Rapist gets his just desserts?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by CoolCavy
To quote the article 'alledgedly raping'.
You think it's right that this individual was subject to that without a fair trial to even prove if he did it?
You think it's right that this individual was subject to that without a fair trial to even prove if he did it?
Or a process of appeal, or a real investigation by a disinterested and skilled police force.
It is not even the administrative side which is the issue. If he were found guilty at the Old Bailey and had his lawyers go up to the Court of Appeal, I would not be too happy about his balls being ripped off by a rabid dog. There are other punishments which are more acceptable to a progressive society. There is a reason this sort of punishment happens in lawless countries (in effect) in a state of civil war.
Original post by NoTearsLeftToCry
Exactly. it’s usually the people who have never been through it that seem to say it’s not right. yes exactly! rape is one of the worst things you could ever do to someone so this? this is nothing.
I know hun. i agree with you completely.
I know hun. i agree with you completely.
You dont have to have been raped to think that having a dog chew someones *******s off is barbaric, that is axiomatic... Especially as not only is this but an allegation but an allegation by a drugs cartel so more than slightly suspect to start with given their propensity to, well, rape, murder, torture etc.
Original post by Aaryra
What the f*ck
What
Huh
Come again
What
Huh
Come again
The guy getting his balls ripped off is an alleged rapists and the guys doing it are alleged cartel members.
Trump is trying to keep them out
The Democrats wants them let in.
Original post by Notoriety
Or a process of appeal, or a real investigation by a disinterested and skilled police force.
It is not even the administrative side which is the issue. If he were found guilty at the Old Bailey and had his lawyers go up to the Court of Appeal, I would not be too happy about his balls being ripped off by a rabid dog. There are other punishments which are more acceptable to a progressive society. There is a reason this sort of punishment happens in lawless countries (in effect) in a state of civil war.
It is not even the administrative side which is the issue. If he were found guilty at the Old Bailey and had his lawyers go up to the Court of Appeal, I would not be too happy about his balls being ripped off by a rabid dog. There are other punishments which are more acceptable to a progressive society. There is a reason this sort of punishment happens in lawless countries (in effect) in a state of civil war.
Prsom
Original post by CoolCavy
S
Agreed. It's a slippery slope when cartels and millitants start taking the 'law' into their own hands. Let the justic system deal with these people.
This is wrong and not a million miles away from Sharia law which everyone is quick to rightly condone.
Agreed. It's a slippery slope when cartels and millitants start taking the 'law' into their own hands. Let the justic system deal with these people.
This is wrong and not a million miles away from Sharia law which everyone is quick to rightly condone.
How much do you know about the Mexican justice system to make this kind of judgement?
Original post by Notoriety
Or a process of appeal, or a real investigation by a disinterested and skilled police force.
It is not even the administrative side which is the issue. If he were found guilty at the Old Bailey and had his lawyers go up to the Court of Appeal, I would not be too happy about his balls being ripped off by a rabid dog. There are other punishments which are more acceptable to a progressive society. There is a reason this sort of punishment happens in lawless countries (in effect) in a state of civil war.
It is not even the administrative side which is the issue. If he were found guilty at the Old Bailey and had his lawyers go up to the Court of Appeal, I would not be too happy about his balls being ripped off by a rabid dog. There are other punishments which are more acceptable to a progressive society. There is a reason this sort of punishment happens in lawless countries (in effect) in a state of civil war.
Even more hyperbole to look down on countries you quite clearly don't know remotely enough about.
Original post by Baron of Sealand
When the police is corrupt and doesn't carry out justice, why shouldn't the people take it upon themselves to create a deterrent? You come from an incredibly privileged point of view and judge the less privileged as "insane" or "barbaric".
You're kidding right?
There's the issue of fake news and mob rule, but in Mexico it's by and large the actual culprits who suffer. Most of the victims of cartel violence are people of other cartels, or people who work or compete against them. I would emphasize with a brave police officer who loses their life, I would emphasize with the children of the cartel people, but I don't feel anything about other criminals being killed.
