Patterico's Pontifications


Court Overturns Refugee’s Conviction for Raping 10-Year-Old Boy, Saying . . . Maybe He Consented!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:00 pm

Why do people think throwing the doors open to tens of thousands of Muslim refugees without adequate screening might be a problem? Exhibit A:

An Iraqi refugee who was jailed after claiming it was a sexual emergency when he raped a boy in a swimming pool has had the sentence overturned.

An appeal court accepted the defence lawyer’s claim that the lower court had not done enough to ascertain whether or not the rapist had realised the schoolboy was saying no.

The attacker, identified as 20-year-old Iraqi migrant Amir A., had been treated to a trip to the Theresienbad pool in December 2015 as part of the integration process.

He had also been provided with a 15-year-old helper and translator who was supposedly teaching him how to integrate into life in Vienna.

At the pool, Amir A. dragged the schoolboy, aged ten, into the changing rooms where he locked the door and violently sexually assaulted him, leaving him in need of urgent treatment at a local children’s hospital. The boy is still plagued by massive post-traumatic stress disorder.

. . . .

Amir A., who had worked in Iraq as a taxi driver, was still clothed in swimwear when handcuffed. He confessed to the rape, saying he knew it was wrong but did it anyway because it was a “sexual emergency” as he did not had sex for four months.

The Sunday Express reports how severe the child’s injuries were:

The child suffered severe anal injuries which had to be treated at a local children’s hospital, and is still plagued by serious post-traumatic stress disorder.

This case is so outlandish, it makes you wonder how it can really be happening. However, this is not an isolated incident; the huge influx of Muslim refugees into Europe from war-torn parts of the Arab world has already led to sexual assaults and efforts to mainstream deviant behavior, so as not to denigrate the refugees. This is not only dangerous; it’s also condescending. Leftists are not likely to be concerned with either problem, though.

If there’s any story that explains why some people (not me) want to vote Trump, it’s stories like this.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

55 Responses to “Court Overturns Refugee’s Conviction for Raping 10-Year-Old Boy, Saying . . . Maybe He Consented!”

  1. Because, of course, it’s more important to bring in lots of people from a culture that rapes anything and anytime and anyone it wants to. than to have a president who said mean things to Ted Cruz.

    fred-2 (ce04f3)

  2. It’s apparently all okay according to the UN – the Iraqi was just suffering from a self inflicted short term disability ( as he had left his wife back in Iraq for four months (at that time) to be a refugee.

    Dilligas (389b02)

  3. And our elite rulers want us to be more like these despicable Europeans (I’m speaking here of their judiciary, not the rapist who should be impaled or castrated, his choice.) Across the border in Germany, an increasing number of Germans have moved to Poland and points east in the last ten years as this catastrophe has unfolded. And these are educated Germans with families. Just the cohort that Germany needs to keep if it is going to preserve it’s cultural identity.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  4. In the civilized world, it doesn’t matter what a ten year old says because he’s theoretically not old enough to “give consent.”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  5. But

    The question is did he call 911 for directions to a massage parlor first.

    papertiger (021e95)

  6. Justice Ginsberg thinks we should consult European jurisprudence to mod our old and dusty constitution

    papertiger (021e95)

  7. After seeing how judges interpreted the ACA to be legal, this no longer surprises me.

    Dejectedhead (8bc1cd)

  8. We need more General Charles James Napier and less of this.

    What blows my mind is that the things that make the West a great place to live – like prohibitions on raping kids or cutting women’s bodies to mollify men’s insecurities – are exactly the kinds of things that we are now supposed to “tolerate.” Do any of these brain trusts know that the migrants will just turn the West into the same hellhole they just left?

    bridget (c1cfd5)

  9. I’m not saying Hillary Clinton is in favor of raping children, but Hillary Clinton is in favor of raping children.

    papertiger (021e95)

  10. Why do people think throwing the doors open to tens of thousands of Muslim refugees without adequate screening might be a problem?

    What makes you think it’s a good idea even with “adequate” screening. Plus, considering a main part of their belief structure is based on lying to non moslems while trying to usurp them and install Sharia Law exactly what screening would be adequate?

    Islam and America are incompatible on very level.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  11. If there’s any story that explains why some people (not me) want to vote Trump, it’s stories like this.

