FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Peaceful Protestors Again!!
Peaceful Protestors Again!!
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists?" It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. | |||
| |||
"Is this the same as the attack on the factory making defense weapons?" Yes. | |||
"Is this the same as the attack on the factory making defense weapons? Yes. " Looks like that was not just a few people. The plan was officially posted on the "Palestine Action" website. Their website openly calls for such violence. | |||
"When people are brave enough to stand up and say when things are not acceptable, and when the progressives stop trying to change the way people are allowed to think." Maybe you should protest against the imaginary "progressives" you think are trying to change they way you're allowed to think? Maybe now is the time to stand up for what you believe in! | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. " Wtf? Context? | |||
 | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. Wtf? Context?" Wtf? Have you been walking round with your eyes closed and cans over your ears? | |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high. "What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'? Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law. The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'. | |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high.
What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'?
Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law.
The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'."counter protestors ? I don't really get how patriots can be used in the context of middle east issues. I've just read on BBC. No crimes were commited so no arrests could be made... Unless to keep public order. I don't know exactly the rules here, but fella on monument feels different to the counter protestors in the pubs that is on the route of the protest march, especially when the first group had tried to beach exclusion zones and had sscuffekes already. (I'm not sure when the blades, batons and knuckle dusters were founded during the day) | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. Wtf? Context? Wtf? Have you been walking round with your eyes closed and cans over your ears?" You expect people to know what you're on about without clarification. Patriots - Robinson's lot? Historically any type of national front group are, at minimum, rowdy IE not peaceful. The Southampton lot were conducting criminal damage - IE not peaceful. The majority of Saturday's march - peaceful. The other, I don't have a clue. So I see groups that shouldn't be lumped together. Those who break the law shouldn't be defended, so who (with regards to your OP) is defending them? | |||
| |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high.
What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'?
Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law.
The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'.counter protestors ?
I don't really get how patriots can be used in the context of middle east issues.
I've just read on BBC. No crimes were commited so no arrests could be made... Unless to keep public order. I don't know exactly the rules here, but fella on monument feels different to the counter protestors in the pubs that is on the route of the protest march, especially when the first group had tried to beach exclusion zones and had sscuffekes already.
(I'm not sure when the blades, batons and knuckle dusters were founded during the day)
"The 'counter protestors' weren't protesting so a bit of a silly name to give them. I'd like to refer you back to my first question. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? You can read on BBC that the Met said they didn't have any power to arrest. Plenty of lawyers and barristers disagree. | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. Wtf? Context? Wtf? Have you been walking round with your eyes closed and cans over your ears? You expect people to know what you're on about without clarification. Patriots - Robinson's lot? Historically any type of national front group are, at minimum, rowdy IE not peaceful. The Southampton lot were conducting criminal damage - IE not peaceful. The majority of Saturday's march - peaceful. The other, I don't have a clue. So I see groups that shouldn't be lumped together. Those who break the law shouldn't be defended, so who (with regards to your OP) is defending them?" Every single march we are seeing 'peaceful protestors' cause terror. I did already say that. Still have your eyes closed? Why are we still generalising 'peaceful protestors'? | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. Wtf? Context? Wtf? Have you been walking round with your eyes closed and cans over your ears? You expect people to know what you're on about without clarification. Patriots - Robinson's lot? Historically any type of national front group are, at minimum, rowdy IE not peaceful. The Southampton lot were conducting criminal damage - IE not peaceful. The majority of Saturday's march - peaceful. The other, I don't have a clue. So I see groups that shouldn't be lumped together. Those who break the law shouldn't be defended, so who (with regards to your OP) is defending them? Every single march we are seeing 'peaceful protestors' cause terror. I did already say that. Still have your eyes closed? Why are we still generalising 'peaceful protestors'?" Are you just anti protesters? | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. Wtf? Context? Wtf? Have you been walking round with your eyes closed and cans over your ears? You expect people to know what you're on about without clarification. Patriots - Robinson's lot? Historically any type of national front group are, at minimum, rowdy IE not peaceful. The Southampton lot were conducting criminal damage - IE not peaceful. The majority of Saturday's march - peaceful. The other, I don't have a clue. So I see groups that shouldn't be lumped together. Those who break the law shouldn't be defended, so who (with regards to your OP) is defending them? Every single march we are seeing 'peaceful protestors' cause terror. I did already say that. Still have your eyes closed? Why are we still generalising 'peaceful protestors'? Are you just anti protesters?" I'm anti dickheads. I'm pro 'target the people you're protesting against'. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high.
What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'?
Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law.
The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'.counter protestors ?
I don't really get how patriots can be used in the context of middle east issues.
I've just read on BBC. No crimes were commited so no arrests could be made... Unless to keep public order. I don't know exactly the rules here, but fella on monument feels different to the counter protestors in the pubs that is on the route of the protest march, especially when the first group had tried to beach exclusion zones and had sscuffekes already.
(I'm not sure when the blades, batons and knuckle dusters were founded during the day)
The 'counter protestors' weren't protesting so a bit of a silly name to give them.
I'd like to refer you back to my first question.
When the fuck will we stop defending these people?
You can read on BBC that the Met said they didn't have any power to arrest. Plenty of lawyers and barristers disagree."they were countering the protestors. Nothing I saw gives weight to calling them patriots tho. Which barristers disagree? INAL so am taking the legal points at face value. What do you mean by "these people" I won't defend those that break the law. I think those who climb monuments are dicks. If the docks make a decent percentage of the protestors it makes sense to close down on them to reduce the risk to public and property. Im just not sure I see where there is a double standard being applied. There were 100x the protestors to counter protestors. The police injuries we caused largely by the 2k. Breaching exclusion zone were almost entirely by the 2k. Just so we are clear, you aren't defending the 'patriots' are you ? | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic "I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context. | |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high.
What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'?
Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law.
The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'.counter protestors ?
I don't really get how patriots can be used in the context of middle east issues.
I've just read on BBC. No crimes were commited so no arrests could be made... Unless to keep public order. I don't know exactly the rules here, but fella on monument feels different to the counter protestors in the pubs that is on the route of the protest march, especially when the first group had tried to beach exclusion zones and had sscuffekes already.
(I'm not sure when the blades, batons and knuckle dusters were founded during the day)
The 'counter protestors' weren't protesting so a bit of a silly name to give them.
I'd like to refer you back to my first question.
When the fuck will we stop defending these people?
You can read on BBC that the Met said they didn't have any power to arrest. Plenty of lawyers and barristers disagree.they were countering the protestors. Nothing I saw gives weight to calling them patriots tho.