Not especially true. countless Civillians have been killed by the cartels in Mexico. They have never and will never limit themselves to the more gentlemanly form of inter gang warfare.
And the wording of your second paragraph seems to suggest you don't even know Mexico isn't in South America. Not to mention cartel violence is not comparable the havoc ISIS caused in Syria. The only South American country with the level of havoc is Venezuela, and their chaos aren't just caused by cartel violence (although they are a naco state).
Again, seriously? How on earth are you comparing the cartels to ISIS? I mean never mind the fact that the civil war in Syria did more damage than ISIS itself you are comparing the utterly incomparable.
Equally, how is Venezuela a narco state sorry?
Original post by Just my opinion
The guy getting his balls ripped off is an alleged rapists and the guys doing it are alleged cartel members.
Trump is trying to keep them out
The Democrats wants them let in.
Trump is trying to keep them out
The Democrats wants them let in.
That’s a wild generalization.
Original post by Just my opinion
The guy getting his balls ripped off is an alleged rapists and the guys doing it are alleged cartel members.
Trump is trying to keep them out
The Democrats wants them let in.
Trump is trying to keep them out
The Democrats wants them let in.
how in the good lords name have you managed to link this to Trump? Do try to stay on message...
Original post by Baron of Sealand
When the police is corrupt and doesn't carry out justice, why shouldn't the people take it upon themselves to create a deterrent? You come from an incredibly privileged point of view and judge the less privileged as "insane" or "barbaric".
Aren't you a HK millionaire? I think I am probably much more capable of judging the real world than you; frolicking around in the ambassadorial residences and sipping on tea in the Savoy while telling a receptive audience yet against about the 9 months you spent in Oxon.
To your point, if you investigate the terrorism the Cartels make use of in Mexico, you will have a hard time distinguishing it from the acts of ISIS in maintaining control over the populace. Bombings, hostage, taking, assassinations in view of all, and releases on social media of the torture of enemies.
Original post by Napp
You dont have to have been raped to think that having a dog chew someones *******s off is barbaric, that is axiomatic... Especially as not only is this but an allegation but an allegation by a drugs cartel so more than slightly suspect to start with given their propensity to, well, rape, murder, torture etc.
And who the **** cares? That will teach him to never rape again.
Original post by Notoriety
Aren't you a HK millionaire? I think I am probably much more capable of judging the real world than you; frolicking around in the ambassadorial residences and sipping on tea in the Savoy while telling a receptive audience yet against about the 9 months you spent in Oxon.
To your point, if you investigate the terrorism the Cartels make use of in Mexico, you will have a hard time distinguishing it from the acts of ISIS in maintaining control over the populace. Bombings, hostage, taking, assassinations in view of all, and releases on social media of the torture of enemies.
To your point, if you investigate the terrorism the Cartels make use of in Mexico, you will have a hard time distinguishing it from the acts of ISIS in maintaining control over the populace. Bombings, hostage, taking, assassinations in view of all, and releases on social media of the torture of enemies.
I live in Mexico (which would make me around less than half as rich as one in Hong Kong). I didn't realize the time anyone spends at Oxford qualifies anyone to talk about Latin America. I guess that's why you feel like you get to make comments and judgements like those, even though your knowledge of Latin America seems to be on par with some Hollywood directors.
And I live in the second-most dangerous state, in the city which has so far half of all its homicides this year. And I have gone to many so-called no man's land (and alone) in 22 states + CDMX. I have spent the holiday with a (poor) family in Michoacan,I have hitchhiked in San Luis Potosí, I have gone into the mountains in Chihuahua which has the highest homicide rate in the country, I have taken public transport, including combis/colectivos and microbuses. I have personally been a victim of crimes (including a violent one - although that's in Brazil, the other country you named), and I even have had the police called on me. And yes, I have experienced multiple police extortion efforts too.
