Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[burningpet]

I don't think GlyphGryph ever said that the ban was because of jews being violent?

In other news, France has banned pro-Palestine demonstrations, and participating in a pro-Palestine demonstration will get you prison time (three years if you wear a mask at any time during the protest).

Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said it was needed because those protests were provoking violence from Jewish vigalantes, and the Jewish Defense League had engaged in multiple instances of vandalism and committing violence against pro-Palestine protestors and this was the only way to stop them from doing it again.

Even publishing the details of a pro-palestine march, rally, or meetup on facebook will earn you a year in prison, and a 15,000 euro fine.

Also, burningpet, I don't know if you responded to me there, but if you did I figured I should just let you know I have you on ignore, so you don't need to bother in the future.

Quote, so he wont be able to retract this later.

Obviously he didn't provide a source for that because either such a source doesn't exist or has bigger context that contradicts the meaning, nor took the time to mention the ban on riots was specifically done to prevent from islamists anti-semites from hurting innocent jewish people and that none of the JDL were arrested, nor that they were operating ALONGSIDE the french police.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2693423/Jewish-vigilantes-rampage-Paris-attack-pro-Palestinian-demonstrators.html
LoL the daily mail just lost all credibility by failing to show the context in which this took place. those jewish brave men saved the lives of dozen of innocent people that attended a synagogue that was sieged by islamists. you can clearly see who's side the police took.

Quoting the dailymail is now officially equals quoting Al jazeera.

[burningpet]

Bump

[Darvi]

"A week before the violence in Sarcelles, protesters had tried to storm two Paris synagogues, prompting the government to impose a ban on demonstrations in Paris linked to Israel's ground operations in the Gaza Strip."

[smjjames]

Since the pro-palestine protests were also getting violent, seems more like the French trying to avoid violence, even if it sounds like they were targeting jews.

[Darvi]

LoL the daily mail just lost all credibility

What, just now?

[burningpet]

LoL the daily mail just lost all credibility

What, just now?

I admit that i am a huge ignorant when it comes to western medias credibility.

[Loud Whispers]

Quoting the dailymail is now officially equals quoting Al jazeera.

That's insulting to Al Jazeera.

I admit that i am a huge ignorant when it comes to western medias credibility.

The daily mail is the bottom barrel of credible news sources. Less so even than Fox news.

[burningpet]

Since the pro-palestine protests were also getting violent, seems more like the French trying to avoid violence, even if it sounds like they were targeting jews.

You said it as if the jewish were actually committing violence other than to stop isalmists/pro-palestine-anti semite violence or that the french actually saw the jewish as equally responsible.

So lets put it as clearly as possible: the french ban took place ONLY because islamists-anti semites were getting extremely violent toward innocent jewish people during their pro-terror organization riots.

The only good thing to come out of it is that now french immigration to israel will get even larger.

[GlyphGryph]

Looking back, it does appear that my source was originally from a Daily Mail article. So apologies for that. Can anyone source a more detailed explanation of the reasoning for the bans?

I also encourage people to dig deeper into anything I say - I'm reporting what I'm hearing, what I'm seeing people say, and I try to add warnings when appropriate and I discover such (like the last video I linked), but a lot of what I'm posting is responding to things pretty closely after they happen. It's always worth digging deeper and trying to figure out exactly what happened, and I've been more than willing to agree I was wrong when opposing stronger evidence is found. We're dealing with an issue that has mountains of propaganda on both sides, and lots of news sources either kowtowing to political influences or going for whatever seems attention-grabbing. Even when the source is accurately quoting someone, that doesn't mean the person in question isn't wrong either!

Apologies in advance, because I'll probably end posting more stuff sooner or later that turns out to either be false or have some untrue details as well. I'll try to do better about sourcing, though.

Also, burningpet, since it seems you might still be attempting to talk to me, please recall that you are being ignored for good reason, thank you.

[smjjames]

Since the pro-palestine protests were also getting violent, seems more like the French trying to avoid violence, even if it sounds like they were targeting jews.

You said it as if the jewish were actually committing violence other than to stop isalmists/pro-palestine-anti semite violence or that the french actually saw the jewish as equally responsible.

So lets put it as clearly as possible: the french ban took place ONLY because islamists-anti semites were getting extremely violent toward innocent jewish people during their pro-terror organization riots.

Your second sentence is what I meant, not the first one, not sure where you got the idea that I thought the jews were the ones commiting violence, and Frances Interior Minister is the one that said it was provoking jewish violence, not me.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The daily mail is the bottom barrel of credible news sources. Less so even than Fox news.

Case in point.

Also, mandatory.

[burningpet]

Looking back, it does appear that my source was originally from a Daily Mail article. So apologies for that. Can anyone source a more detailed explanation of the reasoning for the bans?

I also encourage people to dig deeper into anything I say - I'm reporting what I'm hearing, what I'm seeing people say, and I try to add warnings when appropriate and I discover such (like the last video I linked), but a lot of what I'm posting is responding to things pretty closely after they happen. It's always worth digging deeper and trying to figure out exactly what happened, and I've been more than willing to agree I was wrong when opposing stronger evidence is found. We're dealing with an issue that has mountains of propaganda on both sides, and lots of news sources either kowtowing to political influences or going for whatever seems attention-grabbing. Even when the source is accurately quoting someone, that doesn't mean the person in question isn't wrong either!

Apologies in advance, because I'll probably end posting more stuff sooner or later that turns out to either be false or have some untrue details as well. I'll try to do better about sourcing, though.

Also, burningpet, since it seems you might still be attempting to talk to me, please recall that you are being ignored for good reason, thank you.

So long as it suits your agenda, ha?

It might be that Hamas prevents from palestinians from reaching the field hospital israel have constructed near Erez crossing.
http://www.tbk.co.il/article/165089

[Leafsnail]

GlyphGryph probably read this article, which contains this somewhat misleading paragraph

But Mr Cazeneuve fears there might be a repeat of the fights between ‘ultra’ Jewish vigilantes and pro-Palestinians which happened after a demonstration last Sunday.

He was probably further confused due to the false claims that pro-Palestinian protesters had been attacking synagogues, and the videos of LDJ protestors picking fights that have emerged.  Here's a non-Mail source on that.

That's insulting to Al Jazeera.

This isn't even a joke, Al Jazeera does a lot of good journalism.  Their main issue is that they can't criticize the Qatari government.

[burningpet]

GlyphGryph probably read this article, which contains this somewhat misleading paragraph

But Mr Cazeneuve fears there might be a repeat of the fights between ‘ultra’ Jewish vigilantes and pro-Palestinians which happened after a demonstration last Sunday.

He was probably further confused due to the false claims that pro-Palestinian protesters had been attacking synagogues, and the videos of LDJ protestors picking fights that have emerged.  Here's a non-Mail source on that.

So they didn't sieged that synagogue?

[Leafsnail]

False reports following last week’s protests claimed that pro-Palestinian demonstrators had damaged synagogues during the rally, but it later emerged none of the religious buildings had been targeted.

A judicial inquiry is to be launched into the false allegations.

I can't comment on any other reported synagogue attacks, but that the claims surrounding that particular one was entirely fabricated.