    Again, it’s not about issues. It’s about Trump, and Donald wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. australia has had a number of these incidents, to make them more than a one off, germany has had legion, there was also that siege of a supermarket in belgium, no casualties, other instances in france,

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. Who cares what happens to Austria? It was the birthplace of Hitler. We should have dropped a couple of atoomie booms on it right after Nagasaki. Austria and western civilization are not compatible.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. In the US, the father would follow up by shooting the rapist in the head, saying that he gave consent and ask for a jury trial.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. #13 nk, you’re starting to sound like one of those people who wants to build a wall to keep “the others” out. (LOL)

    Austria gave the world some of the greatest classical composers of all time.
    … and Paul Hogan, too! (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  16. yes, that was a misread on my part, emily litella moment, it’s a big chechen emigre redoubt, recall that fellow who resurface in istambul with a bang, last year,

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. I spent a lot of time learning to speak Austrian. So atoomic booming it would be a shame.

    papertiger (021e95)

  18. @ nk, #13:

    Austria and western civilization are not compatible.

    Mozart, Liszt, both Haydns, and both Strausses would like a word with you outside. I also saw Fritz Lang and Billy Wilder wanting in on the fun. And Peter Lorre will hold your coat.

    Demosthenes (09f714)

  19. Wasn’t Peter Lorre’s first movie, directed by Fritz Lang, about a child murderer?

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Perhaps the Iraqi can’t understand Austrian*?

    *hat tip Barcky Obama

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. Liszt Ferenc would actually like a word with you. He didn’t write the Austrian Fantasies (featuring the Carnival of Vienna), after all.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  22. Cruz Supporter already said it:

    In the civilized world, it doesn’t matter what a ten year old says because he’s theoretically not old enough to “give consent.”

    I doubt very much that it was Arab refugees who put a “lack of consent” element in the Austrian child-rape law. My guess is that it was Austrian lawmakers. What’s your guess?

    nk (dbc370)

  23. yes, but concluding it was consensual, despite the evidence is the 50,000 mark point,

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. What civilized country would even allow consent to be relevant when the victim is ten years old? In no state in the United States is the age of consent under sixteen.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Gustav Mahler was from Austria, too.
    And film director Fred Zinnemann, as well.

    By the way, nk, there’s some guy at the door who says his name is “Ah-nold.”
    I told him you weren’t here, and he replied, “I’ll be baccck.”

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  26. nk, you’re right.
    The Austrians have been intimidated into forfeiting basic common sense in order to appease the wolves at the door.
    The same goes for Sweden. The Swedes have basically left the gate to the henhouse open, and a lot of young women are being sexually assaulted because of it.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  27. Mahler was born in Bohemia, even if one of his most important jobs was in Vienna. He lost it in part because of anti-Semitism.
    But his last job was here in the States, conducting the New York Philharmonic.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  28. Thanks for all your examples. They might explain the Austrian law. Edgar Wallace wrote an essay, “The Canker In Our Midst”, about pedophilia in the entertainment industry almost a century ago.

    nk (dbc370)

  29. don’t forget freud and jung, they screwed up understandings of human behavior for a century or more, and schnitzler, was the loose basis for ‘eyes wide shut’

    narciso (d1f714)

  30. Immigration reform.

    n.n (e1b8ae)

  31. Ooops Too late.

    Obama has already imposed this children are fair game for Muslims with sexual emergencies standard on the U.S. Military, by Imperial Edict.
    Enforced by NJP and discharge of inconvenient moralists.

    I’m sure Justice Ginsberg approves.

    papertiger (021e95)

  32. kishnevi, at the time of Mahler’s birth, Bohemia was then part of the Austrian Empire.
    Thus, he’s always been considered an Austrian composer. He’s buried in Vienna.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  33. therein lies the rub, like when they complain about sykes picot, someone at sometime owned another piece of property, yes they promised the land to three different parties,

    narciso (d1f714)

  34. Heaven forbid Clinton takes office, they’ll be claiming stare decisis for protected immigrant classes of baby rapers.

    papertiger (021e95)

  35. so you are worried about Trump who will be hounded by our press, but willing to give Hillary the election because…

    Sunny (d7fa2b)

  36. and do any of you who don’t like Trump, have any 10 year old sons? daughters?

    Sunny (d7fa2b)

  37. “NOTHING TO SEE HERE, IT’S OLD NEWS, TIME TO MOVE ON: Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife.

    The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

    Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

    The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.”

