Print

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

[burningpet]

By the way, are you going to acknowledge that this claim you made is untrue?

No. because that claim was completely true and is backed by multiple eye witnesses. you can spin it as "street fight" that "prevented the attenders of the synagogue from leaving the place" but using the exact same words, i will use it to describe it as a siege that was lifted thanks to the JDL and the french police being in the place and defending it.

The location of the "street fight", as well as the support the JDL got from the french police, leave very little doubt about what actually happened there.

And since in the link you provided, it is explicitly says the police and JDL did not provoke the pro-islamists but repelled them from sieging the synagogue, i can't really tell why you think that claim was false? your own source enforce its truthfulness (!..?). it is also said that the Police instructed the JDL how to cooperate with them and that the JDL complied. and that while no serious damage was done, there were small injuries which is a good result in face of a such an imminent pogrom.

Unless google translate managed to completely reverse the meanings. if so, i would need an objective, native french speaker to address the exact meaning of the text in this link:
http://www.itele.fr/france/video/incidents-rue-de-la-roquette-serge-benhaim-dement-toute-attaque-de-la-synagogue-88717

[Leafsnail]

If you listen to that video (or read the summary on the site where the video is from), he says the people inside the synagogue were safe because they were protected by the police who turned the protesters away with tear gas. So not a siege really, but not no targeting (because why else the tear gas?).

Presumably the tear gas was used to try and stop the streetfight outside the synagogue.  There's nothing to suggest the building was targeted in any way by the protestors, rather it appears to be the venue where the LDJ decided to have their fight.

While he does not seem to like the JDL very much, he does not confirm that it was them who started the clash.
He also thinks there might have been confusion between these events and an earlier incident, where a molotov cocktail was thrown at another synagogue.

I never said he did.  The thing that suggests the JDL are responsible for the clash is the video of them walking up and provoking a fight.  The incident in which a firebomb was thrown at a synagogue is disgusting, but had nothing to do with any protest.

So while there may be conflicting versions of the events, it's not like nothing happened. Most reports mention attacks on 2 synagogues. This one has another short video of the scene.

Several sources at the time bought the claim that the synagogue had been attacked.  More recent ones (like the Independent article I linked earlier) acknowledge that this claim was false.  Note that the video in that article shows protestors clashing with police (or possibly rival protestors), there's nothing to suggest they are targeting the synagogue.

No. because that claim was completely true and is backed by multiple eye witnesses. you can spin it as "street fight" that "prevented the attenders of the synagogue from leaving the place" but using the exact same words, i will use it to describe it as a siege that was lifted thanks to the JDL and the french police being in the place and defending it.

The location of the "street fight", as well as the support the JDL got from the french police, leave very little doubt about what actually happened there.

The JDL presumably chose to attack near the synagogue so they could spin the story this way.  Who the police decided to help is entirely irrelevant.

And since in the link you provided, it is explicitly says the police and JDL did not provoke the pro-islamists but repelled them from sieging the synagogue, i can't really tell why you think that claim was false? your own source enforce its truthfulness (!..?). it is also said that the Police instructed the JDL how to cooperate with them and that the JDL complied. and that while no serious damage was done, there were small injuries which is a good result in face of a such an imminent pogrom.

Why are you attempting to use Google Translate (and apparently deliberately misinterpreting the results) rather than the translation provided at the blog I linked?  In response to the question "Was the synagogue besieged?" Benhaïm responded with

“not a single projectile thrown at the synagogue” and that “at no moment, were we ever physically in danger.”

He then goes on to explain why people might have been confused into thinking there was a siege.  Are you accusing him of lying?  There's nothing else that supports the idea that there was a siege in that article, in fact the whole article is clearly a rebuttal to that claim.  Maybe you're confused about the final statement due to it featuring the word "pogrom"?  As far as I can tell it says something along the lines of "Calling this event a pogrom would be disasterous, it would damage our relationship with the Muslim community even more".

There's also further eyewitness testimony quoted in the blogpost I linked.  Basically the only evidence you have is the statement of a violent extremist group and a few news articles that swallowed their claim without questioning it.  The contrary evidence is the testimony of the man who runs the synagogue, another eyewitness and a video of the event in question.

[burningpet]

Why are you attempting to use Google Translate (and apparently deliberately misinterpreting the results) rather than the translation provided at the blog I linked?  In response to the question "Was the synagogue besieged?" Benhaïm responded with

Because the english version doesn't have the transcript of the interview?

Again, any objective native french speaker wishes to shed light on this?

[Darvi]

Which part would you want translated?

[Leafsnail]

It translates his answer to the question "Was the synagogue besieged", though.  And I think even the Google translated version makes his answer to that question perfectly clear.  In fact, let's take a step back and look at the title of the article:

Incidents rue de la Roquette: Serge Benhaim dément toute attaque de la synagogue

I can recognize all of the words in that except "dément", and I think most of them are obvious even to a non-French speaker.  You can look démentir up if you like: it means "deny".  So the title says "Incident on Roquette Road: Serge Benhaim [the president of the synagogue] denies there was any attack on the synagogue".

