriously nowadays and women feel more comfortable reporting it.

then there is the discussion of crime in immigrant communities- however this focuses upon issues of unemployment and those in poor living conditions. it is a widely known fact that those in low-socio economic communities (with which comes poor education etc) are more prone to crime. so this is more of a social issue than a religious one

tallowood wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:11pm:

Quote: a few reasons- a couple I know definitely weren't muslim and the other reason is that the others I am unsure about occurred around the aftermath of the 'muslim gang rapes'. if they were muslim it would have been in the news article How do you definitely know? Is it koranik intuition? BTW, not all news articles reporting crime are mentioning the religion even if crime was committed by muslims.

around that time they certainly did- and they still do

I know because some of the cases involved anglo-christians (just a bit of research will show that)- I also remember seeing the cases on tv and the boys were anglo and did not come from muslim families

not to mention some of these occurred in the 1800's when there were barely any muslims in the country and you can be assurred it would hae been mentioned in newspaper articles then if these acts were perpetrated by muslims

but again- their religion would have been mentioned at some point if they were muslim. guaranteed!

perhaps the fact they have anglo names (not heaps of anglo-muslims in oz), their families weren't visually muslim (no hijab etc), they were drinking and partying with girls, there was no mention of them being muslim despite it being a hot topic etc etc- maybe all of that isn't convincing to you, but it is to me

do you presume someone guilty of rape is muslim before anything else?

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:18pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 1:11pm: Quote: a few reasons- a couple I know definitely weren't muslim and the other reason is that the others I am unsure about occurred around the aftermath of the 'muslim gang rapes'. if they were muslim it would have been in the news article How do you definitely know? Is it koranik intuition? BTW, not all news articles reporting crime are mentioning the religion even if crime was committed by muslims. around that time they certainly did- and they still do I know because some of the cases involved anglo-christians (just a bit of research will show that)- I also remember seeing the cases on tv and the boys were anglo and did not come from muslim families not to mention some of these occurred in the 1800's when there were barely any muslims in the country and you can be assurred it would hae been mentioned in newspaper articles then if these acts were perpetrated by muslims but again- their religion would have been mentioned at some point if they were muslim. guaranteed! perhaps the fact they have anglo names (not heaps of anglo-muslims in oz), their families weren't visually muslim (no hijab etc), they were drinking and partying with girls, there was no mention of them being muslim despite it being a hot topic etc etc- maybe all of that isn't convincing to you, but it is to me do you presume someone guilty of rape is muslim before anything else?

give us the definite proof then till then it looks like your claim that rapists were anglo and non muslims are false and anybody may read the articles that you quoted and say "look at this muslim rapists, why can't they behave", which is contrary to the effect you wanted to create with this thread.

how do I prove that then?

birth records?

an article that says "by the way- they're not muslim"?

or pure logic? oh wait- done that one...

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:41pm:

how do I prove that then? birth records? an article that says "by the way- they're not muslim"? or pure logic? oh wait- done that one...

Pure logic by itself does not proof a thing as acronim GIGO suggests. So this far the rapists you referred to may be muslim non anglo.

Quote:

first of all a tenuous link is given between immigration and increased reports of rape. I tend to agree with the woman quoted that a lot of his is probably due to the fact that rape is taken a lot more seriously nowadays and women feel more comfortable reporting it.

That cant account for the differential in who is committing the rapes.


Quote:

then there is the discussion of crime in immigrant communities- however this focuses upon issues of unemployment and those in poor living conditions. it is a widely known fact that those in low-socio economic communities (with which comes poor education etc) are more prone to crime. so this is more of a social issue than a religious one

Do you think that muslim immigrants have a monopoly on being poor? There are loads of poor people around, even white poor people.

It is very hard to get 'muslim' based statistics because no one collects them, or actively suppresses them as Fjordman found. I have it on very good authority that a certain government prepared a comprehensive report to disprove the link between certain ethnic groups and crime. It proved it convincingly - so they buried the report and wont release it.