So yes, I do think I'm more capable of judging the real world than you, whether we even go into the fact that I have visited every single country on mainland Latin America, while you seem to just be holding on to the few years you spent at Oxon.
I'm very well aware of what the cartels have done. But you claimed that these countries are effectiveness lawless in a state of civil war, and that the havoc the cartels cause is comparable to that of ISIS. Well, no. The fact that there isn't a refugee crisis in Mexico or Brazil already suggests that the situation isn't near as bad as you think.
In your mind, all of Brazil is the dangerous zones in Rio de Janeiro, and all of Mexico is basically what you can see from Weeds or Queen of the South. Sorry to break this to you, but being an Oxonian lawyer doesn't mean you have all the knowledge in the world.
---
And since you seem to be more keen on personal attacks rather than defending your viewpoints, let me tell you something in advance: in this particular case, we certainly don't know the fact, and we most definitely can disagree with the method. But your point seems to be that citizens taking matters into their own hands was already barbaric and that anyone sane person should see it that way. I will have you know apart from cartel violence among themselves, things like this are rare. What's common would be people caught in the act and get beaten up (I'd say that's good enough evidence), or people who were literally videoed multiple times robbing shops, people, combis, and homes, and they get beaten up (I'd say that's good enough evidence too). There are good police officers, but most of the time if you go to the police with a video, even in somewhere like Hong Kong the police would not be too enthusiastically solving your case (they'd only be more proactive if someone is caught in the act), and in Mexico it could mean a long waiting time, multiple bribes, and for those criminals to continue offending.
It's all well and good that you say it's better to improve the police force, but that's clearly not something individuals have the power to do. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that your suggestion based on ignorance is basically just to do nothing and let criminals get away with whatever.
Don't forget even in the UK, rape cases are very difficult to prove, and many alleged rapists walk free. There's a reason why mob lynching doesn't really happen with most other crimes (I'm not even aware of revenges on murders). The people feel powerless and are empowering themselves, and you are someone living in the first world judging people you know nothing about from your computer screen.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Baron of Sealand
I live in Mexico (which would make me around less than half as rich as one in Hong Kong). I didn't realize the time anyone spends at Oxford qualifies anyone to talk about Latin America. I guess that's why you feel like you get to make comments and judgements like those, even though your knowledge of Latin America seems to be on par with some Hollywood directors.
And I live in the second-most dangerous state, in the city which has so far half of all its homicides this year. And I have gone to many so-called no man's land (and alone) in 22 states + CDMX. I have spent the holiday with a (poor) family in Michoacan,I have hitchhiked in San Luis Potosí, I have gone into the mountains in Chihuahua which has the highest homicide rate in the country, I have taken public transport, including combis/colectivos and microbuses. I have personally been a victim of crimes (including a violent one - although that's in Brazil, the other country you named), and I even have had the police called on me. And yes, I have experienced multiple police extortion efforts too.
So yes, I do think I'm more capable of judging the real world than you, whether we even go into the fact that I have visited every single country on mainland Latin America, while you seem to just be holding on to the few years you spent at Oxon.
I'm very well aware of what the cartels have done. But you claimed that these countries are effectiveness lawless in a state of civil war, and that the havoc the cartels cause is comparable to that of ISIS. Well, no. The fact that there isn't a refugee crisis in Mexico or Brazil already suggests that the situation isn't near as bad as you think.
In your mind, all of Brazil is the dangerous zones in Rio de Janeiro, and all of Mexico is basically what you can see from Weeds or Queen of the South. Sorry to break this to you, but being an Oxonian lawyer doesn't mean you have all the knowledge in the world.
