Todays lesson for plumpie, waprped Dud and poor ab ass

Asylum seekers from Muslim-majority countries are being offered voluntary classes in Norway aimed at teaching them about what constitutes sexual violence in the Scandinavian nation in order to fight what many consider to be an epidemic of sexual assault.

According to a new report from The New York Times, asylum centers in Norway have been mandated since 2013 to offer the courses to participants — largely young men from African and Arab nations — in order to teach them to “at least know the difference between right and wrong” when it comes to interacting with women.

As Per Isdal, a clinical psychologist involved in the program, told The Times, many of the asylum seekers “come from cultures that are not gender equal and where women are the property of men.”

“We have to help them adapt to their new culture,” Isdal added.

Course material aims at teaching participants that women in Norway have more freedoms than in their home countries. One course manual informs asylum seekers that “to force someone into sex is not permitted in Norway, even when you are married to that person.”

Norway’s first program started after a string of rapes between 2009 and 2011 in Stavanger, a city that sits at the center of the oil industry and attracts many migrant workers.

“People from some parts of the world have never seen a girl in a miniskirt, only in a burqa,” Stavanger’s former police chief, Henry Ove Berg, told The Times.

Of the 20 rape convictions handed down in the city, only three native Norwegians were convicted. The rest were immigrants, The Times reported.

A former propaganda ‘mastermind’ for Islamic State says the terrorist group has plans for a “series of coordinated attacks across European cities” to replicate the bloody Paris attacks on other streets.

The plan for the coordinated terror attacks was told to authorities by a former Islamic State jihadi identified only as Harry S, reports The Express. He fled the terror group’s territory and is now being questioned by intelligence officers in Germany after having been charged with membership of a terror group — a conviction for which would result in a lengthy prison sentence.

He claims senior Islamic State commanders asked him and other fighters to “bring jihad back to their homeland”. The coordinated terror attacks across Europe would be the result. He explained:

“They want something that happens everywhere at the same time.

“All you need is to take a big knife, and go down to the streets and slaughter every infidel you encounter.”

The German jihadist — one of 700 according to estimates from Germany’s (70% of muslims entering Germany for instance are male and of fighting age) domestic intelligence agency   -— used to lead the Islamic State’s mass executions and weekly ideological training sessions in its nominal capital, Raqqa.

Earlier in the year Harry S featured in a video alongside the Islamic State flag. The film went on to show other German-speaking terrorists calling on supporters across the world to kill “infidels” and ended with two prisoners being shot dead.

After three months of beheadings and other executions Harry S claims he could no longer stand the brutality and escaped Syria for Germany.

Security services are reportedly concerned that the ongoing influx of migrants from the Middle East into Europe could set the stage for the sort of pan-European terror described by Harry S.

The former head of Austria’s domestic security agency, Dr Gert R. Polli, recently warned that terror groups may be taking advantage of the migrant crisis to place terrorists in Europe, as reported by Breitbart London. Wendt agreed that the possibility of terrorists and radicals coming in cannot be excluded as “borders are no longer controllable.”

ONE CAN ONLY WONDER WHAT 2016 WILL BRING TO THE UNFORTUNATE PEOPLE OF EUROPE AND THE USA SO BETRAYED BY THOSE E LECTED TO PROTECT THEM. 

The text of the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries reverses policies that were originally put into place to prevent a foreign takeover of the nation’s infrastructure, argues political consultant Curtis Ellis, who adds that the deal threatens U.S. national security interests.

Ellis explained:

Previous U.S. trade pacts stated in no uncertain terms that the national security interests of the United States are determined solely by the U.S. government and supersede any provisions of the pacts.  The U.S. government had unfettered power to protect our national security interests as it deemed necessary – even if its actions might violate the terms of a trade agreement.

But the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement reverses this precedent. As a result, other countries could claim our national security interests violate the T.P.P. agreement and force the U.S. to pay billions of dollars in damages.

Ellis says that Chapter 11 in the more than 5,000-page trade deal provides foreign investors with special rights to acquire U.S. land, businesses, natural resources and investments.

“Under Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, these foreign investors could do an end-run around U.S. courts and sue the U.S. before an international panel, known as an investor-state dispute tribunal, if they feel American law violates their ‘rights’ under the TPP,” Ellis argues.

Currently, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews pending foreign investments in the U.S. to determine if they pose a threat to national security and can recommend the president shut down investments deemed a threat. Under previous trade agreements, foreign investors would have no recourse.

But under the T.P.P., the Sultan of Brunei, the billionaire autocrat who rules his T.P.P. country under Sharia law, could sue for billions of dollars if CFIUS denied his bid to buy a company providing security to U.S. ports and airports.

He would bring his case before a foreign tribunal that could force taxpayers to award him compensation for “lost profits.” The tribunal, staffed by three unelected lawyers hailing from anywhere in the world, would have the power to second-guess the U.S. government on what constitutes a threat to our national security.