In terms of gang rape under NSW law, most of the cases end up in the lower courts and so are not reported. Of the ones that end up in the higher courts, Skaf, MSK, and Eken were all of this particular much oppressed and discriminated against group. There is a belief that because such women are not dressed appropriately, and are not wearing burquas or hijabs, they are fair game. There is also a tradition in Islam which says that in jihad against infidels, one of the prizes you get is to rape infidel women in the Dar al Harb. Given we live in the Dar al Harb, couldnt this be at least one explanation for the very real problem?

Calanen wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 4:19am:

Quote: first of all a tenuous link is given between immigration and increased reports of rape. I tend to agree with the woman quoted that a lot of his is probably due to the fact that rape is taken a lot more seriously nowadays and women feel more comfortable reporting it. That cant account for the differential in who is committing the rapes. [quote] Do you think that muslim immigrants have a monopoly on being poor? There are loads of poor people around, even white poor people.

that's not what I said- you might want to read it again


Quote:

It is very hard to get 'muslim' based statistics because no one collects them, or actively suppresses them as Fjordman found. I have it on very good authority that a certain government prepared a comprehensive report to disprove the link between certain ethnic groups and crime. It proved it convincingly - so they buried the report and wont release it.

well I guess we'll just have to take your word for it Calanen seeing as you can provide no actual proof


Quote:

In terms of gang rape under NSW law, most of the cases end up in the lower courts and so are not reported. Of the ones that end up in the higher courts, Skaf, MSK, and Eken were all of this particular much oppressed and discriminated against group. There is a belief that because such women are not dressed appropriately, and are not wearing burquas or hijabs, they are fair game. There is also a tradition in Islam which says that in jihad against infidels, one of the prizes you get is to rape infidel women in the Dar al Harb. Given we live in the Dar al Harb, couldnt this be at least one explanation for the very real problem?

I agree that misguided religious ideals can contribute to rape. however- this can be applied to other religions as well, it is not exclusively muslim territory. rape used to be used by catholics as a way of teaching local girls a lesson if they were seen to stray from the path of their religion (I'm referring to ireland here), rape was also a part of exorcist rituals. Not to mention the christian ideals that informed the treatments for 'sexual insanity' in women in the victorian era.

however if you ask me- a rapist is a rapist and they will use any excuse or influence to commit rape. as far as I'm concerned the muslims in those cases would have committed gang rape even if they weren't muslim. They may have used their religion to justify what they did in their eyes, but anyone who enjoys the degradation and humiliation of another human being, anyone who has such a basic lack of respect for someone else- will not even need an excuse- because they just enjoy what they were doing.

I"m not saying their background didn't have an effect on what they did- I'm saying it doesn't matter because even if they came from a different background they would have done the same thing. either you're capable of rape or you're not. and the extreme nature of their crimes suggest that they weren't just doing it reluctantly as some kind of 'jihad' mission- they were going out of their way to do something that fulfilled some kind of perverted pathological need in their sick little minds.

the belief you mentioned about uncovered women being 'fair game' - is not a common one in the muslim community in my experience. (I have heard similar statements, but note I have also heard these statements from non-muslims also) and certainly, is not enough to propel someone towards being a rapist. can you honestly imagine some regular bloke hearing this, believing it and then deciding that he's just going to start committing rapes en masse? it doesnt make sense. there's got to be something fundamentally wrong with that person that supercedes their religion, ethnicity etc

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 11:28am:

... you mentioned about uncovered women being 'fair game' - is not a common one in the muslim community in my experience. (I have heard similar statements, but note I have also heard these statements from non-muslims also) and certainly, is not enough to propel someone towards being a rapist. can you honestly imagine some regular bloke hearing this, believing it and then deciding that he's just going to start committing rapes en masse? it doesnt make sense. there's got to be something fundamentally wrong with that person that supercedes their religion, ethnicity etc

Yes, it is very wrong when a religious teacher makes this statement officially in place of worship to his brainwashed audience. Don't you agree?

tallowood wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 12:22pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 11:28am: ... you mentioned about uncovered women being 'fair game' - is not a common one in the muslim community in my experience. (I have heard similar statements, but note I have also heard these statements from non-muslims also) and certainly, is not enough to propel someone towards being a rapist. can you honestly imagine some regular bloke hearing this, believing it and then deciding that he's just going to start committing rapes en masse? it doesnt make sense. there's got to be something fundamentally wrong with that person that supercedes their religion, ethnicity etc Yes, it is very wrong when a religious teacher makes this statement officially in place of worship to his brainwashed audience. Don't you agree?