    Colonel Haiku (6fe2b1)

  38. Well, having these folks come in and run riot–see Rotherham–is better because “pussy”.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  39. It’s Austria. Imagine the sentence he would have gotten in 1943 for denying the government-approved weltanschauung.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. “Time, place and manner” is not only First Amendment law, it’s also good advice. If you want to speak freely, do it in a place with freedom of speech.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. Hillary Clinton thinks emergency baby rape should be safe legal and rare.

    papertiger (021e95)

  42. I don’t think it’s a good idea to be outraged unless you fully understand what’s being done. Only rarely do European courts do thing that are really crazy. Here’s the key sentence: “Supreme Court President Thomas Philipp said that while the verdict was “watertight” with regard to the serious sexual abuse of a juvenile, the written verdict on the second indictment, rape, cannot be sufficiently proved.” As I recall, under a German Law (guessing this is the same) “rape” requires a showing of lack of consent, force, threat etc. just like Common Law. Insofar as I am aware, there is no such thing as “age of consent” as we have. Also, just a reminder that there’s also no such thing a double jeopardy, so this isn’t an “acquittal”, merely a reversal and remand. This is much more like a reversal on a sentencing enhancement than setting the guy free.

    Mark Allen (792e65)

  43. #43 Mark Allen, in Saudi Arabia, the justice system does all sorts of terrible things to people in a LEGAL fashion.
    Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it shouldn’t spark outrage.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  44. I’m with Mark Allen here (no. 43). My bet is that knowledge of non-consent is one of the elements that the prosecution has to prove, and the higher court just remanded for the finder of fact to make specific findings as to the defendant’s mental state.

    Hardly surprising the press got it wrong, they get American legal issues wrong all the time, and then without benefit of a language barrier.

    Roscoe (d9df47)

  45. So the Austrian court is saying there is ABSOLUTELY a possibility that the kid consented to be penetrated so forcefully he would need surgery?


    On what freaking planet … ?

    True Justice demands that we somehow arrange for each of the Austrian “justices” to be locked in a soundproof room with that Muslim deviant – they would of course have their hands cuffed behind their backs, to approximate the defenselessness of a 10-year-old. Since the room is soundproof, NOBODY could hear them if they chanced to say “No”. And that’s the important part, right? There needs to be an impartial witness to hear the “No”, right? Because all civilized people — such as these “justices” — automatically assume that any rape victim NOT saying NO! loudly enough for passers-by from two streets over to definitively hear and recount before a jury, really intends Yes-Yes-YES! (so long as the rapist is Muslim), right?

    Pfui. Or something less socially acceptable.

    Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah (3d2241)

  46. Islam and America are incompatible on very level.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 10/23/2016 @ 4:25 pm

    The Quran contains over 480 exhortations to violence (such as Surahs 2:116, 9:111, etc.). It commands to Muslims to hate non-Muslims (such as Surah 60:4). To only be kind toward fellow Muslims and to be ruthless toward non-Muslims (such as Surah 48:29), to kill or violently subjugate people “of the book.” i.e. peoples who Islam recognizes as previously receiving divine revelation, primarily Jews and Christians (such as Surah 9:29). But since they reject what Muslims consider the final revelation while they will be allowed to live if they pay the protection money or jizya, Muslims must punish, degrade and humiliate them as Muslims are the tool of Allah’s vengeance against his enemies in this world (such as Surahs 9:14, 9:74, etc.). And non-Muslims that Islam does not recognize as people of the book must be killed outright if they refuse to convert to Islam (such as Surah 9:5). Allah commands Muslims to do all this by terrorizing the unbelievers (such as Surahs 3:151, 8:12, etc.).

    Now this is just a short sample. There are over 480 exhortations or commands, which is a lot considering the Quran is shorter than the New Testament. My paperback version of Yusuf Ali’s transliteration of the Arabic text is only 441 pages long not counting the glossary and index. Now, I’m not going to say you can find an exhortation or command to Muslims to be violent against non-Muslims on every one of those pages. But it’s also a screed against non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Jews. So pretty much if you just let a Quran fall open you will find either a command to commit violence or Allah ranting about why he hates Christians and Jews so much, which is the justification for the commands to commit violence. Christians and Jews are the worst of creatures (such as Surah 98:6). In other words Christians and Jews are lower than even dogs and pigs, which Muslims are commanded to revile and loath. Meanwhile Muslims are the best of peoples (such as Surah 3:110). This is why Muslims must be “uppermost,” i.e. dominant over all people all over the world (such as Surah 47:35). Until that is achieved, i.e. until all people everywhere submit to Islamic rule which means living under Allah’s law (Sharia), there can be no peace between Muslims and non-Muslims (see previous Surah).