Which barristers disagree? INAL so am taking the legal points at face value.
What do you mean by "these people" I won't defend those that break the law. I think those who climb monuments are dicks. If the docks make a decent percentage of the protestors it makes sense to close down on them to reduce the risk to public and property.
Im just not sure I see where there is a double standard being applied. There were 100x the protestors to counter protestors. The police injuries we caused largely by the 2k. Breaching exclusion zone were almost entirely by the 2k. Just so we are clear, you aren't defending the 'patriots' are you ?
"They weren't countering the protestors. They went to 'defend the cenotaph', that's what they said. Steven Barrett is the barrister I've seen, he says they could've been arrested under at least 3 offences. There have been numerous occasions where double standards have been applied, I can't help if you refuse to see them. | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context. "Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead? | |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high.
What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'?
Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law.
The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'.counter protestors ?
I don't really get how patriots can be used in the context of middle east issues.
I've just read on BBC. No crimes were commited so no arrests could be made... Unless to keep public order. I don't know exactly the rules here, but fella on monument feels different to the counter protestors in the pubs that is on the route of the protest march, especially when the first group had tried to beach exclusion zones and had sscuffekes already.
(I'm not sure when the blades, batons and knuckle dusters were founded during the day)
The 'counter protestors' weren't protesting so a bit of a silly name to give them.
I'd like to refer you back to my first question.
When the fuck will we stop defending these people?
You can read on BBC that the Met said they didn't have any power to arrest. Plenty of lawyers and barristers disagree.they were countering the protestors. Nothing I saw gives weight to calling them patriots tho.
Which barristers disagree? INAL so am taking the legal points at face value.
What do you mean by "these people" I won't defend those that break the law. I think those who climb monuments are dicks. If the docks make a decent percentage of the protestors it makes sense to close down on them to reduce the risk to public and property.
Im just not sure I see where there is a double standard being applied. There were 100x the protestors to counter protestors. The police injuries we caused largely by the 2k. Breaching exclusion zone were almost entirely by the 2k. Just so we are clear, you aren't defending the 'patriots' are you ?
They weren't countering the protestors. They went to 'defend the cenotaph', that's what they said.
Steven Barrett is the barrister I've seen, he says they could've been arrested under at least 3 offences.
There have been numerous occasions where double standards have been applied, I can't help if you refuse to see them. "I'd but that if a) the cenopath wasn't fenced off and b) the protestors were there. The thing wasnt attacked and even if it was there was defence there. I will look up Barrett
And you're better than "refuse to see them"  you were right to call me out. I've explained why I see one takes different approaches based on things like crowd size.
I accept there are bad protestors. They probably make up a larger part of small protests as they are more zealous. And I've said that small groups may benefit from tighter policing anyway from a common sense point of view.
Given 300k of protestors, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that was a largely peaceful protest.
That doesn't mean I would say all their protests would be peaceful. | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?"that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march. Anti protesters seems loaded. | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?"Well if the cap fits… | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
"They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words. | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people?" Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand" I seen that too. I thought better than to mention it because you know, it'll be rubbished as GBeebies. | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand" And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force | |||
| |||
"I don't connect the word patriot with anyone who acted like the far right did last weekend and anyone who thinks it's necessary to climb onto war memorial in relation to any so called cause.. There simply is no reason for anyone yo call them that even if some of them think that's what they are.. Fucking wrong uns is close to how I see them.. " | |||
"I don't connect the word patriot with anyone who acted like the far right did last weekend and anyone who thinks it's necessary to climb onto war memorial in relation to any so called cause.. There simply is no reason for anyone yo call them that even if some of them think that's what they are.. Fucking wrong uns is close to how I see them.. " Fair, now to get the police forces around the UK to think the same | |||
"I don't connect the word patriot with anyone who acted like the far right did last weekend and anyone who thinks it's necessary to climb onto war memorial in relation to any so called cause.. There simply is no reason for anyone yo call them that even if some of them think that's what they are.. Fucking wrong uns is close to how I see them.. Fair, now to get the police forces around the UK to think the same " | |||
"I don't connect the word patriot with anyone who acted like the far right did last weekend and anyone who thinks it's necessary to climb onto war memorial in relation to any so called cause.. There simply is no reason for anyone yo call them that even if some of them think that's what they are.. Fucking wrong uns is close to how I see them.. Fair, now to get the police forces around the UK to think the same " Doesn't matter what the police think individually or collectively about individuals or groups, they have to police via the law. So, "wrong 'uns" not doing wrong can go about their business. | |||
"I don't connect the word patriot with anyone who acted like the far right did last weekend and anyone who thinks it's necessary to climb onto war memorial in relation to any so called cause.. There simply is no reason for anyone yo call them that even if some of them think that's what they are.. Fucking wrong uns is close to how I see them.. Fair, now to get the police forces around the UK to think the same Doesn't matter what the police think individually or collectively about individuals or groups, they have to police via the law. So, "wrong 'uns" not doing wrong can go about their business." Funny, that's what we've been asking for. | |||
"Steven Barrett is the barrister I've seen, he says they could've been arrested under at least 3 offences." It turns out Steven Barrett is a bit of a dick. His reasons for arrest were: 1. Outraging Public Decency - This is the law that the bloke who urinated on the cenotaph was prosecuted under, and in his case quite rightly so. However people simply standing on it is less of an outage. Their defence would be that they were simply protecting it from others, and any prosecution would be bound to fail. 2. Reasonable grounds to suspect the cenotaph would be damaged - That's quite a reach since it's a solid stone object, and the people were just standing on it. They didn't have hammers or chisels, and they were there to protect it, so that's not going to fly in court. 3. The cenotaph was surrounded by wreaths, and those might get stepped on and broken - This one is just silly. It's clear to me that he wants arrears to be made, and he's just coming up with potential reasons to do that. If the Met had followed his advice, they would now be looking at a whole series of wrongful arrest cases. I'm not sure why he's being listened to. He describes himself as an expert in dispute resolution. That's an area of law several steps away from public order offences. And to cap it all he has a ridiculous haircut. Some people have no sense of decency. | |||
"... seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group ..." I do think that we need a law making it an offence to have your face covered while attending a protest. The whole point of a protest is to stand up and have your views heard. You can't do that if you're anonymous. There's only one reason to have your face covered at a protest, and that's because you intend to do something for which you do not wish to face the consequences. | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand I seen that too. I thought better than to mention it because you know, it'll be rubbished as GBeebies. " I know people have certain feelings about the channel which is fine but as you saw yourself it was all filmed and yet still the police refuse to act. | |||