I think what sheikh hilaly said was wrong yes and the fact he's in a position of authority makes it worse

ignoring the brainwashed thing

Quote:

rape used to be used by catholics as a way of teaching local girls a lesson if they were seen to stray from the path of their religion (I'm referring to ireland here),

What crack are you smoking? I am an Irish Catholic. My family has lived in the same area of Ireland for 500 years. I've *never* heard of anything like that, ever, not once. Not a written reference, not a discussion at a family gathering, not one person saying anything like that. It is ridiculous bs.

In contrast, Mohammed, the perfect human, encouraged his followers to take infidel women as slaves and to rape them and that they were 'the booty'. There is nothing comparable in christianity, or Catholicisim. And my family is as hard core Catholic as they come, I have a cousin that is a head of an order of nuns.

Fjordman quotes loads of figures and reports, and then notes that others are being suppressed. Everyone knows, the cops know, the courts know, the lawyers know, the press know - the muslims are far over represented in crimes of gang rape in NSW given they are what 5% of the population. but the data is hard to come by, because its buried. If we dont release the figures, it doesnt exist. But we cant lawfully collect the data, because that's 'racist'.

So we just have to say random people of no particular culture or religion are committing crimes, when islamic prisoners are legion in our prisons and courts. Why is this? Shouldnt we find out?

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:09pm:

Calanen wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 1:03pm: Quote: mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles The fact that one can point to someone else doing anything, does not mean that there is not a very big problem within this sector of the community. It is pointless to say, 'there is someone else' and it is fallacious reasoning. Was the fact that we were at war with the Empire of Japan, mean we were not at war with the Third Reich? That is what you are saying. Because there is something else, the problem I have referred to is not a problem. But it is a problem - and no one - not even you can explain why this is a huge problem throughout the Western world, with islamic immigrants being over represented in crimes of gang rape against infidels. I have offered some theories about why, which have not been rebutted, the best that can be done is to say that there are people from other societies committing these crimes as well. So what. No one is as over represented on a per capita basis as the islamic immigrants, and why is that? You tell me. You've heard my view. And ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. Calling people bigots or racists for noticing the problem is not going to make it go away either. It happened, and the people who perpetrated it made it an issue based on race as the motivation for it. The MSK defendants said, they did it because of Islam and this was a racist attack on muslims for them to be charged. A cold war is still very much a real war - and we are at war. The jihad against the West is fought on all fronts, and this is just one front against us. You didnt respond to anything that I quoted from Fjordman, just put up some rubbish about how there were other people involved in gang rape. I know that, you can take that as read. Because you can find one albino crow, does not prove that crows are not black. I've said why I posted this- which is to dispel the myth that gang rapes and purely a muslim thing. a lot of people think if muslims weren't here there would be no gang rapes. I think that's preposterous as to the over-representation of muslims in rape cases. can you provide me with evidence of this apart from your word? no I haven't looked at what you quoted from fjordman- maybe there's evidence there I'll take a look now

Gaybrial did someone actually make that claim? As a generalisation I have associated it with loutish gangs regardless of ethnic background or make up.

The comments about uncovered meat and the niehbours cat however are not just repulsive but I would argue bordering criminal and the possibility of prosecution should be invetsigated. This is a person of authority that while not giving instruction to committ these crimes is saying that there is no moral taint to committing these crimes, a suttle difference that thug gang members are not likely to be able to tell the difference.