    This is why Muslims consider any country not ruled by Muslims according to Sharia to be Dar al Harb, the house of war. Note the two conditions; it isn’t enough that it’s ruled by Muslims, it has to governed in accordance to Sharia law. Muslims are commanded to reject any system of laws, such as our Constitution, and desire only Sharia (such as Surah 6:114). Any one professing to be Muslim but do not obey the judgements not only of Allah but also Muhammad with unquestioning obedience (such as Surahs 4:59, 4:64-4:65, etc.) will go to hell for “opposing” the Prophet (and by opposing the prophet they are opposing Allah, see Surah 4:115). Opposition, like apostasy, under Islamic law consists of far more than what we consider those words to mean in the West. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim but does not unquestioningly obey Allah and his prophet is a hypocrite according to all the Islamic canonical texts. Someone who say claims to be a Muslim but doesn’t do what Allah and the prophet command all believing Muslims to do, and Allah commands believing Muslims to war just as ruthlessly against the hypocrites along with the unbelievers (such as
    Surah 9:73).

    There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are moderate Muslims, yes. But only in the West. Because Muslims in the Islamic world disdain Westernized moderate Muslims as hypocrites or apostates (if your hypocrisy is serious enough, it moves you into the apostate category). This is why the opinions of or attempts to reform Islam by Westernized moderate Muslims carries absolutely no weight in the Islamic world. Why would they listen to a bunch of hypocrites and apostates? For instance, Westernized moderate Muslims believe they can be friends with non-Muslims. That is direct disobedience to Allah’s word. As Allah puts it, Christians and Jews are friends with each other. If a Muslim takes them for friends or allies they no longer have anything to do with Allah, but instead have become one of the them (such as Surah 3:28). There is not such thing as a moderate Muslim in Dar al Islam, the house of Islam where Sharia is the law of the land.

    If you’ve ever wondered why Muslims will turn on their non-Muslim neighbors who they’ve lived peacefully with and in apparent friendship with in a heartbeat, your answer is in the Quran in verses such as the one I just cited. Religious minorities have been perpetually shocked by this. That was true during WWI when the Ottoman Caliph commanded Turks to commit genocide against their Armenian and Assyrian neighbors, and it’s true today when the Islamic State captures a village and the Muslims who live in that village help them by turning on their non-Muslim neighbors. Because they were never really friends. If they were to truly be friends, they’d have turned their backs on Allah.

    Yes, you can cite exceptions. I can cite exceptions; there have been sympathetic Muslims who have helped Yazidi and Christian escape sex slavery (and yes, sex slavery is in accordance with the word of Allah and his prophet; it is one of the “good things” they have made legal for Muslims). But they have to do in secret, and they would never dare to try to “oppose” the slaughter and rape of non-Muslims by even saying a critical word as that alone makes you a hypocrite. So the rape and slaughter continues unhindered as there is no theological basis for Muslims to oppose it.

    The Reliance of the Traveler, Umdat al Salik, is the most easily obtained manual of Sharia law. It’s a book of Shafi’i “jurisprudence.” I’d suggest buying it hard copy. You’ll see that it is certified by Al Azhar University as a reliable translation of the Arabic text, containing nothing that conflicts with Islam. There is not higher authority in Sunni Islam than Al Azhar University, and the Shafi’i Madhab or school of Sharia is as mainstream as ti gets. And what will you learn from it? A lot.

    – There is no freedom of speech. Simply being critical of Islam or Muhammad constitutes blasphemy, hypocrisy, apostasy if it is serious enough. If you are non-Muslim living as a dhimmi under Sharia law saying a critical word is a death sentence (google Asia Bibi, a Christian woman on death row in Pakistan, for more information) as you have violated the dhimma or pact of protection (Islam uses the word protection exactly like the Mafia does) and therefore are now Kuffar Harbi. That is, an unbeliever at war with Islam. Westerners are already Kuffar Harbi, so if you draw a cartoon of Muhammad or are an editor at Charlie Hebdo you were already fair game, and now you have two death sentences.