"Steven Barrett is the barrister I've seen, he says they could've been arrested under at least 3 offences. It turns out Steven Barrett is a bit of a dick. His reasons for arrest were: 1. Outraging Public Decency - This is the law that the bloke who urinated on the cenotaph was prosecuted under, and in his case quite rightly so. However people simply standing on it is less of an outage. Their defence would be that they were simply protecting it from others, and any prosecution would be bound to fail. 2. Reasonable grounds to suspect the cenotaph would be damaged - That's quite a reach since it's a solid stone object, and the people were just standing on it. They didn't have hammers or chisels, and they were there to protect it, so that's not going to fly in court. 3. The cenotaph was surrounded by wreaths, and those might get stepped on and broken - This one is just silly. It's clear to me that he wants arrears to be made, and he's just coming up with potential reasons to do that. If the Met had followed his advice, they would now be looking at a whole series of wrongful arrest cases. I'm not sure why he's being listened to. He describes himself as an expert in dispute resolution. That's an area of law several steps away from public order offences. And to cap it all he has a ridiculous haircut. Some people have no sense of decency." I believe there is now talk of bringing in a law to make this sort of thing illegal. In one way I'm pleased as it may help in the future but in another way it's depressing to think that some feel its acceptable and have such low morals to carry out such actions in the first place | |||
"I believe there is now talk of bringing in a law to make this sort of thing illegal. In one way I'm pleased as it may help in the future but in another way it's depressing to think that some feel its acceptable and have such low morals to carry out such actions in the first place" I doubt anything will come of it. It would be incredibly difficult to word such a law which catches the behaviour we don't want, but doesn't also adversely affect other people. Sadly we just have to accept that some people are unpleasant, and that we'll have to encounter them at some points in our lives. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. " Erosion by the minority who challenge the majority to prove they are not wrong in their thinking. This then gets corporate support for sales opportunities, which influences the msm who are providing their users the views they want to hear, as per the data sold to them generated by the corporate sales machines. I too love my country, its 4 seasons, landscapes and history. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. " I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. " You have a strong intolerance to people and lifestyles that you do not agree with. I’m genuinely surprised by this, as you often ridicule intolerance. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. You have a strong intolerance to people and lifestyles that you do not agree with. " That's really funny you say that, that's how I see you. Anyone who speaks up, anyone who expresses dissent. You do your best to ridicule them and to shut them down. I argue relentlessly for the freedom to express dissent. Including opinions opposite to mine. " I’m genuinely surprised by this, as you often ridicule intolerance." Shrug emoji. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. Erosion by the minority who challenge the majority to prove they are not wrong in their thinking. This then gets corporate support for sales opportunities, which influences the msm who are providing their users the views they want to hear, as per the data sold to them generated by the corporate sales machines. I too love my country, its 4 seasons, landscapes and history. " I love my country and it's values. It's strange how those values are erroding because people look at other countries and think why can't we be like that. I see people complaining on these forums about their kids being Americanized. I get it it's soft power. It's intended on our part. So not standing up for traditional UK values people would just let that fall by the wayside. Be a patriot. Nothing wrong with it. Fuck everyone else. They are blinded. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. You have a strong intolerance to people and lifestyles that you do not agree with. That's really funny you say that, that's how I see you. Anyone who speaks up, anyone who expresses dissent. You do your best to ridicule them and to shut them down. I argue relentlessly for the freedom to express dissent. Including opinions opposite to mine. I’m genuinely surprised by this, as you often ridicule intolerance. Shrug emoji." Maybe time to accept you are opinionated and make biased comments, as per the people you accuse of the same? | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. " How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. " Dulce et Decorum Est BY WILFRED OWEN Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs, And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; D*unk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time, But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.— Dim through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. ---- | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. You have a strong intolerance to people and lifestyles that you do not agree with. That's really funny you say that, that's how I see you. Anyone who speaks up, anyone who expresses dissent. You do your best to ridicule them and to shut them down. I argue relentlessly for the freedom to express dissent. Including opinions opposite to mine. I’m genuinely surprised by this, as you often ridicule intolerance. Shrug emoji." Btw there is nothing in a debate you can say that is right or wrong cultural wise the same goes for me telling others. You are not going to " Win" with me just like I won't with others on here. I just express my frustrations. Just like others. Yes us Americans can be fucked up and insane and looked at negative by other countries. But it's my fucked up and insane country. I enjoy it immensely. Been there not my Cuppa. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. You have a strong intolerance to people and lifestyles that you do not agree with. That's really funny you say that, that's how I see you. Anyone who speaks up, anyone who expresses dissent. You do your best to ridicule them and to shut them down. I argue relentlessly for the freedom to express dissent. Including opinions opposite to mine. I’m genuinely surprised by this, as you often ridicule intolerance. Shrug emoji. Maybe time to accept you are opinionated and make biased comments, as per the people you accuse of the same?" Or course I am and do. What's that got to do with your previous accusation? | |||
| |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. " From personal observation it became a dirty word in the 90s when it got hijacked by the BNP and their ilk. Anybody with decent morals and values distanced them selves from all that. What replaced it was the term Proud. So people became Proud to be British and wanted what is best for her. At about the same time there was the beginning of the revolution in social attitudes to race and sexuality. Also things that the far right nut jobs didn’t like this further alienating them and their claims to be Patriotic. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism ." I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. You have a strong intolerance to people and lifestyles that you do not agree with. That's really funny you say that, that's how I see you. Anyone who speaks up, anyone who expresses dissent. You do your best to ridicule them and to shut them down. I argue relentlessly for the freedom to express dissent. Including opinions opposite to mine. I’m genuinely surprised by this, as you often ridicule intolerance. Shrug emoji. Maybe time to accept you are opinionated and make biased comments, as per the people you accuse of the same?" Ha ha ha ha!!! Pot/kettle! | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain?" It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me." Fair enough. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me. Fair enough. " fair enough clearly you don't. | |||
| |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me. Fair enough. fair enough clearly you don't." I don't what? | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me. Fair enough. fair enough clearly you don't. I don't what?" Don't worry about it sailed over your head. I can't grasp certain things you say either. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me. Fair enough. fair enough clearly you don't. I don't what? Don't worry about it sailed over your head. I can't grasp certain things you say either." Fair enough | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. I thought you had said before you didn't care if your fellow Americans lived, died, or had access to healthcare? Currently British patriotism mostly involves drinking cans, waving flags and fighting. Meanwhile people who want the country to the best it can be get labelled "loony left woke socialist..." Etc. How is our soft power working out there? I see it everyday. My kid said math instead of maths. We are grooming your next generation . You ok with that? Be a patriot in your beliefs. I don't want to be like the UK and you don't want to be like the US. So shut our cultural influence down and I will do the same. Patriotism . I honestly don't understand what this means. But I am interested. Can you explain? It's ok I don't need to. Some people understand that's all that matters to me. Fair enough. fair enough clearly you don't. I don't what? Don't worry about it sailed over your head. I can't grasp certain things you say either. Fair enough " Be a British patriot  Your people rely on you. | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words.