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 1:18pm:

tallowood wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 1:11pm: Quote: a few reasons- a couple I know definitely weren't muslim and the other reason is that the others I am unsure about occurred around the aftermath of the 'muslim gang rapes'. if they were muslim it would have been in the news article How do you definitely know? Is it koranik intuition? BTW, not all news articles reporting crime are mentioning the religion even if crime was committed by muslims. around that time they certainly did- and they still do I know because some of the cases involved anglo-christians (just a bit of research will show that)- I also remember seeing the cases on tv and the boys were anglo and did not come from muslim families not to mention some of these occurred in the 1800's when there were barely any muslims in the country and you can be assurred it would hae been mentioned in newspaper articles then if these acts were perpetrated by muslims but again- their religion would have been mentioned at some point if they were muslim. guaranteed! perhaps the fact they have anglo names (not heaps of anglo-muslims in oz), their families weren't visually muslim (no hijab etc), they were drinking and partying with girls, there was no mention of them being muslim despite it being a hot topic etc etc- maybe all of that isn't convincing to you, but it is to me do you presume someone guilty of rape is muslim before anything else?

An interesting point. I have always assumed that when no ethnic or racial characteristics have been mentioned in a story that the individual/s involved were anglo/caucasian.

This would have made anglo the numeric winners for criminal activity. I do not however have a problem with publicised statistics that accurately show the representations of certain groups. For instance the Sudanese community very much over represented in certain criminal activities and thus I have no problem with reviewing the immigration intake for Sudan. In fact I would think it healthy to do so. And deny residency and citizenship to trouble makers and criminals.

Actually they did mention christians when reporting crime.
As for ethnicity we all know that not only lebos are muslims.

The Skaf gang targeted non-muslim girls, called them 'Aussie pigs' and gave that as the reason for what they were doing to these girls. They told them that they would be 'f%$ed Leb style'.

Ehnic Muslims self-identify in these and every other similar act calculated to terrorise and instill fear of them as a tribe. All you have to do is accept that they do mean it.  And you can judge by their acts - it's not just empty words and taunts. They do mean it.

Anglos do not self-identify as carrying out their similar acts as Anglos. Other groups do not self-identify as Christians, as atheists, Danes, Germans, Greeks.

That is the difference.

Soren wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 7:06pm:

The Skaf gang targeted non-muslim girls, called them 'Aussie pigs' and gave that as the reason for what they were doing to these girls. They told them that they would be 'f%$ed Leb style'. Ehnic Muslims self-identify in these and every other similar act calculated to terrorise and instill fear of them as a tribe. All you have to do is accept that they do mean it.  And you can judge by their acts - it's not just empty words and taunts. They do mean it. Anglos do not self-identify as carrying out their similar acts as Anglos. Other groups do not self-identify as Christians, as atheists, Danes, Germans, Greeks. That is the difference.

actually they also raped a middle eastern girl too- can't remember if she was muslim or not though

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2008 at 12:57am:

Soren wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 7:06pm: The Skaf gang targeted non-muslim girls, called them 'Aussie pigs' and gave that as the reason for what they were doing to these girls. They told them that they would be 'f%$ed Leb style'. Ehnic Muslims self-identify in these and every other similar act calculated to terrorise and instill fear of them as a tribe. All you have to do is accept that they do mean it.  And you can judge by their acts - it's not just empty words and taunts. They do mean it. Anglos do not self-identify as carrying out their similar acts as Anglos. Other groups do not self-identify as Christians, as atheists, Danes, Germans, Greeks. That is the difference. actually they also raped a middle eastern girl too- can't remember if she was muslim or not though

Surprise yourself - look it up.

Soren wrote on Dec 20^th, 2008 at 5:50pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 20th, 2008 at 12:57am: Soren wrote on Dec 19th, 2008 at 7:06pm: The Skaf gang targeted non-muslim girls, called them 'Aussie pigs' and gave that as the reason for what they were doing to these girls. They told them that they would be 'f%$ed Leb style'. Ehnic Muslims self-identify in these and every other similar act calculated to terrorise and instill fear of them as a tribe. All you have to do is accept that they do mean it.  And you can judge by their acts - it's not just empty words and taunts. They do mean it. Anglos do not self-identify as carrying out their similar acts as Anglos. Other groups do not self-identify as Christians, as atheists, Danes, Germans, Greeks. That is the difference. actually they also raped a middle eastern girl too- can't remember if she was muslim or not though Surprise yourself - look it up.

you look it up- you're the one who cares so much about it

They raped only non-muslims.