Additionally, the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei — a country that’s a party to President Obama’s trade agenda — has outlawed Christmas and threatens to place offenders in prison.

Ellis points to an event in 2006 that supports his concerns within the TPP.

According to Ellis, Dubai Ports World (DPW), an enterprise of the United Arab Emirates, sought to purchase a company in 2006, which operated six U.S. ports. During that time, Ellis says, “Congress intervened to block the sale after Coast Guard officials raised the possibility of significant security risks,” but he argues that the 2006 “controversy came in the midst of congressional debate over the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.”

Ellis’s concerns with TPP is that the TPP, like the Oman pact, gives foreign investors special rights to own and operate U.S. businesses and an option to sue if they feel their rights are violated. He adds that the public outcry in 2006 blocked the sale.

Following the Dubai Ports World controversy, language was added in a footnote to all U.S. trade agreements to shut down any second-guessing of U.S. security interests by trade tribunals. The footnote makes clear the U.S. has sole discretion in determining its essential national security interests.

The critical footnote to the “Security Exception” Article 22.2 of the Peru Free Trade Agreement, Article 21.2 of the Panama FT, Article 22.2 of the Colombia FTA and Article 23.2 of the Korea-US FT reads: “For greater certainty, if a Party invokes [the “Security Exception] Article in an arbitral proceeding initiated under [Investment] Chapter or [Dispute Settlement] Chapter, the tribunal or panel hearing the matter shall find that the exception applies.”

“In plain English, it says if the U.S. invokes national security, that’s final – no foreign ‘trade’ tribunal could overrule it,” Ellis told Breitbart News.

According to Ellis, the TPP eliminated this “crucial stipulation.”

“As a result, any company operating in a T.P.P. country could drag the U.S. before an extrajudicial foreign tribunal and demand taxpayer compensation if our government prevented it from buying a crucial American asset based on national security grounds,” he explains.

Ellis argues that without a footnote to “Article 29.2, one of the TPP’s trade dispute tribunals could substitute its judgment for that of our own government with respect to what is considered an essential security interest of the U.S.”

“The TPP also includes an Annex 9-H which states that a government’s decision on whether to approve a given foreign investment in its territory is not subject to challenges before an investor-state dispute tribunal,” he stressed.

Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand each listed their own foreign investment review laws, according to Ellis. However, the U.S. did not do so.

Breitbart News reached out to the United States Trade Representative’s office about Ellis’s concern but did not receive comment.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

After Muslim terrorist attacks, we’re told that the killers just “misunderstood” their religion. They misunderstood the peaceful nature of Koranic verses such as "Kill them wherever you find them", "They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides" and "Strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them". (Nope they understand their religion very well)

But the misunderstandings of Islam are just getting started. 

Not only are Americans and Europeans being murdered by Muslim terrorists due to these unfortunate misunderstandings, but European girls are being raped because of more misunderstandings.

The principal of Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium was concerned about his female students. So he sent a letter warning their parents that the Muslim refugees who had been put up next to the school gym "are marked by their own culture". And now Germans were being “marked” by their culture.

Girls were told to wear "modest clothing" to avoid "misunderstandings". But rape isn’t a “misunderstanding”. The only misunderstanding is the politically correct leftist idea that the rapist should be excused on account of his culture and religion.

The Koran states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.”

The obvious implication is that women who aren’t dressed in a Burka may be “molested”. 

Or as the commentary states, “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)”

The Muslim migrants who have invaded Germany just might “misunderstand” and mistake the teen girls going to the gym as “roving slave girls”. And under Islamic law, that’s what they are. Islamic law permits Muslim men to rape even married infidel women in the Dar al-Harb. Let alone unaccompanied girls.

Unfortunately the misunderstandings are well underway in Germany. A letter about an asylum camp in Germany warns of a “culture of rape and violence” with “numerous rapes, sexual assaults” and “forced prostitution”. Even though the women in the camp are likely to be mostly fellow Muslims, who are well acquainted with the means of avoiding “misunderstandings” with a Muslim man (wear a hijab, wear a burka, never make eye contact, never smile), the misunderstandings still keep taking place.

On a large scale.

Because there was never any misunderstanding. As the letter points out, these men “regard women as their inferiors and treat unaccompanied women as ‘fair game’”. 

The misunderstanding here isn’t on the part of the Muslim men who view women as fair game. When a mugger snatches a purse or a burglar breaks into a home, he isn’t the victim of a “misunderstanding”.

He just happens to have a different ethical code than the society he is victimizing. But these rapists are members of a society where rape is a crime for a woman, not for a man. The only misunderstanding here is on the part of the Westerners who allowed them in to commit their cultural crimes.

Muslim sexual offenders have used “misunderstandings” due to “cultural differences” as their defense. 