"I don't have a great issue with the word. I'm more intrigued why you are using it. I know the motivation for people calling them far right etc. it's been giving me the impression you are supportive of them rather than this just being about inconsistencies in policing. | |||
"Don't understand the continued use of 'patriots' I hope they were treated with the full force of the law once they showed themselves to not be law abiding And I'd be okay if the level of policing on the overall protest was upped because they showed themselves to be causing trouble. Arrests to prevent public order would be fine. Especially if the ratio of troublemakers to protestors appeared high.
What do you want me to call them if you don't understand 'patriots'?
Did you see the people climbing on the monument? They certainly weren't met with any force of the law.
The people in Southampton, I believe have been arrested. The point was, we keep being told to call them 'peaceful protestors'.counter protestors ?
I don't really get how patriots can be used in the context of middle east issues.
I've just read on BBC. No crimes were commited so no arrests could be made... Unless to keep public order. I don't know exactly the rules here, but fella on monument feels different to the counter protestors in the pubs that is on the route of the protest march, especially when the first group had tried to beach exclusion zones and had sscuffekes already.
(I'm not sure when the blades, batons and knuckle dusters were founded during the day)
The 'counter protestors' weren't protesting so a bit of a silly name to give them.
I'd like to refer you back to my first question.
When the fuck will we stop defending these people?
You can read on BBC that the Met said they didn't have any power to arrest. Plenty of lawyers and barristers disagree."who is defending them ? | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. Wtf? Context? Wtf? Have you been walking round with your eyes closed and cans over your ears? You expect people to know what you're on about without clarification. Patriots - Robinson's lot? Historically any type of national front group are, at minimum, rowdy IE not peaceful. The Southampton lot were conducting criminal damage - IE not peaceful. The majority of Saturday's march - peaceful. The other, I don't have a clue. So I see groups that shouldn't be lumped together. Those who break the law shouldn't be defended, so who (with regards to your OP) is defending them? Every single march we are seeing 'peaceful protestors' cause terror. I did already say that. Still have your eyes closed? Why are we still generalising 'peaceful protestors'?" Where are you seeing every single march causes terror? | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic "So singing to the police you let your country down,and your not english anymore is patriotic then? | |||
| |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force " You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them | |||
| |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them " Why should Israel have morality when Hamas didn't? Hamas is the elected government of Palestine. Hamas didn't care about Israeli civilians. But Israel is supposed to. | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them Why should Israel have morality when Hamas didn't? Hamas is the elected government of Palestine. Hamas didn't care about Israeli civilians. But Israel is supposed to." is it because Israel is viewed as a democracy? They should adhere to not deleting Hamas. The elected government of their adversary. Because world opinion says so? Then everyone wonders why the US supports on non ceasefire. | |||
"Hamas is the elected government of Palestine" The European Council on Foreign Relations (a charity, not an EU body) tells us that there were elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 for a four-year term. The 2006 election was won by Hamas. The ECFR says, "In theory, the mandate of the 2006 PLC expired in 2010. The PLC has not met in a regular session since the 2007 West Bank-Gaza split". "Elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) were scheduled to take place on 22 May 2021 but were indefinitely postponed by President Mahmoud Abbas". It seems there hasn't been a working elected government for 16 years. | |||
"Hamas is the elected government of Palestine The European Council on Foreign Relations (a charity, not an EU body) tells us that there were elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in 2006 for a four-year term. The 2006 election was won by Hamas. The ECFR says, "In theory, the mandate of the 2006 PLC expired in 2010. The PLC has not met in a regular session since the 2007 West Bank-Gaza split". "Elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) were scheduled to take place on 22 May 2021 but were indefinitely postponed by President Mahmoud Abbas". It seems there hasn't been a working elected government for 16 years." Hamas is the recognized government. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I believe there is now talk of bringing in a law to make this sort of thing illegal. In one way I'm pleased as it may help in the future but in another way it's depressing to think that some feel its acceptable and have such low morals to carry out such actions in the first place I doubt anything will come of it. It would be incredibly difficult to word such a law which catches the behaviour we don't want, but doesn't also adversely affect other people. Sadly we just have to accept that some people are unpleasant, and that we'll have to encounter them at some points in our lives." You may well be right that nothing comes of it but I would have thought making it illegal would be a relatively easy thing to do | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words.
