Various news stories you don't hear on MSM. Feel free to add news.

[hoyle21]

Well I'm certainly glad that everyone here can agree that right wing religious extremism is bad.

Bingo!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

Come on, are you seriously telling me that Muslim societies are not oppressive? I don’t know much about Indonesia but I would not be surprised if it suffers from the same pathologies as Arab Muslim counties, though perhaps less extreme.
Claiming that Muslim societies are not oppressive basically requires willfully ignoring what is readily apparent.
The surge in rapes in Europe that coincided with a large influx of Muslim migrants is a statistical fact. Anyone with common sense realizes why. But the left in European countries insists on finding alternate explanations that defy common sense. It makes them lose their credibility.

Quite frankly, I really don’t get it. The left is supposedly so committed to equality for women and gays, etc. — yet all that goes out the window when it comes to making excuses for Muslim migrants.

Unless and until the center-left abandons this type of irrationality that it shares with the far-left, right wing movements will continue to gain traction. It’s a no brainer.

I’d personally like to see a return to the type of political equilibrium we had in the Bush-Clinton-Bush era.

All those presidents had flaws, no doubt, but it was a lot better than the current spiral of far right backlash to far left policies, which seems to be inspiring even more extremism on both ends of the spectrum.

Increase in reported rape is the key.

The latest CDC figure is more than 1 in 5 American women have experienced completed or attempted rape in their lifetime. Nearly 1 in 2 have experienced some form of contact sexual violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

why would they keep that quiet, they have no problem reporting everything else on the news

lol. Seriously? If most people know how much the far right Christian evangelicals actually had in common with far right Islamic extremism, how would Halliburton make all its money?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

I probably sit further left than most here but I actually agree with you. I have some close friends who are Muslim and they are truly wonderful people, but also so much of Muslim culture stands for things the left (and really everyone) aught to find abhorrent, especially the beliefs and actions of the religious extremists within the culture. I refuse to defend anyone who believes women have no rights except those extended to them by their father or husband, and that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death.

There’s a large amount of Muslims who do find that abhorrent, but the idea of female ownership is more regional cultural than religious cultural.

The Christian’s, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindu’s who live in those areas all take part in that bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

Ya’ll realize that during Afghanistans most liberal point in time it was still a Muslim country. Women had rights, could vote, could dress how they want, could attend school and university, even under an Islamic state. Then the right wing Taliban took over and look at the results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skud008]

There’s a large amount of Muslims who do find that abhorrent, but the idea of female ownership is more regional cultural than religious cultural.

The Christian’s, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindu’s who live in those areas all take part in that bullshit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I'd say that's fair. And as you said above, far right religious extremists of all types tend to share a lot of stripes.

 

[oldbull]

Increase in reported rape is the key.

The latest CDC figure is more than 1 in 5 American women have experienced completed or attempted rape in their lifetime. Nearly 1 in 2 have experienced some form of contact sexual violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a tremendous surge in sexual violence in Europe that “coincided” with the major influx of migrants from the Middle East around 2014.

“Data show an upward trend in both types of offences over the last decade. Between 2014 and 2024, sexual violence offences jumped by 94% (+124 350 cases) and rape offences by 150% (+58 983).”

EU sexual violence and rape offences up in last 10 years - News articles - Eurostat

DDN-20260429-2

ec.europa.eu

But you seem to be implying these are just “reported” rapes, as if it can be fully explained by women reporting them more often.

That totally defies common sense.

If you are unwilling to see the correlation between the surge of migrants and a 150% surge in rapes, then you are willfully ignoring common sense in order to continue believing in this “rainbows and sunshine” fantasy world where Muslim migrants have no impact on sexual violence, which must all be explained by increased reporting.

Normal people look at statistics like this and understand what is going on, despite these types of rationalizations that amount to: who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

You can persist in telling me why the rape increase is just a huge coincidence with the migrant surge. But writ large, that is why MAGA and Reform and right wing parties have been ascendant.

The statistics align with what women see in their daily lives in Europe, being stalked and harassed by these people on a daily basis. You’re not going to convince them they are imagining that.

The fact that the left even attempts to do so demonstrates why they’re losing credibility.

 

[hoyle21]

Yeah I'd say that's fair. And as you said above, far right religious extremists of all types tend to share a lot of stripes.

We have a growing number of evangelicals arguing to repeal the 19th amendment. The Taliban would be proud to call them friends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

There was a tremendous surge in sexual violence in Europe that “coincided” with the major influx of migrants from the Middle East around 2014.

“Data show an upward trend in both types of offences over the last decade. Between 2014 and 2024, sexual violence offences jumped by 94% (+124 350 cases) and rape offences by 150% (+58 983).”

EU sexual violence and rape offences up in last 10 years - News articles - Eurostat

DDN-20260429-2

ec.europa.eu

But you seem to be implying these are just “reported” rapes, as if it can be fully explained by women reporting them more often.

That totally defies common sense.

If you are unwilling to see the correlation between the surge of migrants and a 150% surge in rapes, then you are willfully ignoring common sense in order to continue believing in this “rainbows and sunshine” fantasy world where Muslim migrants have no impact on sexual violence, which must all be explained by increased reporting.

Normal people look at statistics like this and understand what is going on, despite these types of rationalizations that amount to: who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

You can persist in telling me why the rape increase is just a huge coincidence with the migrant surge. But writ large, that is why MAGA and Reform and right wing parties have been ascendant.

The statistics align with what women see in their daily lives in Europe, being stalked and harassed by these people on a daily basis. You’re not going to convince them they are imagining that.

The fact that the left even attempts to do so demonstrates why they’re losing credibility.

You’re arguing against something I never said. I didn’t claim migrants have zero impact or that reporting explains every additional case. I said your statistic does not prove the causal claim you’re attaching to it.

The 150% figure is an increase in police-recorded rape offenses across the entire EU. The dataset contains no information about the perpetrators’ religion or migration status. Your own report says,” the increase may be connected to greater awareness and reporting, and warns that changes in legislation and police-recording practices limit comparisons.”