Quote:

mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle

Sounds like a strawman to me.


Quote:

a few reasons- a couple I know definitely weren't muslim and the other reason is that the others I am unsure about occurred around the aftermath of the 'muslim gang rapes'. if they were muslim it would have been in the news article

Hardly. That is not exactly a sound argument.


Quote:

I've said why I posted this- which is to dispel the myth that gang rapes and purely a muslim thing.

But you are the one that created that myth.


Quote:

a lot of people think if muslims weren't here there would be no gang rapes

For example?


Quote:

I know because some of the cases involved anglo-christians (just a bit of research will show that)- I also remember seeing the cases on tv and the boys were anglo and did not come from muslim families

You mean like Abu?


Quote:

how do I prove that then? birth records? an article that says "by the way- they're not muslim"? or pure logic? oh wait- done that one...

Well if you can't substantiate the claim, why make it?


Quote:

I have it on very good authority that a certain government prepared a comprehensive report to disprove the link between certain ethnic groups and crime. It proved it convincingly - so they buried the report and wont release it.

Can you elaborate please Calanen? Perhaps in the other thread?


Quote:

I"m not saying their background didn't have an effect on what they did- I'm saying it doesn't matter because even if they came from a different background they would have done the same thing.

Aren;t you contradicting yourself there Gaybriel?

how did I create that myth?

and in answer to your last question - no

the rest is not worth replying to

freediver what's happened to you lately? You've really lost the plot. It's almost like you're running out of questions and points to make, so anything you can think of seems to be coming out of your keyboard...

Quote:

how did I create that myth?

You posted it. No-one else here had said that. You created a strawman argument so you could refute that rather than addressing the reality of the situation.

locutius wrote on Dec 19^th, 2008 at 2:42pm:

Gaybriel wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 1:09pm: Calanen wrote on Dec 18th, 2008 at 1:03pm: Quote: mantra: my point is that pretending that gang rape is a 'muslim crime' is complete twaffle- it's been going on forever and among all circles The fact that one can point to someone else doing anything, does not mean that there is not a very big problem within this sector of the community. It is pointless to say, 'there is someone else' and it is fallacious reasoning. Was the fact that we were at war with the Empire of Japan, mean we were not at war with the Third Reich? That is what you are saying. Because there is something else, the problem I have referred to is not a problem. But it is a problem - and no one - not even you can explain why this is a huge problem throughout the Western world, with islamic immigrants being over represented in crimes of gang rape against infidels. I have offered some theories about why, which have not been rebutted, the best that can be done is to say that there are people from other societies committing these crimes as well. So what. No one is as over represented on a per capita basis as the islamic immigrants, and why is that? You tell me. You've heard my view. And ignoring the problem is not going to make it go away. Calling people bigots or racists for noticing the problem is not going to make it go away either. It happened, and the people who perpetrated it made it an issue based on race as the motivation for it. The MSK defendants said, they did it because of Islam and this was a racist attack on muslims for them to be charged. A cold war is still very much a real war - and we are at war. The jihad against the West is fought on all fronts, and this is just one front against us. You didnt respond to anything that I quoted from Fjordman, just put up some rubbish about how there were other people involved in gang rape. I know that, you can take that as read. Because you can find one albino crow, does not prove that crows are not black. I've said why I posted this- which is to dispel the myth that gang rapes and purely a muslim thing. a lot of people think if muslims weren't here there would be no gang rapes. I think that's preposterous as to the over-representation of muslims in rape cases. can you provide me with evidence of this apart from your word? no I haven't looked at what you quoted from fjordman- maybe there's evidence there I'll take a look now Gaybrial did someone actually make that claim? As a generalisation I have associated it with loutish gangs regardless of ethnic background or make up. The comments about uncovered meat and the niehbours cat however are not just repulsive but I would argue bordering criminal and the possibility of prosecution should be invetsigated. This is a person of authority that while not giving instruction to committ these crimes is saying that there is no moral taint to committing these crimes, a suttle difference that thug gang members are not likely to be able to tell the difference.

