Judge refuses to deport Afghan men who gang-raped Swedish child

I know they're not Arabic. I was discussing Muslim empires as the other poster mentioned the Ottoman Empire. Don't assume when you weren't a part of that discussion
Actually the British and French empires were very barbaric themselves and had many killed during slavery and their colonisation of Africa, Asia, the Middle East was very violent.
Furthermore, lets assume that colonisation is the slavery of peoples itself, the British Empire exploited/enslaved a quarter of the world for their own trade/economic benefit.

Well they do commit rapes and they are the problem. Sweden would have virtually no crime if it was 100% Swedish. I was referring more to refugees specifically with """"people""", but non-white privilege extends to all non-whites

No whataboutery, please.

Do you accept that the Ottoman Empire was indescribably barbaric?

Sweden would have virtually no crime if it was 100% Swedish.

Yes, I agree. Publicly hanged, drawn and quartered would do me nicely.

Come out, come out, leftie liberals. I know you're reading this.

and I should answer this, why? If they did committed anything oppressive then I'd condemn it.

What exactly do you expect? If I come out and say anything other than these boys should be shot, I'm condoning child rape. If I try to point out that the manner in which someone is speaking is coming across as bigoted and, dare I say it, racist, then I'm a typical "leftie" using buzzwords.

This thread reeks of hatred towards people with differing opinions, so why act all smug when the only people that want to engage you in conversation are those who share your views? Are you proud of encouraging an atmosphere in which people don't feel free to express their views?

So you think the rapists should be set free then?

Human rights? Human rights!?!?!?!?

What about the boys human rights?

What about his right to walk freely in her country without being assaulted.
What about his right to seek justice for crimes committed against him.
What about his right to grow up and have a sane childhood.

These douchebags have likely given this child years of trauma, and their punishment? 3 weeks and then they're allowed to continue walking the streets where they did it.

Because if you did answer it in the affirmative I would respect the fact that you knew something about the subject.

Believe me the Ottoman Empire was oppressive.

To give you a taste here is an eyewitness account of the capture of what became its capital city. But feel free to educate yourself, look into it all further:

"Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle. People frightened by the shouting ran out of their houses and were cut down by the sword before they knew what was happening. And some were massacred in their houses where they tried to hide, and some in churches where they sought refuge.

The enraged Turkish soldiers . . . gave no quarter. When they had massacred and there was no longer any resistance, they were intent on pillage and roamed through the town stealing, disrobing, pillaging, killing, raping, taking captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions . . . There were virgins who awoke from troubled sleep to find those brigands standing over them with bloody hands and faces full of abject fury. This medley of all nations, these frantic brutes stormed into their houses, dragged them, tore them, forced them, dishonored them, raped them at the cross-roads and made them submit to the most terrible outrages. It is even said that at the mere sight of them many girls were so stupefied that they almost gave up the ghost.

Old men of venerable appearance were dragged by their white hair and piteously beaten. Priests were led into captivity in batches, as well as reverend virgins, hermits and recluses who were dedicated to God alone and lived only for Him to whom they sacrificed themselves, who were dragged from their cells and others from the churches in which they had sought refuge, in spite of their weeping and sobs and their emaciated cheeks, to be made objects of scorn before being struck down. Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers' breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. . .

Temples were desecrated, ransacked and pillaged . . . sacred objects were scornfully flung aside, the holy icons and the holy vessels were desecrated. Ornaments were burned, broken in pieces or simply thrown into the streets. Saints' shrines were brutally violated in order to get out the remains which were then thrown to the wind. Chalices and cups for the celebration of the Mass were set aside for their orgies or broken or melted down or sold. Priests' garments embroidered with gold and set with pearls and gems were sold to the highest bidder and thrown into the fire to extract the gold. Immense numbers of sacred and profane books were flung on the fire or tom up and trampled under foot. The majority, however, were sold at derisory prices, for a few pence. Saints' altars, tom from their foundations, were overturned. All the most holy hiding places were violated and broken in order to get out the holy treasures which they contained . . .

When Mehmed (II) saw the ravages, the destruction and the deserted houses and all that had perished and become ruins, then a great sadness took possession of him and he repented the pillage and all the destruction. Tears came to his eyes and sobbing he expressed his sadness. 'What a town this was! And we have allowed it to be destroyed'! His soul was full of sorrow. And in truth it was natural, so much did the horror of the situation exceed all limits."

why haven't you referenced your post? I actually have studied the Ottoman Empire for my degree and had to do a comparative project on slavery in the British and Ottoman Empire. I hope your source is reliable and not biased and orientalist.

The source was the Diary of Niccolo Barbaro a Surgeon from Venice who was in the city at the time

It is probably the most famous and cited eye witness account of the Conquest of Constantinople. Referenced in just about every secondary work on the subject.

Are you suggesting that the events he described did not take place?? Seriously?

What university did you study at, may I ask?

I'm not debating that his rights were violated and that the sentence is ridiculous however that doesn't mean their rights should now be nonexistent. Punitive justice has been shown to be idiotic and ineffective yet people with no understanding of dealing with crime continue to insist on it.




Posted from TSR Mobile

It wasn't referenced in my course at the LSE as we studied a later period of the Ottoman Empire. However I don't feel that I can trust this source as you wouldn't trust narrations or sources from Islamic writers/scholars from the same period on the fall of constantinople. Nicolo Barbaro was on the side of the Byzantium Empire too

The London School of Economics...

OK, you haven't studied the period, fair enough. And you feel you can't trust this particular source as he was a Christian. On the wrong side of the Great Schism, of course, being from Venice, but still a Christian so therefore "biased and orientalist" as you put it in your earlier post.

Perhaps, though, you could use the techniques of historical analysis taught at the LSE nowadays, to tell us what DID happen?

Constantinople, when it fell, was the historic capital of the Eastern Roman Empire (admittedly reduced to a tiny rump by successive Ottoman invasions) and the spiritual heart of the Eastern Christian Church. It was regarded by contemporaries as a wonder of the world. Not just "biased orientalist" sources, but even Muslim ones, admit to the riches and splendours of the great Hagia Sophia, and the churches and monasteries, with their walls covered in golden icons and altarpieces.

Its population was a huge (for the period) 50,000 or so. It was one of the biggest cities on the planet.

If you go to modern Istanbul, you will see the architecturally marvellous Hagia Sophia is a museum (although they are talking about turning it into a mosque again) and there isn't a golden altar or icon to be seen. There is hardly a church (let alone a monastery!) to be seen, they are all mosques or museums.

If the inhabitants weren't killed or taken into slavery, rape and forced marriage, with their homes and belongings stolen from them; it the Hagia Sofia and all the monasteries and churches weren't looted and all their gold and silver artefacts melted down for plunder, as Barbaro says, where are they now?

Where did it all go? Where did the Christians go? Because you don't see any of it, or them, in modern day Istanbul.

If that isn't a biased and orientalist thing to notice, obviously.

Perhaps the most important part of this historical event was Mehmed II’s treatment of the defeated Byzantines. He did not kill the residents of the city and in fact encouraged them to stay in Constantinople by absolving them of taxes. He insisted that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate stay in the city and rule the Christians of the city on his behalf. While to the rest of Europe, the idea of religious tolerance was a foreign concept, Mehmed followed the Islamic principles on treatment of non-Muslims and gave religious freedom and rights to the Christians of Constantinople. His abilities in battle and his virtuous qualities earned him the nickname “al-Fatih” or “the Conqueror”.