    Truth is no defense. Just ask Salman Rushdie, who is under a death sentence for writing The Satanic Verses. Because slander according to all schools of Sharia includes revealing a truth that about a Muslim, the ummah or entire Muslim community, or the scholars didn’t want to become known. There are dozens of Islamic sources that confirm Muhammad himself admitted Satan placed a verse in his mouth, leading him to approve of the traditional Arab polytheistic practice of praying to al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. These were three pagan goddesses who were either all three daughters of the moon god and chief god of the pagans, or al-Lat (which is the feminine form of Allah) was actually his consort. Not much is known about the paganism of the Arabs. Just look at how the IS treated what was once the well preserved city of Palmyra, or how the Taliban treated Buddhas of Bamiyan, and you’ll understand how the Wahhabis of Arabia treated any remnant or record of the pre-Islamic past.

    If you look at the Islamic sources you’ll notice a trend. The earliest sources are very clear about what Muhammad did. Later sources, authors who began to understand what the implications of that event were for non-Muslims, particularly Christians and Jews who rejected the idea that Muhammad could be a true prophet for many reasons but also including the fact that Muhammad admitted to delivering what he claimed to be prophecy but did not come from God, and that he spoke in the name of other pagan gods, began to muddy the waters. Now it is slander to reveal the truth, and that will get you a fatwa ordering your death.

    This is why it was significant when Obama went to the UN following the Benghazi assault and said “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.” He knows exactly what that statement means to a Muslim audience, and that Americans wouldn’t. I will be providing some links later to help establish that fact.

    – There is not freedom of religion in Islam. If you are born to a Muslim father, you’re a Muslim for all eternity. If you convert to Islam, you’re a Muslim. All the schools of Sharia, and just the Sunni schools but the Shia schools such as the Jafari school of twelver Shi’ism, agree. The penalty for leaving Islam is death.

    It’s an opportune time to note that all the mainstream schools of Islam; the Sunni, the Shia, even the Ibadhi agree on about 80% of pretty much everything. What they disagree on are pretty much trivialities. They disagree on things such as how many days do you have to wait to carry out the death sentence, or how many times someone can apostatize before you no longer accept his repentance.

    There are some important things they may disagree on. Such as does this death sentence apply to women as well as men? Some schools say women who apostatize shouldn’t be executed. They are to be imprisoned and beaten and tortured five times a day. This is based upon the established fact, in Islam anyway, that women are inferior to men, and therefore you can break their will and they’ll repent but a man won’t. Which leads us to:

    – There is not equality between men and women. Women are inferior to men. This is why under Sharia a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, a woman’s inheritance is half that of a man, if a Muslim man kills a Muslim woman, and the family waives their right to blood for blood vengeance and instead accepts a penalty payment the blood money is half that for a woman than for a man, and woman needs four male witnesses to prove rape against a man. It’s why a man can have up to four wives, but you’ll get laughed out of Saudi Arabia or even “moderate” Malaysia if even ask why can’t a woman have four husbands. A man can beat his wife and doesn’t have to explain to anyone why he did so. A man can divorce his wife simply by saying “I divorce you,” but a woman has to go to a Sharia court and get a fatwa of divorce (ask any Muslim woman or more likely formerly Muslim woman who escaped Iran or Pakistan or, just about anywhere, how likely it is she’ll get one; good luck with getting the religious authorities to side with you against your husband).

    – There is no such thing as equality between non-Muslims and Muslims. Whereas women are second class citizens, non-Muslims are at best third class citizens if they can considered to be citizens at all. They must pay the jizya, a poll tax, or more properly protection money just for the privilege of having Muslims to tolerate his continued existence. He can not possess weapons of any kind, he must give up his seat to a Muslim. Non-Muslims must let Muslim travelers sleep in their churches or synagogues, and feed them for three days. If a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, there is not death penalty for the Muslim. The non-Muslim’s family must accept the blood money, which is one third that paid for a Muslim man. Basically the Jim Crow south to the tenth power.

    – Honor killings are in fact Islamic. Remember, the Reliance of the Traveler is certified by Al Azhar University to contain nothing that conflicts with Islam, and you can’t get more mainstream that the Shafi’i shool of Sharia. And according to the Reliance of the Traveler there no penalty, no retribution, when a parent kills their own child or a grandparent kills their grandchild. Now you won’t find “honor killings” mentioned specifically, but you will find all sorts of commands from Allah and Muhammad to kill people for all sorts of sins or crimes, including your own family members as well as strangers, throughout the ahadith and Quran. And these are commands; if a parent or grandparent doesn’t do this they share in the child’s transgression. If this is publicly known, it brings shame upon the family.