I don't have a great issue with the word. I'm more intrigued why you are using it. I know the motivation for people calling them far right etc. it's been giving me the impression you are supportive of them rather than this just being about inconsistencies in policing. "My motivation for using the word is that I refuse to fall into the trap of labelling them as 'far right', what other word would you like me to use? If that comes across as being supportive, then I'm afraid we're more fucked than I thought. It's kinda crazy that I called last week (before all this) that they would be blamed for just about everything, we've seen that play out. I can watch video with my own eyes and see the two tier policing at work. I refuse to blanket blame them for trouble. Something plenty of people seem comfortable with doing, whilst claiming 'most protestors are peaceful'. | |||
"Think about it the media government and you know who have brain washed us all ..." Who does "you know who" refer to? | |||
| |||
| |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them " You are guilty of reading words with bias. I was merely comparing the like for like, which was and still is different in terms of policing and it is not right. I would like the police to be as tough on the groups of trouble makers inside the protests as they were with other groups they dealt with that day. They will know where the trouble makers are meeting up, know they will be carrying weapons (one was used) and like they did with the guys in the pub, they need to do the same! Stop them search them, if carrying arrest them if not disperse them. To make it really simple, I expect the police to treat everyone the same.. | |||
| |||
"More than 100 pro-Palestine events demanding a ceasefire in Gaza are due to take place across the UK this weekend But silence from these folk about returning the Israeli hostages. A 65 year old teachers body and another of a soldier reportedly recovered by IDF yesterday. Gazas largest hospital found full of weapons and still not one Palestinian interviewed on TV condoning 7 October attacks" Feel free to organise a protest to put pressure on the government to do more to get the hostages released. | |||
"Honest question. What happened to British patriotism? Seems to me a lot of people don't give a fuck anymore. It's just about thier self interests. I put country before myself. I will die for it. It's weird how selfish people are. It's just a observation. " It's still there, I would refer to the very public and justified response to the death of Queen Elizabeth 2nd last year as one example.. 'We' are not you, your Nation is full on in that exuberance of loudly proclaiming its identity and love for the flag multiple times per year.. 'We' are perhaps a bit more refrained from the more over the top displaying of such things .. But do not assume as you've wrongly done that people don't give a fuck because there's an issue now which is causing internal conflict here as it is pretty much everywhere because like any Nation that has its internal issues when the situation changes to affect the whole hive such internal issues and differences get put to one side.. That's not to say that all within this society step forward, that's never been the case in any democratic society your own included throughout recent history whenever conflict etc occurs.. The vast majority of people love the country, why wouldn't we it's ours and despite not being perfect it's the one we live in and let's be honest look beyond a bunch of wrong uns at present kicking off .. Any country with a long history is more than one present issue.. | |||
"More than 100 pro-Palestine events demanding a ceasefire in Gaza are due to take place across the UK this weekend But silence from these folk about returning the Israeli hostages. A 65 year old teachers body and another of a soldier reportedly recovered by IDF yesterday. Gazas largest hospital found full of weapons and still not one Palestinian interviewed on TV condoning 7 October attacks" People who chant "From the river, to the sea" would see the ~240 hostages as "a good start". They accept that "freedom" is not going to come about between the river and sea by Jews unilaterally emigrating peacefully one day. | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words.
I don't have a great issue with the word. I'm more intrigued why you are using it. I know the motivation for people calling them far right etc. it's been giving me the impression you are supportive of them rather than this just being about inconsistencies in policing.
My motivation for using the word is that I refuse to fall into the trap of labelling them as 'far right', what other word would you like me to use? If that comes across as being supportive, then I'm afraid we're more fucked than I thought.
It's kinda crazy that I called last week (before all this) that they would be blamed for just about everything, we've seen that play out.
I can watch video with my own eyes and see the two tier policing at work. I refuse to blanket blame them for trouble. Something plenty of people seem comfortable with doing, whilst claiming 'most protestors are peaceful'. "I know you don't like counter protestors. Statue guards? Although, as before, that seems like a redundant job given that the statues were guarded. Calling out they were going to be blamed was a good shout. But there are three ways one can get to this answer. The first is they are the scale goats. They behave but are made out to be bad guys. Two is they will be taubted into reaction by the police. Three is they cause trouble and so are to blame. Two and three probably cross. I wasn't there and haven't seen any Vids on how the confrontation escalated. I'm relying on reports that say they tried to get onto the exclusion zone. Maybe this happened after the fights started. But there is something to understand when almost all the problems happened around that group and not the much much larger protest. I'm not blanket blaming. However I'm not going to blanket blame the police either. Somehow fights broke up despite both groups being there to "protect" the cenopath and when the cenopath was under no actual threat. That is odd to me. | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words.
I don't have a great issue with the word. I'm more intrigued why you are using it. I know the motivation for people calling them far right etc. it's been giving me the impression you are supportive of them rather than this just being about inconsistencies in policing.
My motivation for using the word is that I refuse to fall into the trap of labelling them as 'far right', what other word would you like me to use? If that comes across as being supportive, then I'm afraid we're more fucked than I thought.
It's kinda crazy that I called last week (before all this) that they would be blamed for just about everything, we've seen that play out.
I can watch video with my own eyes and see the two tier policing at work. I refuse to blanket blame them for trouble. Something plenty of people seem comfortable with doing, whilst claiming 'most protestors are peaceful'.
I know you don't like counter protestors. Statue guards? Although, as before, that seems like a redundant job given that the statues were guarded.
Calling out they were going to be blamed was a good shout. But there are three ways one can get to this answer. The first is they are the scale goats. They behave but are made out to be bad guys. Two is they will be taubted into reaction by the police. Three is they cause trouble and so are to blame. Two and three probably cross.
I wasn't there and haven't seen any Vids on how the confrontation escalated. I'm relying on reports that say they tried to get onto the exclusion zone. Maybe this happened after the fights started. But there is something to understand when almost all the problems happened around that group and not the much much larger protest. I'm not blanket blaming. However I'm not going to blanket blame the police either. Somehow fights broke up despite both groups being there to "protect" the cenopath and when the cenopath was under no actual threat. That is odd to me.
"Let's face it, it doesn't really matter what I call them, I won't change the minds of those who label them 'far right'. I agree with your second paragraph, there are multiple ways we can get to an answer, so why is every headline 'EDL thugs' 'far right'? From what I've seen, they didn't try to get into an exclusion zone but were told 'you can't go down Whitehall, go the other way round', only to be confronted with a line of baton-drawn police. The flip side of this is police not intervening when confronted by the other side, and even posing for photos with a kid dressed as a hamas fighter. Let me be clear once and for all. If any 'patriot' has caused trouble, I'm good with them being dealt with. I'd just like the same on the other side. | |||
"What are you really saying? Those in Southampton are activists causing criminal damage and will probably pay the consequences. Are you lumping them all together, IE peaceful protestors and activists? It seems acceptable to lump 'patriots' together. I guess that's a different story though. Every single day we see terror from 'peaceful protestors', so yeah I'm lumping them all together. " | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them Why should Israel have morality when Hamas didn't? Hamas is the elected government of Palestine. Hamas didn't care about Israeli civilians. But Israel is supposed to." Well isreal arent terrorists are they ? | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words.
I don't have a great issue with the word. I'm more intrigued why you are using it. I know the motivation for people calling them far right etc. it's been giving me the impression you are supportive of them rather than this just being about inconsistencies in policing.
My motivation for using the word is that I refuse to fall into the trap of labelling them as 'far right', what other word would you like me to use? If that comes across as being supportive, then I'm afraid we're more fucked than I thought.
It's kinda crazy that I called last week (before all this) that they would be blamed for just about everything, we've seen that play out.