I, along with FD was curious as to who it was that actually made such a stupid claim. I could not find who or where it was said.

Of course, anyone making the comments (in blue) should be driven in a cart through the streets and pelted with rotten food matter, in this case preferably pork.

I think it was Hilaly who made the comment likening Australian women without a burka to uncovered meat out for the cat. In a world where men are not expected to show any self control, people will see it as inevitable that a woman will get raped if she is not under lock and key.

Yes, thanks FD, I thought it was him.

Still don't know who made the claim about gang rape being a purely Muslim thing. Maybe the level of excusability for these crimes is more forthcoming from groups that think women "ask for it". I don't see why we should shy away from identifying those groups if that is the case.

Quote:

Still don't know who made the claim about gang rape being a purely Muslim thing.

This is the only time I have seen the claim made. Grendel made it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229554074/17#17

Quote:

I, along with FD was curious as to who it was that actually made such a stupid claim. I could not find who or where it was said. Of course, anyone making the comments (in blue) should be driven in a cart through the streets and pelted with rotten food matter, in this case preferably pork.

Sheikh Hilali did. I posted links, quotes, transcripts ect.  I've even heard the sound recording.

All of this was fabricated of course by the enemies of Islam and the CIA's voice impersonation software.

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 10:30am:

Quote: how did I create that myth? You posted it. No-one else here had said that. You created a strawman argument so you could refute that rather than addressing the reality of the situation.

straw man - another fave

there have been a few people on here who have certainly implied,if not stated outright, that they believe rape to be committed majority by muslims and that muslims are pre-disposed to rape

what is the reality of the situation btw?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 2:13pm:

Quote: Still don't know who made the claim about gang rape being a purely Muslim thing. This is the only time I have seen the claim made. Grendel made it. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229554074/17#17

Oops, I meant Gaybriel, not grendel.


Quote:

there have been a few people on here who have certainly implied,if not stated outright, that they believe rape to be committed majority by muslims

Yes, if you modify what you said a bit, and modify what they said a bit, then the difference may not seem as stark. But it was still a strawman at heart. You completely avoided addressing the reality of the situation, or addressing other people's actual arguments, instead focussing on refuting the one you made up.


Quote:

what is the reality of the situation btw?

The closest real argument you could address is the one that Muslims are over-represented in rape statistics in some European countries. There is another thread devoted entirely to this. Note that your approach of listing rapes committed by non-Muslims would be pretty meaningless in the context of that debate. Hence the strawman accusation. Only by misrepresenting other people's arguments could you pretend that your list refuted anything.

(love it when mods duke it out)

Calanen wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 2:31pm:

Quote: I, along with FD was curious as to who it was that actually made such a stupid claim. I could not find who or where it was said. Of course, anyone making the comments (in blue) should be driven in a cart through the streets and pelted with rotten food matter, in this case preferably pork. Sheikh Hilali did. I posted links, quotes, transcripts ect.  I've even heard the sound recording. All of this was fabricated of course by the enemies of Islam and the CIA's voice impersonation software.

lol..you even heard the sound recordings did you? Speak arabic do you?

Yes he did make the statement, however, the statements were in arabic, so unless you can speak arabic, then you 'hearing the sound recording' really means squat.

Just another example of the crap that you post.

I can't recall seeing the video, but it would surprise me if an Australian preacher preached in Arabic. Is that really the case? Does that mean most of his followers are middle eastern immigrants? Or that they don't have a clue what he is going on about?

Also, are you denying that Hilaly actually said that, or just making some kind of moot point?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 7:57pm:

I can't recall seeing the video, but it would surprise me if an Australian preacher preached in Arabic. Is that really the case? Does that mean most of his followers are middle eastern immigrants? Or that they don't have a clue what he is going on about? Also, are you denying that Hilaly actually said that, or just making some kind of moot point?

Read my post again. "Yes he did make the statement" would imply that I'm not denying it..wouldn't it.

And yes, the statement was made in arabic, hence Calanen's claim that he 'heard the sound recording' is really nonsense which doesn't really mean a thing.