There is evidence that some foreign-born groups are overrepresented among sexual-offense suspects in some European countries. That should be acknowledged honestly. But that is not the same as demonstrating that Muslim migrants caused the EU-wide 150% increase.

To establish that, you would need country-by-country offender data, population-adjusted rates, migration timing, and controls for changes in rape laws and reporting practices. Your link provides none of that.

Calling “two things happened during the same decade” common sense does not turn it into proof of causation. It is still a post hoc assumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heckler7]

Ya’ll realize that during Afghanistans most liberal point in time it was still a Muslim country. Women had rights, could vote, could dress how they want, could attend school and university, even under an Islamic state. Then the right wing Taliban took over and look at the results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

not in my lifetime, women arent even allowed to go outside without a man, I dont see how its even comparable

 

[heckler7]

We have a growing number of evangelicals arguing to repeal the 19th amendment. The Taliban would be proud to call them friends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the group that shot teenage girls for going to school, youre trying to compare that to christians? The group that wants you to live in peace and treat others with kindness? youre nuts man

 

[oldbull]

You’re arguing against something I never said. I didn’t claim migrants have zero impact or that reporting explains every additional case. I said your statistic does not prove the causal claim you’re attaching to it.

The 150% figure is an increase in police-recorded rape offenses across the entire EU. The dataset contains no information about the perpetrators’ religion or migration status. Your own report says,” the increase may be connected to greater awareness and reporting, and warns that changes in legislation and police-recording practices limit comparisons.”

There is evidence that some foreign-born groups are overrepresented among sexual-offense suspects in some European countries. That should be acknowledged honestly. But that is not the same as demonstrating that Muslim migrants caused the EU-wide 150% increase.

To establish that, you would need country-by-country offender data, population-adjusted rates, migration timing, and controls for changes in rape laws and reporting practices. Your link provides none of that.

Calling “two things happened during the same decade” common sense does not turn it into proof of causation. It is still a post hoc assumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I wasn’t exactly sure what you were trying to say, so I think my assumption was excusable.

Everything you say is technically correct yet is obviously a type of technocratic way of burying your head in the sand.

Sure, they don’t break it down by religion, but come on — those are all migrants from Muslim countries. Do you think they all just happen to be Zoroastrians or some other obscure middle eastern or North African religion? Come on.

Furthermore, it’s been well documented that migrants from these countries are way overrepresented among people arrested for rape. Just another coincidence, right?

European officials try to explain it away by saying that this is due to “economic dislocation,” as if women are supposed to feel bad for the people raping them.

Also, this argument that women are only reporting these rapes because they’re foreigners seems to imply they are racist or exaggerating or something. What happened to “believe women.”

All that flies out the window when the perpetrator is a male of a racial minority. You can hide behind statistical “correlation is not causation” all you want — that’s your prerogative.

But people in Europe are not buying that, which is why Reform is ascendant in Britain and AfD is ascendant in Germany. I don’t happen to think those bode well for the future of those democracies, but given similar attitudes as yours among European leaders, it really isn’t surprising.

You can probably tell I am an “equal opportunity offender” — just as prone to argue with the right wingers as with you. That’s because I go by what I actually think is happening, rather than filtering my opinions through any political affiliation.

And I happen to believe the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate one…

 

[heckler7]

Well, I wasn’t exactly sure what you were trying to say, so I think my assumption was excusable.

Everything you say is technically correct yet is obviously a type of technocratic way of burying your head in the sand.

Sure, they don’t break it down by religion, but come on — those are all migrants from Muslim countries. Do you think they all just happen to be Zoroastrians or some other obscure middle eastern or North African religion? Come on.

Furthermore, it’s been well documented that migrants from these countries are way overrepresented among people arrested for rape. Just another coincidence, right?

European officials try to explain it away by saying that this is due to “economic dislocation,” as if women are supposed to feel bad for the people raping them.

Also, this argument that women are only reporting these rapes because they’re foreigners seems to imply they are racist or exaggerating or something. What happened to “believe women.”

All that flies out the window when the perpetrator is a male of a racial minority. You can hide behind statistical “correlation is not causation” all you want — that’s your prerogative.

But people in Europe are not buying that, which is why Reform is ascendant in Britain and AfD is ascendant in Germany. I don’t happen to think those bode well for the future of those democracies, but given similar attitudes as yours among European leaders, it really isn’t surprising.

You can probably tell I am an “equal opportunity offender” — just as prone to argue with the right wingers as with you. That’s because I go by what I actually think is happening, rather than filtering my opinions through any political affiliation.

And I happen to believe the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate one…

I have some syrian neighbors they work their asses off for minimum wage, they are christian and hate muslims, that is not white supremacy they came here with that attitube, they didnt learn it from us, just sayn

 

[hoyle21]

the group that shot teenage girls for going to school, youre trying to compare that to christians? The group that wants you to live in peace and treat others with kindness? youre nuts man

I didn’t compare the Taliban to Christians. I compared the Taliban’s belief that women should be denied political rights with the specific Christian nationalists who want to repeal women’s right to vote. The severity is obviously different, but the underlying principle, that men should use religion to control women, is comparable.

And you’ve accidentally made my larger point. You don’t want Christianity judged by its most extreme adherents; you want it judged by Christians who promote peace and kindness. Fair enough. Now apply that same standard to Muslims instead of treating the Taliban as representative of all of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

Well, I wasn’t exactly sure what you were trying to say, so I think my assumption was excusable.

Everything you say is technically correct yet is obviously a type of technocratic way of burying your head in the sand.

Sure, they don’t break it down by religion, but come on — those are all migrants from Muslim countries. Do you think they all just happen to be Zoroastrians or some other obscure middle eastern or North African religion? Come on.

Furthermore, it’s been well documented that migrants from these countries are way overrepresented among people arrested for rape. Just another coincidence, right?

European officials try to explain it away by saying that this is due to “economic dislocation,” as if women are supposed to feel bad for the people raping them.

Also, this argument that women are only reporting these rapes because they’re foreigners seems to imply they are racist or exaggerating or something. What happened to “believe women.”

All that flies out the window when the perpetrator is a male of a racial minority. You can hide behind statistical “correlation is not causation” all you want — that’s your prerogative.