---
And since you seem to be more keen on personal attacks rather than defending your viewpoints, let me tell you something in advance: in this particular case, we certainly don't know the fact, and we most definitely can disagree with the method. But your point seems to be that citizens taking matters into their own hands was already barbaric and that anyone sane person should see it that way. I will have you know apart from cartel violence among themselves, things like this are rare. What's common would be people caught in the act and get beaten up (I'd say that's good enough evidence), or people who were literally videoed multiple times robbing shops, people, combis, and homes, and they get beaten up (I'd say that's good enough evidence too). There are good police officers, but most of the time if you go to the police with a video, even in somewhere like Hong Kong the police would not be too enthusiastically solving your case (they'd only be more proactive if someone is caught in the act), and in Mexico it could mean a long waiting time, multiple bribes, and for those criminals to continue offending.
It's all well and good that you say it's better to improve the police force, but that's clearly not something individuals have the power to do. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that your suggestion based on ignorance is basically just to do nothing and let criminals get away with whatever.
Don't forget even in the UK, rape cases are very difficult to prove, and many alleged rapists walk free. There's a reason why mob lynching doesn't really happen with most other crimes (I'm not even aware of revenges on murders). The people feel powerless and are empowering themselves, and you are someone living in the first world judging people you know nothing about from your computer screen.
And I live in the second-most dangerous state, in the city which has so far half of all its homicides this year. And I have gone to many so-called no man's land (and alone) in 22 states + CDMX. I have spent the holiday with a (poor) family in Michoacan,I have hitchhiked in San Luis Potosí, I have gone into the mountains in Chihuahua which has the highest homicide rate in the country, I have taken public transport, including combis/colectivos and microbuses. I have personally been a victim of crimes (including a violent one - although that's in Brazil, the other country you named), and I even have had the police called on me. And yes, I have experienced multiple police extortion efforts too.
So yes, I do think I'm more capable of judging the real world than you, whether we even go into the fact that I have visited every single country on mainland Latin America, while you seem to just be holding on to the few years you spent at Oxon.
I'm very well aware of what the cartels have done. But you claimed that these countries are effectiveness lawless in a state of civil war, and that the havoc the cartels cause is comparable to that of ISIS. Well, no. The fact that there isn't a refugee crisis in Mexico or Brazil already suggests that the situation isn't near as bad as you think.
In your mind, all of Brazil is the dangerous zones in Rio de Janeiro, and all of Mexico is basically what you can see from Weeds or Queen of the South. Sorry to break this to you, but being an Oxonian lawyer doesn't mean you have all the knowledge in the world.
---
And since you seem to be more keen on personal attacks rather than defending your viewpoints, let me tell you something in advance: in this particular case, we certainly don't know the fact, and we most definitely can disagree with the method. But your point seems to be that citizens taking matters into their own hands was already barbaric and that anyone sane person should see it that way. I will have you know apart from cartel violence among themselves, things like this are rare. What's common would be people caught in the act and get beaten up (I'd say that's good enough evidence), or people who were literally videoed multiple times robbing shops, people, combis, and homes, and they get beaten up (I'd say that's good enough evidence too). There are good police officers, but most of the time if you go to the police with a video, even in somewhere like Hong Kong the police would not be too enthusiastically solving your case (they'd only be more proactive if someone is caught in the act), and in Mexico it could mean a long waiting time, multiple bribes, and for those criminals to continue offending.
It's all well and good that you say it's better to improve the police force, but that's clearly not something individuals have the power to do. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that your suggestion based on ignorance is basically just to do nothing and let criminals get away with whatever.
Don't forget even in the UK, rape cases are very difficult to prove, and many alleged rapists walk free. There's a reason why mob lynching doesn't really happen with most other crimes (I'm not even aware of revenges on murders). The people feel powerless and are empowering themselves, and you are someone living in the first world judging people you know nothing about from your computer screen.
PRSOMMMMMMM speaking facts.
And to @Napp: I wasn't the one comparing the cartels to ISIS. @Notoriety did. I agree with you totally, we cannot compare Mexico or Brazil to the situation in Syria. But if you have issues with that comparison, I suggest you take it up to your good friend Notoriety.