Esmatullah Sharifi, an Afghan refugee, repeatedly raped Australian women and claimed that he was confused about consent due to "cultural differences". Almahde Ahmad Atagore, a Libyan Muslim, sexually assaulted girls as young as 13. The judge told him, he was "very ill prepared to deal with cultural differences". But it was really his victims who were ill prepared to deal with his “cultural differences”.

The Pakistani rapists who went after eighteen women and girls claimed that they could rape a girl because "she was not related to us" and "she was not wearing any headscarf". Their Grand Mufti agreed, saying, "It's 90 per cent the women's responsibility.”

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti asked. “The uncovered meat is the problem.”

But if you get rid of the feral cats that show up in civilized countries, scratching at the door to be let in, the problem goes away. If the Grand Mufti and his favorite rapists were picked up by animal control, put in the pound, neutered and then released back into the wild that they came from, that would be it.

Germany has decided to take in huge numbers of Muslim men who come from a religion and culture where a woman who isn’t wearing a Hijab and isn’t escorted by a man can be raped.

And that leads to “misunderstandings” between the invaders and the native population.

In the UK, these “misunderstandings” have already led to over 2,000 children being victimized by the Muslim “misunderstanders” of such finer points of British law as the definition of pedophilia.

As Gatestone’s Soeren Kern documents, the tide of “misunderstandings” has reached Germany. A 16-year-old girl was raped on September 11 by an unidentified "dark-skinned man speaking broken German" near a refugee shelter. Parents were told not to let their children out unaccompanied.

This is just one of a long list of Muslim “misunderstandings” that have already taken place in Germany. 

Over the summer, some of the “misunderstandings” included five Turks trying to rape a girl, a 14-year-old boy being raped in a train bathroom and a seven-year-old girl being raped in a park.

That last “misunderstanding” happened in the Park of the Victims of Fascism where the misunderstander lured the little girl away from her mother at the playground and into the bushes. It was a cultural difference. Her age was the same as that of Aisha, Mohammed’s wife. 

In the Park of the Victims of Fascism, the little girl became the victim of the latest incarnation of fascism; Islamofascism. 

Islamofascism is represented equally by Merkel and the Muslim migrants. While Merkel enforces the Islamic colonization of Europe, the Muslim migrants carry it out. And perhaps one day there will be a park dedicated to the victims of this mass invasion. And perhaps that little girl’s name will be there.

If we don’t do something about all these “misunderstandings” whose nature we keep misunderstanding.

The “refugees” are mostly migrants. They are not coming to be part of any country, but to exploit it and then conquer it and rule it. They are not bound by any moral or ethical code that we understand.

 Their advocates talk about “human rights”, but in Muslim culture there is no such thing as human rights. Their cultures are tribal. There are no universal rights, only responsibilities to members of kin groups. When those kin groups remain intact, then members will prey exclusively on outsiders. When they fall apart, as they do during immigration and migration, then mass rapes and murders take place.

Europeans believe in human rights. Muslims do not. Europeans believe women are equal. Muslims do not.

This is the underlying “misunderstanding” and this is what must be understood. Either Europe will end Muslim migration or surrender to the cultural difference of an Islamic society in which women are not allowed to walk the streets because they are property.

It’s time to clear up these misunderstandings.

Europe can either have free women, bars, churches, synagogues, cartoons, free speech, pork sausage and beer. Or it can have millions of Muslim migrants and their wide-eyed toddlers.

It can’t have both. Not for long. Because there will be “misunderstandings”.

Bombs will go off, women will be raped and cartoonists murdered. And we will be told to change our behavior to avoid more of these “misunderstandings”. After each “misunderstanding”, we will lose more of our civil rights and the invaders will have more power to dictate our behavior and our way of life.

Until finally the only way to end all these “misunderstandings” will be a submission to the Islamic State. We may finally understand then, but it will be too late.

Muslim migrants don’t misunderstand our laws or values. They don’t care about them. We misunderstand theirs. And so we do our best to accommodate their contempt for our values.

It’s time that we understood this cycle of submission and showed the invaders that they  misunderstood our generosity as appeasement, our friendliness as weakness and our tolerance as surrender.

And then we can finally bring all these “misunderstandings” to an end.

Great article and where things are rapidly heading oaks!.

That renowned ranter warped DUD will call this islamphobia but he will forever excuse them and support their behaviour and be glad to see Europe and the USA under the heel of these islamists.

All the above goes to show what an utter nutter warped DUD and cohorts are.

How sick can you be to defend all this? 

There need be no understanding all one needs to do is undwerstand what the koran says about muslims relating to infidels. That is w hat determines their attitudes towards infidels.

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame. 

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day Of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war ...

Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. 

Sahih al-Bukhari 4138—We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl" above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: "How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist." 

Sahih Muslim 3384—Jabir bin Abdullah reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess ...

Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame. 

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day Of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war ...

Sahih Muslim 3371—We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. 

Sahih al-Bukhari 4138—We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl" above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: "How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: "It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist." 

Sahih Muslim 3384—Jabir bin Abdullah reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess ...

Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—The Apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.