But people in Europe are not buying that, which is why Reform is ascendant in Britain and AfD is ascendant in Germany. I don’t happen to think those bode well for the future of those democracies, but given similar attitudes as yours among European leaders, it really isn’t surprising.

You can probably tell I am an “equal opportunity offender” — just as prone to argue with the right wingers as with you. That’s because I go by what I actually think is happening, rather than filtering my opinions through any political affiliation.

And I happen to believe the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate one…

We’re actually closer than you’re pretending. I already acknowledged that some foreign-born groups are overrepresented among sexual-offense suspects. Migration likely contributed to some portion of sexual violence in some countries. What I rejected was your attempt to use one EU-wide statistic as proof that Muslim migrants caused the entire 150% increase.

I also never said women report rapes because the perpetrators are foreigners. Increased reporting means women have become more likely to report sexual violence generally because of greater awareness, support and changes in the law. That explanation came directly from your Eurostat source.

Likewise, explaining how age, poverty or economic dislocation affects crime is not asking victims to sympathize with rapists. Explanation is not exoneration. “Believe women” means taking allegations seriously; it doesn’t mean inferring a perpetrator’s religion from aggregate statistics or abandoning basic standards of evidence.

You’re combining several different things: nationality as a substitute for religion, arrests as a substitute for guilt, overrepresentation among certain groups as proof of an EU-wide trend, and political popularity as proof that the explanation is correct. None automatically establishes the next.

Occam’s razor doesn’t mean choosing the simplest story that confirms what you already believe. It means choosing the simplest explanation that actually accounts for the evidence and your source doesn’t even identify the offenders.

So my position is straightforward: yes, migration may have contributed; yes, overrepresentation among some migrant groups should be confronted honestly; no, your link does not demonstrate that Muslim migrants caused the EU-wide 150% increase. Acknowledging the first two does not require pretending the third has been proven.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

And again even in America according the CDC, only about one-quarter to one-third of sexual violence are reported to police.

In 2024, the Justice Department estimated that 23.6% of rape/sexual-assault victimizations were reported.
Bureau of Justice Statistics⁠
A multi-year 2015–2019 estimate was approximately 31%.

So roughly 69–76% never reach police. Also, the CDC figures are different: more than 1 in 5 women experience completed or attempted rape, while nearly half experience the broader category of contact sexual violence. CDC⁠

That means police recorded statistics capture only a fraction of actual sexual violence; even a modest change in reporting behavior can produce a substantial change in recorded offenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heckler7]

I didn’t compare the Taliban to Christians. I compared the Taliban’s belief that women should be denied political rights with the specific Christian nationalists who want to repeal women’s right to vote. The severity is obviously different, but the underlying principle, that men should use religion to control women, is comparable.

And you’ve accidentally made my larger point. You don’t want Christianity judged by its most extreme adherents; you want it judged by Christians who promote peace and kindness. Fair enough. Now apply that same standard to Muslims instead of treating the Taliban as representative of all of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont hate muslims, and I respect how they fight us to protect their country from US invaders. This country was founded on Christianity, all the free programs and infrastructure we have, all the popeyes, KFC and churches chicken was brought to you by christianity and capitolism. you wont find that in Afghanistan. And they would kill you for being gay, have you ever heard me and Raj joke about it

 

[oldbull]

We’re actually closer than you’re pretending. I already acknowledged that some foreign-born groups are overrepresented among sexual-offense suspects. Migration likely contributed to some portion of sexual violence in some countries. What I rejected was your attempt to use one EU-wide statistic as proof that Muslim migrants caused the entire 150% increase.

I also never said women report rapes because the perpetrators are foreigners. Increased reporting means women have become more likely to report sexual violence generally because of greater awareness, support and changes in the law. That explanation came directly from your Eurostat source.

Likewise, explaining how age, poverty or economic dislocation affects crime is not asking victims to sympathize with rapists. Explanation is not exoneration. “Believe women” means taking allegations seriously; it doesn’t mean inferring a perpetrator’s religion from aggregate statistics or abandoning basic standards of evidence.

You’re combining several different things: nationality as a substitute for religion, arrests as a substitute for guilt, overrepresentation among certain groups as proof of an EU-wide trend, and political popularity as proof that the explanation is correct. None automatically establishes the next.

Occam’s razor doesn’t mean choosing the simplest story that confirms what you already believe. It means choosing the simplest explanation that actually accounts for the evidence and your source doesn’t even identify the offenders.

So my position is straightforward: yes, migration may have contributed; yes, overrepresentation among some migrant groups should be confronted honestly; no, your link does not demonstrate that Muslim migrants caused the EU-wide 150% increase. Acknowledging the first two does not require pretending the third has been proven.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough, as long as you are not denying it is a problem. But still, the idea that suddenly women just became way more likely to start reporting rapes in 2014 — right when there was a surge of migrants beginning — seems ridiculous to me. Yes, correlation is not causation, etc. But it is pretty obvious what is going on.

 

[hoyle21]

I dont hate muslims, and I respect how they fight us to protect their country from US invaders. This country was founded on Christianity, all the free programs and infrastructure we have, all the popeyes, KFC and churches chicken was brought to you by christianity and capitolism. you wont find that in Afghanistan. And they would kill you for being gay, have you ever heard me and Raj joke about it

You’re doing exactly what I described, treating Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as representative of Muslims generally. There are nearly two billion Muslims spread across dozens of very different countries. Most aren’t Afghan, or even Middle Eastern. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity.

Christianity certainly influenced American culture, but the federal government was not constitutionally established as Christian. Article VI prohibits religious tests for public office⁠, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing or favoring a religion⁠. Those protections belong equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews and nonbelievers.

Our infrastructure and social programs were created by governments and funded by taxpayers of every faith. Popeyes and KFC were created by corporations. Capitalism isn’t Christianity, and fried chicken isn’t a theological achievement.

The Taliban’s treatment of gay people is reprehensible. That still doesn’t make every Muslim responsible for Taliban rule, any more than the worst Christian nationalist speaks for you.