So why preach in Arabic?

What's wrong with 'preaching' in Arabic freediver? Is the Arabic language outlawed or something is it? Is it not allowed to conduct conversations/lessons in Arabic? First I heard of this.

Do you have a problem with people conducting classes/talks in Arabic?

Must be an example of them not integrating I guess.

Quote:

Yes he did make the statement, however, the statements were in arabic, so unless you can speak arabic, then you 'hearing the sound recording' really means squat.

No it just means that it happened, and that it was able to be translated word for word in a transcript type format. That there was in fact a sound recording of the whole event, so it wasnt just some third person recollection of what occurred.

Even to the point where people are laughing the background when he says something like, 'then a meeting, then a crime, then a Long Bay jail...' the crowd in the mosque laughs.

Quote:

What's wrong with 'preaching' in Arabic freediver?

It's hard to understand.

Calanen wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 5:23am:

Quote: Yes he did make the statement, however, the statements were in arabic, so unless you can speak arabic, then you 'hearing the sound recording' really means squat. No it just means that it happened, and that it was able to be translated word for word in a transcript type format. That there was in fact a sound recording of the whole event, so it wasnt just some third person recollection of what occurred. Even to the point where people are laughing the background when he says something like, 'then a meeting, then a crime, then a Long Bay jail...' the crowd in the mosque laughs.

So why say 'you even heard the sound recording'...like its is some proof that he said what you claim he said.

If you 'heard the sound recording' as you say, then really, for you it would mean nothing as the recording would have been arabic. It is not evidence of anything, as you would not of know or understood what you were  hearing.

Just another example of the nonsense you speak.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 7:40am:

Quote: What's wrong with 'preaching' in Arabic freediver? It's hard to understand.

For you perhaps, however, the majority of the people listening to Hilaly are arabic speaking, hence...he spoke in the language which is target audience understands.

Besides...have you heard Hilaly speak english? No doubt his english would be harder to understand then his arabic...and that would be for english speaking people. :)

If his audience are Arabic speakers, then it's not hard for them to understand, is it? Or is that hard for you to understand? That speakers of a language don't find that language hard to understand.

What don't you understand about translated by academics?

Grendel wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 8:36am:

What don't you understand about translated by academics?

Go back and read his post numb nuts. He said he had heard a 'sound recording'.

Do you understand what a sound recording is...or would you like me to dumb it down even further?

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 7:57pm:

I can't recall seeing the video, but it would surprise me if an Australian preacher preached in Arabic. Is that really the case? Does that mean most of his followers are middle eastern immigrants? Or that they don't have a clue what he is going on about? Also, are you denying that Hilaly actually said that, or just making some kind of moot point?

FD, I'm pretty sure you will find it was just a Moot inspired by a Vent.

I probably heard the sound recording too. And saw the translation. Unless the news is doing some grand conspiracy, I don't see why this comment elicited such a hostile response.

Oh I'm sorry lestat...


Quote:

and that it was able to be translated word for word in a transcript type format

That transcript was available widely in the media and was done by academics.

Did you miss that...  now apologise like a good little Muzzy...  come on...  you can do it.  ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:48am:

Oh I'm sorry lestat... Quote: and that it was able to be translated word for word in a transcript type format That transcript was available widely in the media and was done by academics. Did you miss that...  now apologise like a good little Muzzy...  come on...  you can do it.  ;D ;D ;D

" I've even heard the sound recording."

This was the part of his post I was addressing.

Seems that you don't know the difference between a transcript and a sound recording. Though Im not really surprised.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:44am:

I probably heard the sound recording too. And saw the translation. Unless the news is doing some grand conspiracy, I don't see why this comment elicited such a hostile response.

because it is nonsence. he mentions the sound recording like its supposed to be some absolute evidence of his claims, despite the fact that the sound recording would of been in arabic, as the statement were made in arabic.

Hence, his hearing the sound recording doesn't mean anything at all...in fact, I question whether he even did hear it.