Venezuela is a narco-state because the cartels have infiltrated the ranks of its government. But that's not just in Venezuela, of course, I'm just saying Venezuela because they are the only country in Latin America with a violence level comparable to what's happening in Syria. And I also added that their chaos (largely/partly) aren't due to the cartels. That was once again simply a response to the outrageous claims made by Notoriety Esq.
As for the cartels always killing "civilians". Do you know them? Do you know people who know them? Of course there are innocent people who died, but they mostly die from armed robberies, not by torture broadcasted on social media. And yes, the young girls who "disappeared" are usually drug dealers themselves, too. Drug cartel violence for the most part affects only drug cartels and at a stretch, to people who take drugs. Unlike in the US, when the cartels shoot to kill, they don't misfire and hurt bystanders. Perhaps it's time for you to talk to some Mexican people so you can be better informed. The street fights you see from American TV shows simply don't happen in the overwhelming majority of the country, and only once in a blue moon if it happens at all.
Venezuela is a narco-state because the cartels have infiltrated the ranks of its government. But that's not just in Venezuela, of course, I'm just saying Venezuela because they are the only country in Latin America with a violence level comparable to what's happening in Syria. And I also added that their chaos (largely/partly) aren't due to the cartels. That was once again simply a response to the outrageous claims made by Notoriety Esq.
As for the cartels always killing "civilians". Do you know them? Do you know people who know them? Of course there are innocent people who died, but they mostly die from armed robberies, not by torture broadcasted on social media. And yes, the young girls who "disappeared" are usually drug dealers themselves, too. Drug cartel violence for the most part affects only drug cartels and at a stretch, to people who take drugs. Unlike in the US, when the cartels shoot to kill, they don't misfire and hurt bystanders. Perhaps it's time for you to talk to some Mexican people so you can be better informed. The street fights you see from American TV shows simply don't happen in the overwhelming majority of the country, and only once in a blue moon if it happens at all.
Original post by NoTearsLeftToCry
And who the **** cares? That will teach him to never rape again.
Again, you have literally no clue whether he actually raped anyone or not. Which is kind of the entire point. By your logic anyone who is simply accused of such a crime should be put against the nearest wall and shot. There is a good reason we dont allow mob justice and that is because they dont really give a **** whether someone did something or not they just want blood.
Original post by Napp
Again, you have literally no clue whether he actually raped anyone or not. Which is kind of the entire point. By your logic anyone who is simply accused of such a crime should be put against the nearest wall and shot. There is a good reason we dont allow mob justice and that is because they dont really give a **** whether someone did something or not they just want blood.
I’m not talking about that. I’m just saying anyone who rapes someone, deserves huge punishment. Prison doesn’t always stop people for raping, people rape down in prisons then come back to rape when they come out. Anyone who actually is a rapist, has no sympathy from me. I don’t have to have experienced rape to feel this way about rapists.
Original post by Baron of Sealand
x
I am quite happy that you feel safe in the second most dangerous state in Mexico and that you feel it doesn't reflect a war-torn country.
Even though one of the other points you made was that the police doesn't prosecute crimes; and it has the 19th highest murder rate in the world, is as corrupt has Afghanistan, is about as secure as Mali and Kenya (both of which are in a state of war) and is less secure than Burkina Faso and Myanmar (according to the WJP Rule of Law Index).
And this is not even to mention the fact the Mexico Drugs War had about the same number of casualties in 2018 as the Syrian Civil War (22,500 to 23,000).
However, as you wisely point out, there are no refugees fleeing from Cartel violence so there can be no civil war by any reasonable definition of the term. Even though a Harvard academic in 2014 said that "264,692 Mexicans have migrated in fear of organized crime activities". https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vrios/files/riosv2014_larr2014_securityimmigration1.pdf
Maybe you should get out of there.
Original post by Notoriety
I am quite happy that you feel safe in the second most dangerous state in Mexico and that you feel it doesn't reflect a war-torn country.