I can watch video with my own eyes and see the two tier policing at work. I refuse to blanket blame them for trouble. Something plenty of people seem comfortable with doing, whilst claiming 'most protestors are peaceful'. "Id call them far right racicst thugs | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them You are guilty of reading words with bias. I was merely comparing the like for like, which was and still is different in terms of policing and it is not right. I would like the police to be as tough on the groups of trouble makers inside the protests as they were with other groups they dealt with that day. They will know where the trouble makers are meeting up, know they will be carrying weapons (one was used) and like they did with the guys in the pub, they need to do the same! Stop them search them, if carrying arrest them if not disperse them. To make it really simple, I expect the police to treat everyone the same.." And should police treat george cross waving crowds who are attacking them, the same any peacefull protersters ? | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people?" Well if they were arrested in case. Then they have a legal right to sue the police force. That's called profiling. You can't arrest some one in case they cause a scene. So hopefully if this is true. They get some £££ out of it | |||
"Why do so many people dislike the word patriot? Does it not suit your narrative in labelling everyone who disagrees with this as 'far right'? That's where we're at? Pathetic I don't get why they should be called patriots? They did nothing patriotic. It's just an odd choice of word in this context.
Should they be labelled 'far right thugs' instead?that's not my words. I'm happy with counter protestors. I think they there were there to counter act the protests. Otherwise it's a coincidence they left the cenopath unprotected to then go to a pub on the march.
Anti protesters seems loaded.
They aren't your words but I do note that you take exception to me using 'patriots' yet turn a blind eye to other words.
I don't have a great issue with the word. I'm more intrigued why you are using it. I know the motivation for people calling them far right etc. it's been giving me the impression you are supportive of them rather than this just being about inconsistencies in policing.
My motivation for using the word is that I refuse to fall into the trap of labelling them as 'far right', what other word would you like me to use? If that comes across as being supportive, then I'm afraid we're more fucked than I thought.
It's kinda crazy that I called last week (before all this) that they would be blamed for just about everything, we've seen that play out.
I can watch video with my own eyes and see the two tier policing at work. I refuse to blanket blame them for trouble. Something plenty of people seem comfortable with doing, whilst claiming 'most protestors are peaceful'.
I know you don't like counter protestors. Statue guards? Although, as before, that seems like a redundant job given that the statues were guarded.
Calling out they were going to be blamed was a good shout. But there are three ways one can get to this answer. The first is they are the scale goats. They behave but are made out to be bad guys. Two is they will be taubted into reaction by the police. Three is they cause trouble and so are to blame. Two and three probably cross.
I wasn't there and haven't seen any Vids on how the confrontation escalated. I'm relying on reports that say they tried to get onto the exclusion zone. Maybe this happened after the fights started. But there is something to understand when almost all the problems happened around that group and not the much much larger protest. I'm not blanket blaming. However I'm not going to blanket blame the police either. Somehow fights broke up despite both groups being there to "protect" the cenopath and when the cenopath was under no actual threat. That is odd to me.
Let's face it, it doesn't really matter what I call them, I won't change the minds of those who label them 'far right'.
I agree with your second paragraph, there are multiple ways we can get to an answer, so why is every headline 'EDL thugs' 'far right'?
From what I've seen, they didn't try to get into an exclusion zone but were told 'you can't go down Whitehall, go the other way round', only to be confronted with a line of baton-drawn police.
The flip side of this is police not intervening when confronted by the other side, and even posing for photos with a kid dressed as a hamas fighter.
Let me be clear once and for all. If any 'patriot' has caused trouble, I'm good with them being dealt with. I'd just like the same on the other side. "patriots lol you meen a load of co ked up pissed footie hooligans, if a few more london teams had been playing at home there would of been more of them | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them You are guilty of reading words with bias. I was merely comparing the like for like, which was and still is different in terms of policing and it is not right. I would like the police to be as tough on the groups of trouble makers inside the protests as they were with other groups they dealt with that day. They will know where the trouble makers are meeting up, know they will be carrying weapons (one was used) and like they did with the guys in the pub, they need to do the same! Stop them search them, if carrying arrest them if not disperse them. To make it really simple, I expect the police to treat everyone the same.. And should police treat george cross waving crowds who are attacking them, the same any peacefull protersters ?" Talk about twisting things, my! If you had said, the George Cross waving group being treated the same as the pro Palestine supporters that kicked off, or vice versa. That would have been sensible... | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them You are guilty of reading words with bias. I was merely comparing the like for like, which was and still is different in terms of policing and it is not right. I would like the police to be as tough on the groups of trouble makers inside the protests as they were with other groups they dealt with that day. They will know where the trouble makers are meeting up, know they will be carrying weapons (one was used) and like they did with the guys in the pub, they need to do the same! Stop them search them, if carrying arrest them if not disperse them. To make it really simple, I expect the police to treat everyone the same.. And should police treat george cross waving crowds who are attacking them, the same any peacefull protersters ? Talk about twisting things, my! If you had said, the George Cross waving group being treated the same as the pro Palestine supporters that kicked off, or vice versa. That would have been sensible..." I never mentioned palestinian protestorsi mentioned peacefull protestors,who you wantthe police to treatthe same as thugs who attack them | |||
"So after seeing 'patriots' arrested at the weekend just in case they breached the peace. Last night we see 'peaceful protestors' climbing monuments and hounding others, including hitting someones car whilst they were in it. Whilst complaining to the police that someone said something hurtful to them. Today we see them causing criminal damage in Southampton. When the fuck will we stop defending these people? Last night I caught a clip from reporters who went to the protest outside parliament. They only wanted to ask the protesters some basic questions and actually give them air time but were badly verbally abused in between offensive chants to the point they feared for their safety. The police intervened and warned the reporter to leave or be in trouble. No action taken against the protesters at all despite the police witnessing it first hand And that is it in a nutshell…. The police are not policing the trouble makers in numbers, they are policing individuals who are committing no offence because they’re worried it will anger the numbers of trouble makers. Keeping the peace by supporting the the greater number, and that did show on Saturday. There would have been intel on the pro Palestinian groups intending to cause trouble, but they were left to get on with it. The searching of everyone in a pub, because they were in a pub was overreach, I did see everyone was white, it would have been a very interesting dilemma if there had been anyone of colour in there. The kicking and punching of the George cross waving group by the police, seemed a stark contrast to the softly, softly of the face covered, Pro Palestinian protest group. They also splintered into groups and went on to terrorise Jewish people in their homes. Police the trouble makers, protect the innocent and do it fairly, is not a lot to ask of a police force You seem to have a problem with anyone supporting palestine ,and your comment about police punching and kicking the george cross waving crowd is really laughable and prob shows you to be as bitter as them You are guilty of reading words with bias. I was merely comparing the like for like, which was and still is different in terms of policing and it is not right. I would like the police to be as tough on the groups of trouble makers inside the protests as they were with other groups they dealt with that day. They will know where the trouble makers are meeting up, know they will be carrying weapons (one was used) and like they did with the guys in the pub, they need to do the same! Stop them search them, if carrying arrest them if not disperse them. To make it really simple, I expect the police to treat everyone the same.. And should police treat george cross waving crowds who are attacking them, the same any peacefull protersters ?" I would expect everyone be treated equally regardless. If they commit an offence then arrest them as quick as possible | |||