I never claimed America and Afghanistan were equally developed or that Christianity and the Taliban were equivalent. I said religious extremists in both faiths sometimes use religion to justify controlling women, and that neither religion should be judged entirely by its extremists. Nothing about chicken restaurants answers that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hoyle21]

Fair enough, as long as you are not denying it is a problem. But still, the idea that suddenly women just became way more likely to start reporting rapes in 2014 — right when there was a surge of migrants beginning — seems ridiculous to me. Yes, correlation is not causation, etc. But it is pretty obvious what is going on.

That assumes women suddenly became more likely to report rape in 2014, but that isn’t what the data say. 2014 is simply the starting year Eurostat selected for its ten-year comparison. Eurostat describes a continuous upward trend in police recorded offences between 2014 and 2024, not a sudden jump in 2014 coinciding with migration.

And yes, substantial cultural and legal changes occurred during that decade. The Istanbul Convention entered into force in 2014, the EU Victims’ Rights Directive became applicable in 2015, #MeToo dramatically increased awareness beginning in 2017, and several European countries subsequently broadened their legal definitions of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden provides a particularly clear example. After its consent-based rape law took effect in 2018, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention found that the subsequent increase in reported rapes was entirely composed of cases newly covered by the expanded law, while reports of traditionally defined violent rape were actually slightly lower than in 2016. Finland adopted a consent-based law in 2023, and the Netherlands broadened its law in 2024.

None of that establishes that migration caused no additional offenses. I’ve already acknowledged that it probably contributed to some portion in some countries. But it demonstrates why you cannot take a decade long increase in police recorded offences and attribute the entire 150% to Muslim migrants. The legal definition, reporting behavior and recording system all changed during the period being measured which, again, your own Eurostat source explicitly warns about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[heckler7]

And again even in America according the CDC, only about one-quarter to one-third of sexual violence are reported to police.

In 2024, the Justice Department estimated that 23.6% of rape/sexual-assault victimizations were reported.
Bureau of Justice Statistics⁠
A multi-year 2015–2019 estimate was approximately 31%.

So roughly 69–76% never reach police. Also, the CDC figures are different: more than 1 in 5 women experience completed or attempted rape, while nearly half experience the broader category of contact sexual violence. CDC⁠

That means police recorded statistics capture only a fraction of actual sexual violence; even a modest change in reporting behavior can produce a substantial change in recorded offenses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

these arguments miss the main point and are as annoying as traffic circles.
Im guessing what you think is Rep conservatives think this crime didnt exist till illegal immigrants came here.
Its kinda an onion but its several thoughts that make one logical solution.

We acknowledge that all this crime exists and is never going to stop, the goal is to get it as close to zero as possible. in 1999 there was 89167 rapes in USA, that number very slowly climbed as population increased in 2018 there was around 139k rapes, in 2020 there was 440K rapes. you dont need a degree to see why that happened. But let me tell you how we see it.
The reason there must be a slow methodical legal immigration system is the same reason every restauran, hotel, sport stadium has a capacity, that is what the place was built for when you exceed the limits the whole system suffers, you dont have enough seats and some people have a need to sit do you displace the person that paid for their seat, the line for the bathroom is longer the food runs out the bars pull the taps in the 4th inning instead of the 9th.
Now apply that to a city, these people arent millionares they are poor lower working class, is there gonna be jobs for everyone when they show up maybe for a couple hundred but millions, we cant support that. We dont have the shelters set up, it has to be made last minute in a snow storm they shut down schools and put up immigrants in gymnasiums. Democrats are as thoughtful with immigration as Trump is with war.
Now we have these programs that are maxed and cant support these new people, meanwhile we already had a class of people waiting for these benefits that got pushed to the back of the line.
Its like living in a city that experiences fires at the end of every summer and they decide to cut the fire department budget while we pay the canadians millions to station 4 scooper planes here for a few months. We could have bought our own planes and had paid a staff to support them year round for less. Or maybe build more reserviors so we dont run out of water again, or replace broken hydrants etc, nope we voted to ban tires that the priority. And I garantee the tire industry paid someone to ban tires so they can charge more for these energy efficient tires

 

[heckler7]

You’re doing exactly what I described, treating Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as representative of Muslims generally. There are nearly two billion Muslims spread across dozens of very different countries. Most aren’t Afghan, or even Middle Eastern. Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity.

Christianity certainly influenced American culture, but the federal government was not constitutionally established as Christian. Article VI prohibits religious tests for public office⁠, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing or favoring a religion⁠. Those protections belong equally to Christians, Muslims, Jews and nonbelievers.

Our infrastructure and social programs were created by governments and funded by taxpayers of every faith. Popeyes and KFC were created by corporations. Capitalism isn’t Christianity, and fried chicken isn’t a theological achievement.

The Taliban’s treatment of gay people is reprehensible. That still doesn’t make every Muslim responsible for Taliban rule, any more than the worst Christian nationalist speaks for you.

I never claimed America and Afghanistan were equally developed or that Christianity and the Taliban were equivalent. I said religious extremists in both faiths sometimes use religion to justify controlling women, and that neither religion should be judged entirely by its extremists. Nothing about chicken restaurants answers that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ease up there, YOU brought up Taliban, so I replied to that specific statement

 

[E.J.D]

ease up there, YOU brought up Taliban, so I replied to that specific statement

Brother Heckler7, your dealing with the smartest guy in the room .. he's never wrong to protect his fragile ego and will do anything to protect it .. your wrong he's right... Remember the Esptein court documents that mentioned Trump multiple times..... Yeah that's straight incorrect nonsense but he kept up they did and he read it... Lies lies lies... I read it to find that information but would have had better luck finding Narnia..... I believe you did look as well... So countuine on and everyone will get popcorn

 

[oldbull]

That assumes women suddenly became more likely to report rape in 2014, but that isn’t what the data say. 2014 is simply the starting year Eurostat selected for its ten-year comparison. Eurostat describes a continuous upward trend in police recorded offences between 2014 and 2024, not a sudden jump in 2014 coinciding with migration.