[XXSockXX]

Why are you attempting to use Google Translate (and apparently deliberately misinterpreting the results) rather than the translation provided at the blog I linked?

The blog you posted omits some information, the other, lenghtier summary is better (i mean it's a long interview). From what I understand, the building was not attacked because police protected it from the beginning and turned away the protesters with tear gas. Then the clash involving JDL happened.

Which part would you want translated?

I'm not a native speaker, and my French is somewhat mediocre, so could you please translate the excerpt I posted above?
There are some lenghty parts about the JDL, but they are essentially saying that the guy doesn't think the JDL started the fight, right? (Maybe you could have a glance at that, that would be cool).

So the title says "Incident on Roquette Road: Serge Benhaim [the president of the synagogue] denies there was any attack on the synagogue".

It does. The text says a lot more though obviously. Essentially there was no successful attack on the building, why that was, I wrote above.

In short, I think "siege" was an exaggeration, but saying people didn't try to attack the synagogue at all is also wrong. About the JDL, that part is less clear, the guy does not like them, but "Selon lui, il n’y a "pas eu de provocation" de la part de la LDJ." (according to him, there was no provocation on part of the JDL).

[Darvi]

Well lessee what my rusty French tells me.

Serge Benhaïm contextualise l’intervention des forces de l’ordre, 4 policiers côté Bastille, 2 policiers postés devant la porte de la synagogue.

"Serge Benhaïm contextualises the intervention of the security forces, 4 policemen at  the barricades, 2 at the entrance of the synagogue."

Des policiers qui auraient ensuite demandé du renfort selon ses dires.

"By policemen who, afterwards, would call for reinforcements, he claims."

Resté devant la synagogue, il indique avoir constaté que les grenades lacrymogènes lancées par les forces de l’ordre ont "stoppé l’élan des premiers manifestants" et que cela a "sécurisé le bas de la rue de la Roquette" (côté Bastille, ndlr)

"Having stayed outside the synagogue, he points out that the gas grenades, thrown by the security forces, have 'stopped the momentum of the first demonstrators' and that this has 'secured the bottom of the rue de la Roquette (barricaded side -ed.)'"

[XXSockXX]

Well lessee what my rusty French tells me.

Thanks. "côté Bastille" or "Bastille side" refers to the Place de la Bastille indeed, which connects to the rue de la Roquette, so this is just about the direction, not about barricades or anything. Later in the article he refers to the other direction as "vers Voltaire", which is a nearby metro station. (I noticed I've been there a few times, it's the road from the Place de la Bastille to the Père-Lachaise cemetary.)

[Leafsnail]

What is your evidence that there was any kind of hostile intent from the protesters towards the synagogue?

[Phmcw]

I live in Belgium (so next door) and I'm a native French speaker.

So what happened according to this interview is that  : _ a rabi fortuitously called for a prayer for peace in Israel the same day as the pro palestinian protests

_ after the protest a group of protester moved toward the synagogue en masse, presumably to attack it.

_ The LDJ was there unarmed to protect the synagogue.

_ The police got overwhelmed and the protesters reached the LDJ who broke chairs and tables to make weapons.

_ They clached and the protesters never got to the synagogue.

[XXSockXX]

What is your evidence that there was any kind of hostile intent from the protesters towards the synagogue?

Well, I know the French police can be trigger-happy, but I don't think they would have shot tear gas at protesters for no reason at all. At the very minimum you could say that the police (who was there to protect the building from the protest in the first place) seemed to think that they had hostile intentions. It definitely is not unprecedented, if synagogues get attacked regularly during similar protests, and protesters approach one, that is what it looks like.
Now you could argue that the police lost their shit and escalated the situation or something, but protesters have had hostile intent against other synagogues, so why not in this case.

Anyway, whatever happened there exactly is a) not what the press initially reported (no harm to the building, no people trapped inside), but b) not a made up incident where the protesters were completely peaceful until provoked (which I understand is how you read the situation).

[GavJ]

Israeli children signing bombs "with love... from Israel"
Yup, totally consistent with innocent defenders  protecting themselves from evil terrorists 

This is hate and a desire for genocide amonsgt people in control at least.
(and no, this post does not endorse Hamas -- I'm pointing out that they're both equally effed up, but since everybody agrees about that for Hamas, the evidence that needs to be aired for some people is mainly on the Israeli side of atrocities. Nor are most of either population effed up, just the ones that matter and make decisions.)


(I don't know what random website this is, it was just the correct post size image. The story is run by AP)

[Dutchling]

Source?

That's just hilarious.

[smjjames]

Looks very propoganda-ish.

Still, yeah, both sides are, Hamas for all the reasons we know and the Israeli leaders taking this path which is going absolutely nowhere, and not towards what they want.

And like dutchling said, source?

[XXSockXX]

The image is from this blog here. It's from the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war.

Background of the photo is explained here (and that sounds a lot less messed up than it looks, still pretty messed up though).