Even though one of the other points you made was that the police doesn't prosecute crimes; and it has the 19th highest murder rate in the world, is as corrupt has Afghanistan, is about as secure as Mali and Kenya (both of which are in a state of war) and is less secure than Burkina Faso and Myanmar (according to the WJP Rule of Law Index).
And this is not even to mention the fact the Mexico Drugs War had about the same number of casualties in 2018 as the Syrian Civil War (22,500 to 23,000).
However, as you wisely point out, there are no refugees fleeing from Cartel violence so there can be no civil war by any reasonable definition of the term. Even though a Harvard academic in 2014 said that "264,692 Mexicans have migrated in fear of organized crime activities". https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vrios/files/riosv2014_larr2014_securityimmigration1.pdf
Maybe you should get out of there.
Even though one of the other points you made was that the police doesn't prosecute crimes; and it has the 19th highest murder rate in the world, is as corrupt has Afghanistan, is about as secure as Mali and Kenya (both of which are in a state of war) and is less secure than Burkina Faso and Myanmar (according to the WJP Rule of Law Index).
And this is not even to mention the fact the Mexico Drugs War had about the same number of casualties in 2018 as the Syrian Civil War (22,500 to 23,000).
However, as you wisely point out, there are no refugees fleeing from Cartel violence so there can be no civil war by any reasonable definition of the term. Even though a Harvard academic in 2014 said that "264,692 Mexicans have migrated in fear of organized crime activities". https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/vrios/files/riosv2014_larr2014_securityimmigration1.pdf
Maybe you should get out of there.
Maybe you should see the world instead of reading about it. Murders are not the same as being in a wartorn country, I don't know why you cannot understand that. An armed robbery is not anywhere similar to bombs setting off everywhere. A colleague was kidnapped and they were only after money. That's not what happens in an actual war. Now, I have never been in a warzone (although it seems you think I totally have), and I'm guessing you have not either. But to say the prevalence of violent crimes is equivalent to a war is I believe completely underestimating the horrors of wars. Although yes, I did feel safer in Myanmar (except when at one point I appeared to have been lost in the dark in Old Bagan with no phone reception).
Are you seriously comparing the raw homicide numbers between Mexico and Syria? Do you know how many people there are in Mexico, how many in Syria? Mexico has 123 million people, Syria has 18 million. Based on that logic, around 20 countries could have 100% of their population massacred overnight and they would still be "safer" than Mexico is because they have smaller population than 22500. Is that what you consider logical?
Are you actually interested in a rational and educational discussion? Because if you are, I can give you more much needed context. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your last (ridiculous) point was formed due to being misled by the CNN/Trump.
That was 2014, we are now in 2019. Cartel violence had skyrocketed under the previous governments precisely because of the so-called Drug War. Now in 2019, we have President Lopez O who declared an end to the policy/war, and he also pledged to offer a general amnesty, which would definitely lower homicide rates, ever if it meant allowing the cartels to stay. In practice, however, the opposite seems to be happening, but is entirely normal because in the past year Mexico saw the complete collapse of the establishment, and the rise of AMLO's populist movement.
Regardless of the homicide numbers, one thing that doesn't change is the fact that cartel violence mostly stay within the cartels. If I get killed tomorrow, it will most likely because I resist an armed robbery, not because the cartels target or harm me. The same is true of virtually everyone in Mexico. Inequality is great, and even though employment rates have been good, people are making too little money to survive (a Chinese food court stall owner told me he paid his staff MXN$100 every day - it'd take the waiter 2-3 years without spending any money to buy what I was wearing just today). That's why so many join the cartels. They aren't here to topple the government, they aren't interested in taking actual territories (not in the ISIS way) apart from having the space to cultivate their stuff. And even when there's violence, it's mostly about fighting for the exclusive customer zones.
In what way is that a civil war? A civil war with no political aim? With no territorial ambitions? With people who are in it only to make a living? The last conflict I'd class as a "civil war" in Mexico was the left-wing guerilla in Chiapas, and even so, that's so regional and small-scale, I'd hardly call it a civil war.