And yes, substantial cultural and legal changes occurred during that decade. The Istanbul Convention entered into force in 2014, the EU Victims’ Rights Directive became applicable in 2015, #MeToo dramatically increased awareness beginning in 2017, and several European countries subsequently broadened their legal definitions of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden provides a particularly clear example. After its consent-based rape law took effect in 2018, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention found that the subsequent increase in reported rapes was entirely composed of cases newly covered by the expanded law, while reports of traditionally defined violent rape were actually slightly lower than in 2016. Finland adopted a consent-based law in 2023, and the Netherlands broadened its law in 2024.

None of that establishes that migration caused no additional offenses. I’ve already acknowledged that it probably contributed to some portion in some countries. But it demonstrates why you cannot take a decade long increase in police recorded offences and attribute the entire 150% to Muslim migrants. The legal definition, reporting behavior and recording system all changed during the period being measured which, again, your own Eurostat source explicitly warns about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok fine, let’s say it’s all due to economic dislocation and has nothing to do with religion and there were other factors involved.

To me, it still seems like a terrible idea to import millions of young men with limited economic opportunity and fucked up ideas about women. Even if all the raping has nothing to do with religion, it is still happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%2527s_Eve_sexual_assaults

On New year’s a decade ago, there were more than 1,000 women sexually assaulted in Europe by migrants from North Africa and the Middle East. That is beyond dispute. Clearly there is a problem here as you acknowledge — to what end are we importing these people to the West?

Whether it’s religion or culture or whatever else, large numbers of them clearly don’t know how to behave in Western societies.

The notion that people are basically expected to tolerate this and accept their government’s policy to allow this influx is nonsensical. Of course there will be a backlash. I’m actually surprised it isn’t fiercer.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is, because you’re being sort of elliptical, but the implication seems to be the problem isn’t as bad as I am making out.

I know people who live in Europe and I can tell you the rapes are just the tip of the iceberg. Women are routinely harassed, groped, stalked and generally accosted by men who are obviously migrants from these regions.

What is the reason they should put up with this? Your attitude seems similar to European leaders, which is to minimize the issue. But for people who are living in fear, that is not going to cut it.

The more shit like this is minimized and deflected and ignored, the more people like Trump or Farage or worse will come into power in Europe.

And I can’t say I blame people for voting for them, if mainstream politicians basically turn their back on the problem.

Isn’t it the point of democracy for government to be responsive to the people?

Based on polls you can easily look up yourself, the European populace is increasingly hostile to this mass influx of migrants.

If mainstream left politicians just sort of tsk at this and imply people are just being racist or intolerant, they will get voted out and replaced with leaders who are responsive.

And those leaders may have a lot of other ideas that are damaging to democracy.

Again, I am not sure exactly what your argument is.

You seem to be disputing my initial point, in which I used Muslims as a shorthand for this group of people from North African and the Middle East who are clearly associated with sexual violence.

Whether it’s a religious thing or not (I still say that has a lot to do with it, but whatever) the people of Europe are allowed to object to migration policies they see as dangerous destructive.

Do you agree or do you think like Merkel that these policies should just be shoved down their throats anyway?

 

[hoyle21]

Ok fine, let’s say it’s all due to economic dislocation and has nothing to do with religion and there were other factors involved.

To me, it still seems like a terrible idea to import millions of young men with limited economic opportunity and fucked up ideas about women. Even if all the raping has nothing to do with religion, it is still happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%2527s_Eve_sexual_assaults

On New year’s a decade ago, there were more than 1,000 women sexually assaulted in Europe by migrants from North Africa and the Middle East. That is beyond dispute. Clearly there is a problem here as you acknowledge — to what end are we importing these people to the West?

Whether it’s religion or culture or whatever else, large numbers of them clearly don’t know how to behave in Western societies.

The notion that people are basically expected to tolerate this and accept their government’s policy to allow this influx is nonsensical. Of course there will be a backlash. I’m actually surprised it isn’t fiercer.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is, because you’re being sort of elliptical, but the implication seems to be the problem isn’t as bad as I am making out.

I know people who live in Europe and I can tell you the rapes are just the tip of the iceberg. Women are routinely harassed, groped, stalked and generally accosted by men who are obviously migrants from these regions.

What is the reason they should put up with this? Your attitude seems similar to European leaders, which is to minimize the issue. But for people who are living in fear, that is not going to cut it.

The more shit like this is minimized and deflected and ignored, the more people like Trump or Farage or worse will come into power in Europe.

And I can’t say I blame people for voting for them, if mainstream politicians basically turn their back on the problem.

Isn’t it the point of democracy for government to be responsive to the people?

Based on polls you can easily look up yourself, the European populace is increasingly hostile to this mass influx of migrants.

If mainstream left politicians just sort of tsk at this and imply people are just being racist or intolerant, they will get voted out and replaced with leaders who are responsive.

And those leaders may have a lot of other ideas that are damaging to democracy.

Again, I am not sure exactly what your argument is.

You seem to be disputing my initial point, in which I used Muslims as a shorthand for this group of people from North African and the Middle East who are clearly associated with sexual violence.

Whether it’s a religious thing or not (I still say that has a lot to do with it, but whatever) the people of Europe are allowed to object to migration policies they see as dangerous destructive.

Do you agree or do you think like Merkel that these policies should just be shoved down their throats anyway?

Now that you have stated your argument plainly, I can answer it plainly.

Yes, Europeans have every right to oppose immigration policies they consider unsafe or unsustainable. I do not believe unlimited migration should be forced on an unwilling population, and I support screening, integration requirements, enforcement of local laws and deportation of noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.

I also acknowledge what the evidence shows. A major Swedish government study found that foreign-born residents were 3.2 times as likely as native-background Swedes to be registered as rape suspects. After adjusting for age, sex, income, education and municipality, the difference fell to 2.2 times but did not disappear. That is a real disparity, and pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing.

However, the same study found that approximately half of all registered sexual offenses were linked to suspects born in Sweden to two native-born parents. It also found enormous differences among immigrant groups, with some groups overrepresented and others underrepresented. Therefore, “Muslims” is not an honest statistical shorthand for immigrants, North Africans, asylum seekers or sexual offenders. Those categories are not interchangeable.