    – The penalty for homosexuality, or as Muhammad stated it the ahadith “The sin of Lot,” is unequivocally death.

    Now, does anybody see anything I’ve discussed that conflicts with the Constitution? You’d to be blind not to see it. If you want to live under these rules, let Muslims come into the country whether vetted or unvetted. How well did that “vetting” process work in the case of Tashfeen Malik? She apparently passed five interviews before she got her visa. Of course, the people vetting her don’t know the right questions to ask. And even if they did know, they’d get fired for asking them. You simply can’t let anyone in who believes in Sharia. Naturally, we’d expect Muslim applicants to lie, but if you make that part of the immigration form, technically lying on an immigration form is grounds to deport that individual.

    Until the courts got involved, and Hamas front group CAIR would certainly file a lawsuit to get them involved claiming religious discrimination. And of course Barack Obama would get involved, shooting his mouth off about how “There no religious tests to come to the United States! That’s not who we are. That’s not who we are.” Which would be another one of Obama’s demonstrable lies, as what as formerly the Lautenberg Amendent (not the gun grabbing amendment, this is a different one) which had to be reauthorized annually but became permanent law a couple of years ago provides for a religious test to claim refugee status. It was originally written to protect Soviet Jews. But over the years it was expanded to cover other persecuted religious minorities. Before it became permanent law Barack Obama not only reauthorized it he expanded it to cover a couple of additional persecuted religious so not only is he lying that it’s “un-American” to have a religious test as when he was signing it annually he was admitting it was and still is very American to do so.He’s also violating the law (is there a law he hasn’t violated?) when he puts Sunnis at the head of the refugee line and shoves persecuted Christians, Yazidis, Bahais, etc., to the back of the line. Actually, there is no line for them because the system Obama is using requires the persecuted minorities to risk their lives living in camps with their Sunni persecutors.

    Also, the barbarians are already inside the gate. And by that I mean the the gate you have to drive through to get to the WH. Consider, in 2009 the DoJ provided evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that groups such as CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), ISNA (Islamic
    Society of North America) and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust, which holds title to pproximately 80% of the mosques in North America) do in fact have strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood include its Gazan branch Hamas. Which is in fact a designated foreign terrorist organization (and we had any sense so would the entire Ikhwan).

    IV. CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s Motions to Strike

    Finally, CAIR, NAIT and ISNA ask the Court to strike their names from any public document filed or issued by the government. (Mot. At 6.) While it is clear from the Briggs line of cases that the Government should have originally filed the unindicted co-conspirators’ names under seal, the Court declines to strike CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names form those documents. The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas. While the Court recognizes that the evidence produced by the Government largely predates the HLF designation date, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to show the association of these entities with HLF, IAP, and Hamas. See U.S. v. Ladd, 218 F.3d at 704-05 (“the Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed”). Thus, maintaining the names of the entities on the List is appropriate in light of the evidence proffered by the Government.

    Government Exhibit 3-85 is titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” authored by Mohamed Akram of the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood and datey May 22, 1991. (Gov’t Ex. 3-85 (Elbarasse 3) at 21.) The “Explanatory Memorandum” includes a seciton titled “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America,” which states that the work of Ikhwan in the United Staes is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Id.) Also contained in that document is a list of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which includes ISNA, NAIT, the Occupied Land Foundation (“OLF”) (HLF’s former name), and the United Association for Studies and Research (“UASR”). (Id. at 32.) Government Exhibit 3-64, titled “Preliminary vision for preparing future leadership” and dated December 18, 1988, further ties ISNA to the Muslim Brotherhood by listing it as an “apparatus” of the Brotherhood, (Gov’t Ex. 3-64 (Elbarrasse 4) at 5.)…

    Evidence presented in a public trial is inherently different from the Government publishing a list of persons alleged to be co-conspirators. The public may make its own judgement from evidence presented at trial. The evidence may be examined and conclusions can be drawn as to whether the evidence establishes what the government claims it does. But a published list from the Government naming individuals or entities as co-conspirators without any supporting evidence is not subject to such scrutiny. Therefore the Court finds it appropriate to seal the entire list of unindicted co-conspirators but stops short of ordering CAIR, ISNA and NAIT’s names expunged from any documents filed or produced by the Government.