| |||
"People who chant "From the river, to the sea" would see the ~240 hostages as "a good start"." That certainly doesn't apply to at least one man who I met at the Palestine march last Saturday. As I have written before, I asked him directly, should the Israeli hostages be released too?" He said yes, all hostages should be released. I must say, this Hamas sounds like a nightmare. There was an election to a legislative chamber in 2006 that gave Hamas a majority. The legislative chamber hasn't worked properly since 2007. Elections to it that are supposed to be every four years have been off. The government is in the form of a Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is supposed to be the actual government. The legislative chamber isn't the government. Correct me if I'm wrong? There was a presidential election in 2005 that was won by Mahmoud Abbas but delayed presidential elections in 2021 have been suspended as well. Iran has been supporting Hamas since the 1990s, apparently. The Hamas attack on the 7th of October sounds horrendous. The bombing of Gaza by Israel sounds horrendous. I'm sure there's far more to this than I know about. There was once a British mandate in Palestine? | |||
| |||
"Always remember, who is showing you these scenes and what is the intention of the 'news' being published." News outlets showing a news story, seems reasonable | |||
"People who chant "From the river, to the sea" would see the ~240 hostages as "a good start". That certainly doesn't apply to at least one man who I met at the Palestine march last Saturday." Was he chanting that, and did you ask him specifically about what that chant meant? | |||
"People who chant "From the river, to the sea" would see the ~240 hostages as "a good start". That certainly doesn't apply to at least one man who I met at the Palestine march last Saturday. Was he chanting that, and did you ask him specifically about what that chant meant?" I was at the march, and I was chanting this, and in my mind it means Palestine will be free of Israeli settlements that connect the west bank (river) to gaza (sea) in a viable state, whilst also having room for an Israeli state, with East Jerusalem (the mosque part included) the capital of the Palestinian state, and the rest of Jerusalem (including the wall) part of an Israeli state | |||
| |||
"I was at the march, and I was chanting this, and in my mind it means Palestine will be free of Israeli settlements that connect the west bank (river) to gaza (sea) in a viable state, whilst also having room for an Israeli state, with East Jerusalem (the mosque part included) the capital of the Palestinian state, and the rest of Jerusalem (including the wall) part of an Israeli state" So "from the river to the sea" now means "let there be an equitable two state solution". As distinct from the Hamas interpretation: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution. | |||
"I was at the march, and I was chanting this, and in my mind it means Palestine will be free of Israeli settlements that connect the west bank (river) to gaza (sea) in a viable state, whilst also having room for an Israeli state, with East Jerusalem (the mosque part included) the capital of the Palestinian state, and the rest of Jerusalem (including the wall) part of an Israeli state So "from the river to the sea" now means "let there be an equitable two state solution". As distinct from the Hamas interpretation: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution." It's crazy, we've heard in that last year or 3 that changing the meaning of words or statements to suit agendas is a tactic of 'the right'. Something which 'the left' often cry about. Now 'the left' are more than happy to do the very same thing because it suits their agenda. | |||
"I was at the march, and I was chanting this, and in my mind it means Palestine will be free of Israeli settlements that connect the west bank (river) to gaza (sea) in a viable state, whilst also having room for an Israeli state, with East Jerusalem (the mosque part included) the capital of the Palestinian state, and the rest of Jerusalem (including the wall) part of an Israeli state So "from the river to the sea" now means "let there be an equitable two state solution". As distinct from the Hamas interpretation: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution." When you say Hamas, do you mean the millitant part or the goverment part? If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist, and if it’s the political part, no election has been held since 2006, due to the blockade creating worse living conditions. And seeing we are in 2023 that is almost 18 years, the legal age to vote. So Instantly 50% of the palestinians have not voted for Hamas and of the remaining amound 45% of them did not vote for Hamas | |||
"I was at the march, and I was chanting this, and in my mind it means Palestine will be free of Israeli settlements that connect the west bank (river) to gaza (sea) in a viable state, whilst also having room for an Israeli state, with East Jerusalem (the mosque part included) the capital of the Palestinian state, and the rest of Jerusalem (including the wall) part of an Israeli state So "from the river to the sea" now means "let there be an equitable two state solution". As distinct from the Hamas interpretation: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution. It's crazy, we've heard in that last year or 3 that changing the meaning of words or statements to suit agendas is a tactic of 'the right'. Something which 'the left' often cry about. Now 'the left' are more than happy to do the very same thing because it suits their agenda. " It’s crazy that conservatives and the people of more individuals like to lump people into one group rather than standing for individual freedoms. I don’t speak for Hamas, I can only speak for me | |||
" “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution. When you say Hamas, do you mean the millitant part or the goverment part? " Either. You clearly have a very different interpretation of the statement to any Hamas branch. As it happens, they merged. " If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist" What happened in 1964, other than the creation of the PLO? " and if it’s the political part, no election has been held since 2006, due to the blockade creating worse living conditions. And seeing we are in 2023 that is almost 18 years, the legal age to vote. So Instantly 50% of the palestinians have not voted for Hamas and of the remaining amound 45% of them did not vote for Hamas" Therefore the river and sea are in different places? The statement changed meaning? Not sure what you're getting at here in relation to "from the river to the sea"? | |||
"I was at the march, and I was chanting this, and in my mind it means Palestine will be free of Israeli settlements that connect the west bank (river) to gaza (sea) in a viable state, whilst also having room for an Israeli state, with East Jerusalem (the mosque part included) the capital of the Palestinian state, and the rest of Jerusalem (including the wall) part of an Israeli state So "from the river to the sea" now means "let there be an equitable two state solution". As distinct from the Hamas interpretation: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution. It's crazy, we've heard in that last year or 3 that changing the meaning of words or statements to suit agendas is a tactic of 'the right'. Something which 'the left' often cry about. Now 'the left' are more than happy to do the very same thing because it suits their agenda. It’s crazy that conservatives and the people of more individuals like to lump people into one group rather than standing for individual freedoms. I don’t speak for Hamas, I can only speak for me" What's good for the goose and all that | |||