That is my actual point. You spotlight sexual violence when a foreign perpetrator supports your immigration argument, while largely ignoring the enormous amount committed by native-born men. Cologne was real and horrific, but one infamous event does not establish that sexual violence is primarily a Muslim import. Europe had rapists, domestic abusers, child predators and men who harassed women long before 2015.

The available evidence supports saying that certain immigrant groups present an elevated risk that governments must address. It does not support collectively associating millions of Muslims with sexual violence or pretending native offenders are merely incidental.

So no, my choices are not “agree with you completely” or “shove Merkel’s policies down people’s throats.” I can oppose reckless immigration policy, demand consequences for offenders and still reject collective blame and selective outrage. Those positions are entirely consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldbull]

Now that you have stated your argument plainly, I can answer it plainly.

Yes, Europeans have every right to oppose immigration policies they consider unsafe or unsustainable. I do not believe unlimited migration should be forced on an unwilling population, and I support screening, integration requirements, enforcement of local laws and deportation of noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.

I also acknowledge what the evidence shows. A major Swedish government study found that foreign-born residents were 3.2 times as likely as native-background Swedes to be registered as rape suspects. After adjusting for age, sex, income, education and municipality, the difference fell to 2.2 times but did not disappear. That is a real disparity, and pretending otherwise accomplishes nothing.

However, the same study found that approximately half of all registered sexual offenses were linked to suspects born in Sweden to two native-born parents. It also found enormous differences among immigrant groups, with some groups overrepresented and others underrepresented. Therefore, “Muslims” is not an honest statistical shorthand for immigrants, North Africans, asylum seekers or sexual offenders. Those categories are not interchangeable.

That is my actual point. You spotlight sexual violence when a foreign perpetrator supports your immigration argument, while largely ignoring the enormous amount committed by native-born men. Cologne was real and horrific, but one infamous event does not establish that sexual violence is primarily a Muslim import. Europe had rapists, domestic abusers, child predators and men who harassed women long before 2015.

The available evidence supports saying that certain immigrant groups present an elevated risk that governments must address. It does not support collectively associating millions of Muslims with sexual violence or pretending native offenders are merely incidental.

So no, my choices are not “agree with you completely” or “shove Merkel’s policies down people’s throats.” I can oppose reckless immigration policy, demand consequences for offenders and still reject collective blame and selective outrage. Those positions are entirely consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, that is a reasonable point of view. I don’t necessarily find fault with what you say, but my reaction or proposed solution is simply more aggressive, in that I believe they should be kept out of Europe and the USA.

Regarding the link between religion and this type of pathological behavior, I admit there is no study that demonstrably proves Muslims are more prone to sexual violence. And of course native populations engage in such antisocial behavior as well, nobody can dispute that.

But just using our God-given skills of observation and ability to detect patterns, I believe it is pretty obvious there is a link between Islam and all kinds of pathological behavior.

The high-profile terrorist attacks like 9/11 are a case in point. This is a religion that is strongly associated with a lack of respect for human life.

And yes, of course there are native born terrorists of both the right wing and left wing varieties. That is a serious problem that points to pathologies in our own society.

But that doesn’t change the fact that when 9/11 happened, I remember vividly the footage of people in a variety of Muslim countries celebrating in the streets. That gets swiped under the carpet now, but at the time it was one of the most astonishing aspects of 9/11’s aftermath. These are societies that are fundamentally hostile to ours.

You could of course argue we have oppressed the Muslim world going back to the Crusades. But that is a chicken and then egg situation. Muslims have attacked us and we have attacked them going back a thousand years. Finger pointing as to who “started it” is pointless. If anything, this longstanding antipathy proves my point that our societies are incompatible.

Then you look at the widespread antisemitism that is the norm across the Muslim world. Easily found polls from respected institutions like Pew bear this out.

Yes, of course we have domestic antisemitism, and yes, it is on the rise. A lot of the comments on this forum provide ample proof. But still, antisemitism is far more accepted and prevalent in the Muslim world than in the modern West.

The oppression of women, gays, religious minority is also rampant in the Muslim world. Sure there may be some limited exceptions, but by large, such oppression is inextricable from the religion as it’s widely practiced today.

Yes there are fundamentalist Christians who would emulate this behavior, but they are not the dominant force in our society. In the Muslim world, the widespread oppression of everyone but Muslim men is considered a normal and healthy aspect of their society.

I don’t believe all these pathologies can be separated from the religion itself. Some of these — like the rape of young boys — are particular to specific Muslim cultures, as in Afghanistan. But the nature of the religion amplifies these pathologies.

The extremely prudish attitudes toward normal sexual relations with women, combined with the lack of active female participation in public life, serves to drive Muslim men into sexual behavior we consider aberrant, be it rape of young boys or women who don’t wear burkas.

I would acknowledge the same types of attitudes have led to pedophilia in the Catholic Church. Of course our own societies aren’t devoid of such problems.

But I’d argue they never reach the level of broad social acceptance as they do in Muslim societies. Catholic priests after all tried to hide their crimes, while it’s well known that warlords in Afghanistan openly have kept underage male sex slaves chained to their beds.

Other examples are legion — the refusal to educate women or even let them drive, the honor killings of women who don’t abide by Muslim social norms, the accepted abuse of daughters and wives. The widespread intolerance of gays, religious minorities, and Muslims who leave the religion.

Sure, there are extremists in Christian society who are comparable. But the scale of the problem in Islam is exponentially greater.

Even in the USA, per that documentary I watched about the honor killing, the treatment of women as lesser being is broadly tolerated within Muslim societies.

The fact there are decent hardworking Muslims who love their families doesn’t negate all these issues. There were plenty of Nazis who were kind to their families and animals and didn’t relish killing Jews. That doesn’t negate the evil of the Nazi doctrine.

To a certain extent, I simply think it is not unfair to judge a religion by the outcomes in the societies it influences.

And I apply that rule to Catholicism and Christianity as well. The problems in our society are a reflection to deficiencies in our religion and how we practice it. But again, I would argue that they are far less destructive and malevolent than the problems deriving from Islam.