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:35am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 2009 at 7:57pm: I can't recall seeing the video, but it would surprise me if an Australian preacher preached in Arabic. Is that really the case? Does that mean most of his followers are middle eastern immigrants? Or that they don't have a clue what he is going on about? Also, are you denying that Hilaly actually said that, or just making some kind of moot point? FD, I'm pretty sure you will find it was just a Moot inspired by a Vent.

Shouldn't you be visiting some anti-Islamic site to get all your 'facts' from?

Quote:

he mentions the sound recording like its supposed to be some absolute evidence of his claims

I see. So it's not what he actually said that upset you, but 'how he said it'?

Liar liar pants on fire...  ah no...  you were having another reasonless pointless shot at me Lestat...  (its all there in print)

I just pointed out I was right and you were an idiot. ::)

Grendel wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:00am:

Liar liar pants on fire...  ah no...  you were having another reasonless pointless shot at me Lestat...  (its all there in print) I just pointed out I was right and you were an idiot. ::)

lol...what are you on about. My original post wasn't even directed at you.

Your losing the plot mate. I guess prolonged self delusion can have that affect.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:58am:

Quote: he mentions the sound recording like its supposed to be some absolute evidence of his claims I see. So it's not what he actually said that upset you, but 'how he said it'?

I would of thought that this was made rather clear in my post. Are you deliberately being so anal FD?

Well I didn't want to misinterpret you. I do hope your ealise that you cannot actually tell 'how' someone says something when they submit a message as text. Perhaps if you had made more of an effort to check what he actually meant you wouldn't have gotten yourself all wound up over something that was all in your head.

Oh dear...


Quote:

Re: Gang Rape Reply #60 - Today at 9:34am     Grendel wrote on Today at 8:36am: What don't you understand about translated by academics? Go back and read his post numb nuts. He said he had heard a 'sound recording'. Do you understand what a sound recording is...or would you like me to dumb it down even further?

I rest my case m'lud...  QED.

Please dont wast my and everyone esles time anymore.

Grendel wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:23am:

Oh dear... Quote: Re: Gang Rape Reply #60 - Today at 9:34am     Grendel wrote on Today at 8:36am: What don't you understand about translated by academics? Go back and read his post numb nuts. He said he had heard a 'sound recording'. Do you understand what a sound recording is...or would you like me to dumb it down even further? I rest my case m'lud...  QED. Please dont wast my and everyone esles time anymore.

lol...I give up. Sorry, but I cannot contend with this level of stupidity anymore.

I think I'll spend my time conversing who at least have the basic ability to follow a discussion.

obviously you don't.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:13am:

Well I didn't want to misinterpret you. I do hope your ealise that you cannot actually tell 'how' someone says something when they submit a message as text. Perhaps if you had made more of an effort to check what he actually meant you wouldn't have gotten yourself all wound up over something that was all in your head.

"I even heard the sound recording".

Tell me FD...what do you think, that Calanen meant by this quote, and why do you think he posted it?

I think he meant that he saw it on the news.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:30am:

I think he meant that he saw it on the news.

Really? lol...thats strange, given that I'm certain that the no news stations aired a sound recording, and even if they did, without a translation it wouldn't of really meant much would it, given that the statements were made in arabic.

Generally they do air the sound recording and either do a voice translation over the top or write it down for you at the bottom of the screen. I also think he repeated the statements a number of times in order to try to justify them.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:08am:

Generally they do air the sound recording and either do a voice translation over the top or write it down for you at the bottom of the screen. I also think he repeated the statements a number of times in order to try to justify them.

You clearly have trouble with the concept of a sound recording. If it has a translation over the top, then it becomes a translation, not a recording.

its a very simple concept, and I find it amazing that you don't understand it. Though I suspect you do, and are deliberately being difficult.

There was a recording made of his speech and people there also witnessed and reported on what was said and someone from some form of Arabic studies from I think Sydney University translated the speech for the media.

oh dear...  many sources confirming what he said.

Quote:

If it has a translation over the top, then it becomes a translation, not a recording.

The translation does not completely replace the original recording. Hence you cans till here the original recording. In any case, that is generally used for politicians making offical statements. I suspect it is very hard to do and still be understandable. When someone lunatic rants, they usually just use the text option.