    If you actually read the exhibits presented at trial, including the transcript of the Philadelphia conference which at Hamas’ request was created to propagandize on behalf of the terrorist group and against the just signed Oslo Accords, there is only one reasonable conclusion. They aren’t just linked to the Ikhwan/Hamas. They were created as fronts for the Ikhwan and Hamas.

    But that truth was supposed to remain a secret. Obviously if it had become widely known that the strategic goal of the MB in North America is to wage “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions” it would be a lot harder to convince us filthy kuffar to help with the project. And a truth that’s supposed to remain secret is slander per Sharia.

    So let’s fast forward a couple of years. On 19 October 2011 a group of 57 Islamic organizations including CAIR, ISNA and NAIT (and many others that will be familiar to you if you look through the exhibits and trial transcripts of the HLF terror funding trial) sent a letter to John Brennan, then Obama’s “counterterrorism czar,” demanding that the government cut all ties to outside “Islamophobic” contract trainers, all counterterrorism training materials be “purged” of any reference to Islam or, as they put it in the letter, “biased materials,” that the government institute a mandatory “re-education program” for all personnel who received that “biased training,” and that all government personnel who promoted those those “Islamophobic” outside contract trainers and/or “biased training materials” be “effectively disciplined.” Naturally Brennan sent back an immediate reply on WH stationary no less (he had his own, but he was sending a message from Obama) saying when you tell us to jump our only question is, how high?

    It’s as Bolshevik as it sounds. Islam got along well with the Bolsheviks and the Nazis because they’re all total immersion, totalitarian legal, political, economic, social, and military system of government. Islam just has added a veneer of religion.

    But this was all staged. In fact nothing was triggered by the letter. The Pentagon supposedly issued new training guidelines in response to the Obama administration’s initiatives to comply with their demands. But what gave the game away was the fact the training directive was dated before 19 October 2011. Also the loathsome DHS’ Orwellian-titled Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties issued “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Do’s and Don’t’s.”

    Take a look at the training “don’t’s” in Section F, 3. A and B. “Don’t” use training materials
    that say “Many mainstream Muslim organizations have terrorist ties” and don’t use training
    materials that claim “Mainstream Muslim organizations are fronts for Islamic political organizations whose true desire is to establish Sharia law in America.”

    Guess who was on the DHS’s CVE working group when that gem was drafted and promulgated. The president of ISNA, Mohamed Majid. That’s right, the president of one of the groups that the DoJ had proven in court of law had terrorist ties and was a front for a foreign political organization whose true strategic goal is to establish Sharia law in America as well as throughout North America. And DHS was “partnering” with other organizations such as CAIR that have the exact same ties. And people who know that need to be silenced lest they slander Islam or, as Obama put it during his post Benghazi UN speech, slander the prophet of Islam. He used the term slander in the exact same way as the as the president of ISNA would use the term slander.

    This is also why Barack Obama won’t connect terrorism with Islam. That would be slanderous as that’s also a truth that must be kept from the American people. Islamophobe is simply one of the names they’ve invented for people who won’t cooperate with their program. The program that requires FBI agents, for instance, be blind to the red flags that anyone with eyes to see could have led them to stop the Tsarnaevs in Boston or Farook and Tashfeen Malik in San Berardino or Omar Mateen in Orlando. The red flags were there. Hell, the Russians were practically firing flares in the case of the Tsarnaevs and people were actually calling the FBI to warn them about Mateen. The FBI never called back. That would have slandered Islam. Err, I mean Islamophobic according to their new MB/Hamas-approved CVE trainers and training materials.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  47. I also think Mark Allen at 43 is right. The prosecutors made their case harder by being overzealous. Not content with the child molestation law which does not require proof of lack of consent, they added rape which does. And they can still prove it, but it might not be the best thing for the kid to have to testify and be cross-examined as to whether he wanted it.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. didn’t amir confess to the rape, open and shut case,

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. Search for “rotherham” “rock the multicultural boat” to find a real sewer. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. And you’d best not complain or you’ll be a xenophobic, islamophobic, racist.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  50. @50, that’s exactly what Rotterham city council members called a social worker who found out what was going on and wanted to take action years before the story broke. That’s exactly what police told a father who tried to rescue his daughter from a house being used by the Rotterham rape gang.