My ultimate point is we have to remain clear-eyed that this is a religion and doctrine that is antithetical to Western values. It doesn’t mean we have to nuke all the Muslims or eradicate the ones living here. But we can’t hide our heads in the sand and pretend it is a benevolent religion.

 

[hoyle21]

Ok, that is a reasonable point of view. I don’t necessarily find fault with what you say, but my reaction or proposed solution is simply more aggressive, in that I believe they should be kept out of Europe and the USA.

Regarding the link between religion and this type of pathological behavior, I admit there is no study that demonstrably proves Muslims are more prone to sexual violence. And of course native populations engage in such antisocial behavior as well, nobody can dispute that.

But just using our God-given skills of observation and ability to detect patterns, I believe it is pretty obvious there is a link between Islam and all kinds of pathological behavior.

The high-profile terrorist attacks like 9/11 are a case in point. This is a religion that is strongly associated with a lack of respect for human life.

And yes, of course there are native born terrorists of both the right wing and left wing varieties. That is a serious problem that points to pathologies in our own society.

But that doesn’t change the fact that when 9/11 happened, I remember vividly the footage of people in a variety of Muslim countries celebrating in the streets. That gets swiped under the carpet now, but at the time it was one of the most astonishing aspects of 9/11’s aftermath. These are societies that are fundamentally hostile to ours.

You could of course argue we have oppressed the Muslim world going back to the Crusades. But that is a chicken and then egg situation. Muslims have attacked us and we have attacked them going back a thousand years. Finger pointing as to who “started it” is pointless. If anything, this longstanding antipathy proves my point that our societies are incompatible.

Then you look at the widespread antisemitism that is the norm across the Muslim world. Easily found polls from respected institutions like Pew bear this out.

Yes, of course we have domestic antisemitism, and yes, it is on the rise. A lot of the comments on this forum provide ample proof. But still, antisemitism is far more accepted and prevalent in the Muslim world than in the modern West.

The oppression of women, gays, religious minority is also rampant in the Muslim world. Sure there may be some limited exceptions, but by large, such oppression is inextricable from the religion as it’s widely practiced today.

Yes there are fundamentalist Christians who would emulate this behavior, but they are not the dominant force in our society. In the Muslim world, the widespread oppression of everyone but Muslim men is considered a normal and healthy aspect of their society.

I don’t believe all these pathologies can be separated from the religion itself. Some of these — like the rape of young boys — are particular to specific Muslim cultures, as in Afghanistan. But the nature of the religion amplifies these pathologies.

The extremely prudish attitudes toward normal sexual relations with women, combined with the lack of active female participation in public life, serves to drive Muslim men into sexual behavior we consider aberrant, be it rape of young boys or women who don’t wear burkas.

I would acknowledge the same types of attitudes have led to pedophilia in the Catholic Church. Of course our own societies aren’t devoid of such problems.

But I’d argue they never reach the level of broad social acceptance as they do in Muslim societies. Catholic priests after all tried to hide their crimes, while it’s well known that warlords in Afghanistan openly have kept underage male sex slaves chained to their beds.

Other examples are legion — the refusal to educate women or even let them drive, the honor killings of women who don’t abide by Muslim social norms, the accepted abuse of daughters and wives. The widespread intolerance of gays, religious minorities, and Muslims who leave the religion.

Sure, there are extremists in Christian society who are comparable. But the scale of the problem in Islam is exponentially greater.

Even in the USA, per that documentary I watched about the honor killing, the treatment of women as lesser being is broadly tolerated within Muslim societies.

The fact there are decent hardworking Muslims who love their families doesn’t negate all these issues. There were plenty of Nazis who were kind to their families and animals and didn’t relish killing Jews. That doesn’t negate the evil of the Nazi doctrine.

To a certain extent, I simply think it is not unfair to judge a religion by the outcomes in the societies it influences.

And I apply that rule to Catholicism and Christianity as well. The problems in our society are a reflection to deficiencies in our religion and how we practice it. But again, I would argue that they are far less destructive and malevolent than the problems deriving from Islam.

My ultimate point is we have to remain clear-eyed that this is a religion and doctrine that is antithetical to Western values. It doesn’t mean we have to nuke all the Muslims or eradicate the ones living here. But we can’t hide our heads in the sand and pretend it is a benevolent religion.

I still think you’re taking traits associated largely with particular geographic cultures, political systems and levels of development and attributing them wholesale to Islam. According to Pew’s latest figures, 59% of the world’s Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region, not the Middle East or North Africa, and Muslim societies differ enormously in their laws, customs and social outcomes. If Islam itself were the primary cause, we should see substantially similar outcomes wherever Muslims live. We don’t. Conversely, Christians living in the Middle East and North Africa often share many of the same patriarchal and socially conservative attitudes as their Muslim neighbors. That strongly suggests geography, culture, government and history are doing far more explanatory work than you acknowledge.

Citing Afghanistan’s practice of abusing boys and then extending that example to nearly two billion Muslims is especially weak reasoning. Even you acknowledge that the practice belongs to a particular culture, merely asserting that Islam “amplifies” it does not demonstrate that it does. Likewise, footage of some people celebrating 9/11 cannot establish what entire Muslim populations believed, much less prove that Islam inherently lacks respect for human life. That is anecdotal selection, not comparative evidence.

As for antisemitism, I agree that it is real and increasing and should be condemned unequivocally. But anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not automatically synonymous. Criticizing Zionism, Israel’s government or its treatment of Palestinians is not inherently hostility toward Jewish people. It becomes antisemitic when it targets Jews as Jews, assigns collective guilt to Jewish people, uses anti-Jewish stereotypes or denies Jews rights afforded to everyone else. Even the IHRA definition explicitly says that criticism of Israel comparable to criticism directed at any other country is not antisemitic. Collapsing every objection to Zionism into antisemitism makes it harder,not easier, to identify and confront actual antisemitism.

You can criticize particular Islamic teachings and confront genuine problems within Muslim societies without turning Islam into one uniform civilization or treating every Muslim as an adherent of an inherently evil doctrine. Your argument repeatedly moves from specific countries, extremist movements and anecdotes to universal conclusions about an extraordinarily diverse population. The evidence simply does not justify that leap.