And you know what usually happens when there's an actual war? The economy collapses, the currency collapses, inflation goes out of control, people fleeing their homes. None is happening in Mexico or Brazil.
As for your research, did you actually read it? If you did, then you're confirming that you are indeed the kind of people who think the dodgy areas of Rio de Janeiro are the norms in all of Brazil. You think Ciudad Juárez = all of Mexico.
People moving from the northern border region is not the same as the entirety of Syria fleeing. How many people do you think live there? The majority? No. You know the Mexico City metropolitan area is already around 25 million of the 123 million people, right? Not to mention Mexican immigrants to the United States have consistently fallen through the years, and yes, in 2019 it's now a fraction of the immigration number in 2014. Mexicans aren't even the majority of migrants from the border any more, and there are more people moving from the US to Mexico than there are from Mexico to the US. By your logic, does it mean the US is having a refugee crisis and they are fleeing to Mexico?
How do you explain that? You seem so desperately trying to fabricate a non-existent refugee crisis of Mexicans, when the reality is that people are simply not fleeing Mexico.
This is without mentioning the fact that the people who do move/flee, mostly move to another part of Mexico. Small villages in Oaxaca had been evicted (but not massacred, because they themselves were not cartel people) by cartels for more land to grow stuff, where did those people go? The US? The UK? No. They moved to Oaxaca City. So if Oaxaca City is safe enough, how can you say the whole country is in a state of warfare?
And if you like to see numbers, how about these? Mexico in 2017 had a net migration rate of -1.8. How about Syria? The warzone you love to compare Mexico with? -54.75.
See the difference? See which one has an actual population fleeing from a civil war, and which one doesn't?
---
In short:
1. Violence against everyday resident is not cartel-related;
2. People are not fleeing from Mexico to another country;
3. If other parts of the country are safe enough for those people who did flee, then it means you are painting the whole country with what you think you know about small sections of the country;
4. You cannot compare Mexico to Syria in any shape or form, there's no refugee crisis in Mexico with almost a 0 net migration rate, with more people coming from the US than going to the US, and when the general violence levels are just too different to compare - using raw homicide numbers are incredibly stupid, when Mexico has almost 7 times the population;
5. People join the cartels because of money, not for any political or ideological reasons - that doesn't fit your narrative of a civil war;
6. The normal consequences of an actual war are not seen in Mexico - not by the number of massacres, not by the economic numbers;
7. The violence in Mexico is fundamentally different from the violence in a civil war such as the one in Syria - the aims are different, the motives are different, the methods are different.
I would suggest that you get more critical with sensationalist western media, even when they are left-wing. The Fortaleza The Guardian painted back in January never existed, the claim the CNN made about Mexico being the "second-most dangerous country" was also simply a lie, a complete misrepresentation of their source.
I'm more worried about the suicidal ants jumping from my ceiling than I am worried about being killed by anyone. I don't need someone in the UK who may not even have been to Mexico to worry about me based on his ignorance. But if you are worried, you are welcome to call 020 7008 1500 to express your concern, then perhaps the Ambassador and I could have a laugh the next time I meet her.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Napp
how in the good lords name have you managed to link this to Trump? Do try to stay on message...
Sorry , I'll try harder.🤗
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Too much dobule cream - what to use it in
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Christmas Foods
- Question for muslims about Eid
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fruits
- Make it More Dessert-ey !!
- Has anyone been to the King's College London Pre-University Summer School?
- Things I like to do in Bradford and West Yorkshire
- Nea 2 food technology
- Free food on A-level results day 2023 (also Btec & GCSE) including Nando's
- Favourite Food Places in Kingston!
- He said he just couldn't stop when I told him to
- Alevel Geography+Pe+Psychology
- What’s everyone’s favourite dessert?
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- Whipped Cream
- How to write about incest realistically
- sugar intake is bad idk how to stop
- ✨Lexi's Daily Life Blog ✨❤️😈
- Got Sophie's number through her sister...
- Meal cards
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