    And that’s exactly how Idaho and federal authorities are treating the family of that poor little girl who was raped and urinated on by a group of Muslim “refugee” boys. And their supporters. They’re the actual criminals, not “refugees” who bring their rape culture with them.

    Surah 33:59 Al-Ahzab (The Combined Forces)

    O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

    Could it any more clear? Non-Muslim women are to be abused.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  51. Insofar as I am aware, there is no such thing as “age of consent” as we have.

    Mark Allen (792e65) — 10/24/2016 @ 10:58 am

    Yes, actually there is. European countries have had age of consent laws although most countries don’t use that exact terminology (and not just because of language differences) for well over a century at least. Moreover, having joined the EU European countries, obviously including Austria, have taken on an additional layer of international obligations.

    Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse *

    Lanzarote, 25.X.2007

    … Article 3 – Definitions

    For the purposes of this Convention:

    a. “child” shall mean any person under the age of 18 years;

    b. “sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children” shall include the behaviour as referred to in Articles 18 to 23 of this Convention;

    c. “victim” shall mean any child subject to sexual exploitation or sexual abuse.

    … Chapter VI – Substantive criminal law

    Article 18 – Sexual abuse

    1. Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conduct is criminalised:

    a. engaging in sexual activities with a child who, according to the relevant provisions of national law, has not reached the legal age for sexual activities;

    b. engaging in sexual activities with a child where:

    use is made of coercion, force or threats; or

    – abuse is made of a recognised position of trust, authority or influence over the child, including within the family; or

    – abuse is made of a particularly vulnerable situation of the child, notably because of a mental or physical disability or a situation of dependence.

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1 above, each Party shall decide the age below which it is prohibited to engage in sexual activities with a child.

    3. The provisions of paragraph 1.a are not intended to govern consensual sexual activities between minors.

    As you can see this document, in English, uses the term “legal age for sexual activities.” It is identical in meaning to our term “age of consent.” Since Austria was an original signatory in 2007, the parliament ratified the treaty in February 2011, and the law entered into force in June 2011, even if Austria hadn’t had an age of consent law before, it would have had to have one since 2011.

    But the age of consent in Austria is 14 and has been since 1880.

    Since the child was 10 I’m puzzled how the issue of consent even enters into.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  52. Yes I know the EU and the Council of Europe aren’t the same thing. I was using EU as a sort of shorthand.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  53. Why do people think throwing the doors open to tens of thousands of Muslim refugees without adequate screening might be a problem? Exhibit B:

    A 15-year-old boy who was stabbed near his home in the Vienna district of Liesing on Friday morning by a complete stranger has spoken to the police.

    …The teenager told police that he left home to go to work at around 6am, and that he had the feeling he was being followed. He said that as he turned a corner he looked back and saw a man masked with a scarf and hood behind him, who then began to attack him with a knife.

    I was reading the original article about the glorious new rape culture Angela Merkel was convinced would diversify and enrich lousy old boring and comparatively rape-free Europe, when this article caught my eye. Yeah, it’s a real puzzle. At least we have a description of the suspect.

    He looked like this:

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  54. I think I have a lead for the Austrian cops.

    The terrorist organisation has released the second issue of its online English-language propaganda magazine Rumiyah via twitter and blogs. It contains detailed and graphic information about carrying out terror attacks including how to choose victims, how to kill them and when and where to strike. Some of the articles about slaughtering non-believers — referred to as ‘kafir’ or ‘kuffrs’ — are illustrated with images of beheaded men, weapons and a child with a gun.

    …An article in the magazine titled ‘Just Terror Tactics’ advises followers that “choosing a target … is just like hunting prey”.

    …“Alternatively, for one pursuing a prolonged campaign of terror, he may target lone victims. For example, the target could be a drunken kafir on a quiet road returning home from a night out, or the average kafir working his night shift, or someone walking alone in a public park or rural forested area, or someone by himself in an alley close to a nightclub or another place of debauchery, or even someone out for a walk in a quiet neighbourhood. One should consider canals, riversides, and beaches.

    “It may also help to carry a baton or some other kind of concealable blunt object, such as a baseball bat, to strike the victim’s head with, thereby immobilising him before cutting his throat or stabbing him in other lethal areas to finish him off.”

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4259 secs.