Islam is not immune from criticism. I will criticize illiberal Islamic doctrines as readily as I criticize illiberal Christian ones. What I won’t do is attribute every pathology found in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or parts of North Africa to every Muslim and then call that pattern recognition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldbull]

I still think you’re taking traits associated largely with particular geographic cultures, political systems and levels of development and attributing them wholesale to Islam. According to Pew’s latest figures, 59% of the world’s Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region, not the Middle East or North Africa, and Muslim societies differ enormously in their laws, customs and social outcomes. If Islam itself were the primary cause, we should see substantially similar outcomes wherever Muslims live. We don’t. Conversely, Christians living in the Middle East and North Africa often share many of the same patriarchal and socially conservative attitudes as their Muslim neighbors. That strongly suggests geography, culture, government and history are doing far more explanatory work than you acknowledge.

Citing Afghanistan’s practice of abusing boys and then extending that example to nearly two billion Muslims is especially weak reasoning. Even you acknowledge that the practice belongs to a particular culture, merely asserting that Islam “amplifies” it does not demonstrate that it does. Likewise, footage of some people celebrating 9/11 cannot establish what entire Muslim populations believed, much less prove that Islam inherently lacks respect for human life. That is anecdotal selection, not comparative evidence.

As for antisemitism, I agree that it is real and increasing and should be condemned unequivocally. But anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not automatically synonymous. Criticizing Zionism, Israel’s government or its treatment of Palestinians is not inherently hostility toward Jewish people. It becomes antisemitic when it targets Jews as Jews, assigns collective guilt to Jewish people, uses anti-Jewish stereotypes or denies Jews rights afforded to everyone else. Even the IHRA definition explicitly says that criticism of Israel comparable to criticism directed at any other country is not antisemitic. Collapsing every objection to Zionism into antisemitism makes it harder,not easier, to identify and confront actual antisemitism.

You can criticize particular Islamic teachings and confront genuine problems within Muslim societies without turning Islam into one uniform civilization or treating every Muslim as an adherent of an inherently evil doctrine. Your argument repeatedly moves from specific countries, extremist movements and anecdotes to universal conclusions about an extraordinarily diverse population. The evidence simply does not justify that leap.

Islam is not immune from criticism. I will criticize illiberal Islamic doctrines as readily as I criticize illiberal Christian ones. What I won’t do is attribute every pathology found in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or parts of North Africa to every Muslim and then call that pattern recognition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d say your approach is reasonable— but probably too reasonable. I could very easily envision native Americans sitting around the peace pipe, making similar arguments about the early colonists:
“Just because some of them are violent and diseased doesn’t mean we should paint them with a broad brush… Europeans are not a monolith — they come from dozens of different countries and vary widely in their religious practices… You can’t generalize an entire culture from a few bad eggs…”

All reasonable points, but we know how that turned out for the Indians…

I suppose my frame of reference is just different. I don’t see the advantage of allowing an influx of Muslims to the west. My depiction of them may be overly broad and even unfair, but that doesn’t change the cost-benefit analysis…

I read somewhere that people who naturally react more easily with revulsion are more prone to become conservative, while those in which that reaction is muted tend to be liberal. It makes a lot of sense.

I’m not entirely prone to irrational misanthropy, though — I don’t think the Hispanic migration into USA is a uniform negative, as many on this forum seem to. Sure, the influx has caused some problems, and I don’t support open borders. But on the balance, Hispanics are Catholic and compatible with our culture.

Most of the farmers I know who have Hispanic workers are fond of them and those who live in my area fit in well to the broader culture. My expectation is they will fully assimilate, intermarry, and become much like the Irish or Polish are today…

 

[Skud008]

I’d say your approach is reasonable— but probably too reasonable. I could very easily envision native Americans sitting around the peace pipe, making similar arguments about the early colonists:
“Just because some of them are violent and diseased doesn’t mean we should paint them with a broad brush… Europeans are not a monolith — they come from dozens of different countries and vary widely in their religious practices… You can’t generalize an entire culture from a few bad eggs…”

All reasonable points, but we know how that turned out for the Indians…

I suppose my frame of reference is just different. I don’t see the advantage of allowing an influx of Muslims to the west. My depiction of them may be overly broad and even unfair, but that doesn’t change the cost-benefit analysis…

I read somewhere that people who naturally react more easily with revulsion are more prone to become conservative, while those in which that reaction is muted tend to be liberal. It makes a lot of sense.

I’m not entirely prone to irrational misanthropy, though — I don’t think the Hispanic migration into USA is a uniform negative, as many on this forum seem to. Sure, the influx has caused some problems, and I don’t support open borders. But on the balance, Hispanics are Catholic and compatible with our culture.

Most of the farmers I know who have Hispanic workers are fond of them and those who live in my area fit in well to the broader culture. My expectation is they will fully assimilate, intermarry, and become much like the Irish or Polish are today…

America is better at assimilating immigrants of all kinds than any other country on Earth.

The saying goes, you can move to Scotland but you can never become a Scotsman, and you can move to France but you can never become a Frenchman. But almost anyone can move to America and become an American, and the vast majority of them do. Because being American doesn't carry with it any genetic markers or even really any shared history. We're a country of laws, not of men, and it's one of the things that makes America the economic powerhouse of the world.

Immigrants in America don't worry so much about whether their children will be accepted at school and make friends, they about whether their children will understand and carry on the culture they came from, they worry if their grandchildren will even speak their language or learn how to cook their food.

 

[BackShot]

"You can criticize particular Islamic teachings and confront genuine problems within Muslim societies without turning Islam into one uniform civilization or treating every Muslim as an adherent of an inherently evil doctrine."

If you read the Quran, and understand the hadiths, you will quickly learn that Islam IS indeed 1 uniform "civilization" and/or form of government.
Quran 9:29 fight those who do not believe in Allah until they pay the jizya (tax) and feel subdued.
If you ask any Muslim if they are a good Muslim, and believe every word of the quran they will tell you yes. PERIOD. None will say "yes the quran is the true word of god but only these parts" or "this/that part doesn't apply in modern times, its different now"

The ultimate goal is clear, 1 religion, 1 god, no exception.