> The phrase you put in quotes are your literal words in your post. I never claimed such a thing. It's the strawman you make of legitimate criticism on indiscriminate mass immigration.

I was referring to your statement about what "my view seems to be" in regards to governments censoring social media. I tried to make that especially clear by seperately quoting said sentence.

> What's wrong with that source?

For one that it clearly has an agenda [0], the other one being that I'm very skeptical of any outlet that goes through quite an effort to hide who's behind it.

> You are shooting the messenger here, because thereligionofpeace.com does nothing but quoting the Quran & the Hadith extensively.

"Does nothing but quote the Quran", sure. Amazing how we seem to be looking at two totally different websites because over here it most certainly does not look like the site is only "quoting the Quran and Hadiths". Maybe it's my censored German Internet?

> In northern Uganda there was a guy called Joseph Kony who started his own religion.

I don't even know where to start with this. But sure, I'll go with "Kony invented his own religion" and none of his acts had anything to do with abusing the Christian faith.
Do you realize it's exactly that kind of narrative framing which says a lot about your own position? When Kony goes around with his "Lord's Resistance Army" that's a completely "made up religion" and has no relation at all to Christianity, but when ISIS goes around beheading people "that's Islam!".

> The reasons for this form of mass delusion are complicated, and are sometimes grouped under the unwieldy umbrella term "cultural marxism".

You are, once again, not reading your own sources: "'Cultural Marxism" in modern political parlance refers to a conspiracy theory which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy Western society."

If that's not good enough you then you might want to check out the RationalWiki on that particular topic, they have a dedicated article about "cultural Marxism" that goes into more details [1].

> This is a very ostrich way of downplaying what actually happened.

As opposed to dramatizing the situation by claiming that Muslims go on drunken raping sprees in the thousands because "that's just the thing they do"? A vast number of incidents from that evening, which have been dramatized as "outrageous", are common occurrences during New Year's Eve, like all that outrage over "Refugees shooting people with fireworks". Stuff like that has been happening for as long as New Year's Eve and fireworks have been around, but when "brown people" shoot others with fireworks that's suddenly especially bad and a whole new level of danger.

Which does not mean that I approve of shooting people with fireworks, I'm merely pointing out the obvious double standard at play here for the sole purpose of painting a narrative.

> That wild claim is nowhere supported by the source ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_sexual_assault_in_Egypt ). You seem to make this up on the spot. Can you give a citation?

That "wild claim" is literally the second paragraph of the article...

> So if the woman gets robbed in the process we should ignore the sexual assault?

Where did I say anything like that? I merely pointed out how these large number of "sexual assault" cases come about because in the vast majority of cases they involved petty theft with the "sexual assault" serving merely as a distraction and not rapes. This isn't anything new, in German, there's even a term for it "Antanztrick" [2]. I'm pretty sure there's also an English term for this kind of tactic because it's rather widespread and has been happening long before refugees from Syria arrived in Europe.

> The existence of fake news doesn't invalidate the fact there's a real problem here.

And what might that "problem" be? How Muslims are just "culturally incompatible with Western Values" even tho we literally have millions upon millions of peaceful and productive counterexamples?

Btw: Even tho that was in your previous comment, I still feel the need to point out that Germany's "censoring social media law" didn't do anything new. The laws for that had already been in place, and plenty of use, before they introduced massive fines for Facebook. But even prior to that you could get into a lot of trouble for "sharing" questionable views on any website you run, this would even involve comments made by complete strangers. By German law, it's the one who's running the website who's liable for any and all content there.

Facebook, for whatever reason, circumvented that law, while every private person and business has to moderate their comment sections to keep them clean from defamations and incitement of the people, thanks to a German legal specialty called "Störerhaftung" which has been around for as long as telephones have existed in Germany.

And before you go there: No, that does not mean I support such practices, I'm merely giving context to your narrative of "Now, that the German government censors Facebook, nobody will know about all these refugee crimes anymore!" because it's just that: Another narrative to support conspiracy theories by misrepresenting the facts about the situation at hand.

Is it important to have a discussion about how to properly integrate, or not integrate, refugees from war-torn countries? Sure enough, it is, but that discussion most certainly shouldn't involve sentiments along the lines of "They are all raping cave-men who hate our western Values!" because that's just utter bigotry and it's oozing out of every second sentence you write.

I'm out of this "discussion", didn't even want to be in it in the first place, but thanks for making this comment chain an illustrative example for the dynamics I addressed in my original comment.

[0] http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-work...

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antanztrick