Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dat Tall Guy)
    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.
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well, Sweden have cucked themselves to the SJW cause, and are now paying for it heavily.

    Just imagine the outcry if it had been gang-rapists of white males raping a young girl.

    And the notion that you can't deport them due to Afghanistan being a war-zone is just plain ********. They deserve to go back there especially if they are content on raping young kids in other countries.

    Sort yourself Sweden, and get away from this SJW mindset.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lefties should be ****ing made to live in the Muslim no go areas
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    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?
    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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Captain Sweden at it again
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    How very compassionate of you.

    Tell me, do you consider the young victims ruined life a price worth paying for your compassion?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    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... :eek:

    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    The London School of Economics... :eek:

    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.
    There are many accounts of the fall of Constantinople, and I agree that there was some aggression on the Turkish side in the initial conquest. However, the treatment of non-Muslim subjects and the Greek Orthodox community by the Ottoman's thereafter actually was quite civil.

    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”.
    http://lostislamichistory.com/mehmed...phets-promise/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    this forum is why i hate society, any vile person like that deserves no 'human' rights because they can't be human
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by housat)
    Please don't ignore the truth because of life long brainwashing
    Well said well said.

    The objective truth is objective truth regardless of people's liberal brainwashing.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by William2813)
    this forum is why i hate society, any vile person like that deserves no 'human' rights because they can't be human
    Why is it this forums fault that those Swedish immigrants were vile?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Objectivism2017)
    Why is it this forums fault that those Swedish immigrants were vile?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    noo i meant the title of the forum, not the forum itself
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    War is terrible and refugees should be supported in someway. Now if you are taken in by a host country as a refugee then I think that is a privilege. Because the host has to go a long way out to accomandate the refugee. Their is money that it costs, the house or shelter they have to find, the food and medicine they have to find and the education they sometimes provide. Now most of this costs money to the state which probably comes partly or whole from the government's money pot that taxes are paid in to. Now the locals might find annoying because that's money that could be spent on them or community improving their standards of living. So it is a privilage to be accepted and looked after a country as a refugee.

    Now part of that privilageI think is that the governemnt is doing so much for you, you have to do so much for the government. You know like the usual things, don't be a hassle, don't break the law, don't be a problem to the neighbours, respect everyone. The things that makes a place to live nice. So if you break the law then some of your privilages should be restricted or taken away like, anyone else regardless of their backgorund or refugee status. If I borke the law, I get fined, money taken away or get community sentence, which is time taken away, or lose a licence, which is skill taken away, or go to jail, which is freedom taken away. So rape is a serious crime, up their with murder and others. It's one of those big no no ones to do. Surely it feels like it's not the right thing to do.

    So surely the judge should just deport them. They broke the law so their privilages should of been taken away. They should of known what could be at stake when they were thinking or doing the crime. So by commiting such a horrific crime, they had their chance, and should be deported for someone else to have their place. Also 3 weeks, for rape, I knew someone who got longer then that in community service for speeding, no one died, and I doubt the people he overtook suffered from any mental health problems as a result of his speeding. But raping someone, the whole physical assault, and then the mental support the victim would need just to set foot outside their house without fear is going to a huge commitment. 3 weeks should be more like 30 years. Just seem to go to show that the law depednds who you are, I thought it was common law for all who live in the country. I feel sorry for the vunerable people who were just living their lives and now fear leaving the house because of the few number of bad refugees. I know I am going to get some backlash from this.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)

    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”.

    http://lostislamichistory.com/mehmed...phets-promise/
    If you discount evidence from reputed primary sources, and instead believe unsourced internet Islamic propaganda sites, there is nothing much to be said.

    Except, I suppose, that my previously high opinion of the LSE as a serious seat of learning has taken something of a battering during our discussion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    If you discount evidence from reputed primary sources, and instead believe unsourced internet Islamic propaganda sites, there is nothing much to be said.

    Except, I suppose, that my previously high opinion of the LSE as a serious seat of learning has taken something of a battering during our discussion.
    If you actually go to the link its sourced. I otherwise wouldn't have posted it.
    However, its funny you're talking about propaganda considering your overall argument.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    If you actually go to the link its sourced. I otherwise wouldn't have posted it.
    However, its funny you're talking about propaganda considering your overall argument.
    I did go to the the link. I saw a couple of secondary works cited as a bibliography, that was it. It wasn't in any way scholarly, it wasn't a serious peer reviewed contribution to academic research, it was junk. Internet propaganda. Hagiography, not history.

    I can't believe you would produce something as embarrassingly worthless as that into a discussion on the subject, actually.

    Don't you use primary sources at the LSE? Or even secondary ones? Is this the standard of the scholarship there? Do you write essays based on websites like this??

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was all a student at a joke university like West London or London Met could come up with as historical evidence. But I expected better from a student at the LSE.

    I am not saying that as an internet debating point. I mean it. I am genuinely shocked...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    I did go to the the link. I saw a couple of secondary works cited as a bibliography, that was it. It wasn't in any way scholarly, it wasn't a serious peer reviewed contribution to academic research, it was junk. Internet propaganda. Hagiography, not history.

    I can't believe you would produce something as embarrassingly worthless as that into a discussion on the subject, actually.

    Don't you use primary sources at the LSE? Or even secondary ones? Is this the standard of the scholarship there? Do you write essays based on websites like this??

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was all a student at a joke university like West London or London Met could come up with as historical evidence. But I expected better from a student at the LSE.

    I am not saying that as an internet debating point. I mean it. I am genuinely shocked...
    Why would you dismiss a secondary source? Why?? Don't you think those historians use primary sources to argue .... do you think they make up arguments?

    Essays are also argued (and in my case, we study international, usually modern history) with secondary sources where you have to assess the scholar's viewpoint.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MJlover)
    Why would you dismiss a secondary source? Why?? Don't you think those historians use primary sources to argue .... do you think they make up arguments?

    Essays are also argued (and in my case, we study international, usually modern history) with secondary sources where you have to assess the scholar's viewpoint.
    I am not dismissing secondary sources. I am accusing you, a student at a world renowned university, of accepting, on trust, an Islamist internet propaganda site.

    The only reason I can think of why you would do that is because you are a Muslim yourself and want to believe it.

    You are not "assessing the scholar's viewpoint", you are in no position to do so, because you haven't read the works cited, have you?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 4, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.