" “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” says the organisation’s 2017 constitution. When you say Hamas, do you mean the millitant part or the goverment part? Either. You clearly have a very different interpretation of the statement to any Hamas branch. As it happens, they merged. If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist What happened in 1964, other than the creation of the PLO? and if it’s the political part, no election has been held since 2006, due to the blockade creating worse living conditions. And seeing we are in 2023 that is almost 18 years, the legal age to vote. So Instantly 50% of the palestinians have not voted for Hamas and of the remaining amound 45% of them did not vote for Hamas Therefore the river and sea are in different places? The statement changed meaning? Not sure what you're getting at here in relation to "from the river to the sea"?" Well we could chant from the river to the sea but only from point a to be which covers c square miles and allows for a viable two state solution, bit of a mouthful really though. Cool so the PLO and Hamas shouldn’t exist, so let’s just claim more Palestinian land in contravention of international law and to be fair it might have been quicker if they didn’t you know resist the occupation | |||
"Well we could chant from the river to the sea but only from point a to be which covers c square miles and allows for a viable two state solution, bit of a mouthful really though." Exactly. Chanting something simplistic that has been used to call for genocide/ethic cleansing (in the legal, UN definition), but repurposed to some rather complicated sanitised meaning really isn't smart. "Cool so the PLO and Hamas shouldn’t exist, so let’s just claim more Palestinian land in contravention of international law and to be fair it might have been quicker if they didn’t you know resist the occupation" Eh? Where did that come from? | |||
"Well we could chant from the river to the sea but only from point a to be which covers c square miles and allows for a viable two state solution, bit of a mouthful really though. Exactly. Chanting something simplistic that has been used to call for genocide/ethic cleansing (in the legal, UN definition), but repurposed to some rather complicated sanitised meaning really isn't smart. Cool so the PLO and Hamas shouldn’t exist, so let’s just claim more Palestinian land in contravention of international law and to be fair it might have been quicker if they didn’t you know resist the occupation Eh? Where did that come from? " Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution." So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. "As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948." So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. "My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there" YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. | |||
" As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. " Sorry, you can't get away with that. Israel did not invade anywhere in 1948. That's not just a misrepresentation, that's either monumental ignorance or an outright lie. | |||
"People who chant "From the river, to the sea" would see the ~240 hostages as "a good start". That certainly doesn't apply to at least one man who I met at the Palestine march last Saturday. Was he chanting that, and did you ask him specifically about what that chant meant?" No, he was handing out posters, not chanting anything. I didn't ask him what the chant meant. The one question I asked was, should the Israeli hostages be released and he replied, "Yes. All hostages". | |||
"People who chant "From the river, to the sea" would see the ~240 hostages as "a good start". That certainly doesn't apply to at least one man who I met at the Palestine march last Saturday. Was he chanting that, and did you ask him specifically about what that chant meant? No, he was handing out posters, not chanting anything. I didn't ask him what the chant meant. The one question I asked was, should the Israeli hostages be released and he replied, "Yes. All hostages"." | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders." for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. " Why was the PLO formed? | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. " side by side in peace ? Not an expert but there were revolts before then, I'm sure. | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. Why was the PLO formed?" To liberate land for Palestinian people, that palestinian people did not agree to give up | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. side by side in peace ? Not an expert but there were revolts before then, I'm sure. " A couple, but I'll tell you where most the pogroms happened ( wasn't Palestine) yet Palestine have to give their land for a people who were murdered by someone else in a land far away? Do you see any justice? | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. side by side in peace ? Not an expert but there were revolts before then, I'm sure. A couple, but I'll tell you where most the pogroms happened ( wasn't Palestine) yet Palestine have to give their land for a people who were murdered by someone else in a land far away? Do you see any justice?" I'm still working my way through all this. I have a lot of sympathy with palenstine tbh. I was simply challenging the idea that pre 1949 that part of the world was at peace. It seems to have been a shit storm for many years before that, and was compounded by the later pogrom. However if I understand it correctly Zionism existed about the same time. Now that may have come around from issues at tej time that pre date this... Everytime I read onto this it pendulums. | |||
"Or maybe it’s not a chant of genocide, it’s a quote to free all of Israel from Netanyahu and have jews, muslims and christians live side by side? Maybe it is for a two state solution. So you're not clear on what "from the river to the sea" means. Could mean anything, depending on the point you want to make, or whatever you think you'll get away with, depending on the audience. Got it. Strategic ambiguity. Clever. As to your point of calling for genocide as I currently watch my tv I can only see Israel having invaded someone elses country, the same way they have from 1948. So... That makes it okay? Again, not sure what you're getting at. My point about the PLO being started was in response to yours about 1964, which from it’s tone implied you thought the PLO shouldn’t have been created. Well had it not I am certain all palestinians would have been victims of genocide if the resistance of the PLO wasn’t there YOU said "If land wasn’t snatched in 1964 the millitant part wouldn’t exist [sic]". Land wasn't snatched in 1964. So the question was "what did you mean"? Perhaps it was the establishment of the PLO in 1964 who also used the phrase upon their establishment. Three years before the 1967 war in which Israel's borders expanded (possibly what your meant). Which highlights the meaning of the phrase even more (it wasn't intended to mean two state solution, or reversion to 1967 borders. for me I'd prefer a one state solution where no one is displaced, where jews muslims and christians live side by side in peace like they did pre 1948 however the more pragmatic is a two state solution. As for others I can't tell you what other people think... I don't read minds. Im not getting at anything other than stating Israel has been comitting genocide since the nakba. as for the PLO what would your solution be? For the palestinians just to leave and give up the land they've lived on for around 1500 years? Even the UN says everybody has the right to a comprehensive peace and human rights education and the right to resist and oppose oppressive colonial, foreign occupation or dictatorial domination. Israel has been expanding it's borders by default, as pre 1948 it wasn't a country. side by side in peace ? Not an expert but there were revolts before then, I'm sure. A couple, but I'll tell you where most the pogroms happened ( wasn't Palestine) yet Palestine have to give their land for a people who were murdered by someone else in a land far away? Do you see any justice?I'm still working my way through all this. I have a lot of sympathy with palenstine tbh. I was simply challenging the idea that pre 1949 that part of the world was at peace. It seems to have been a shit storm for many years before that, and was compounded by the later pogrom. However if I understand it correctly Zionism existed about the same time. Now that may have come around from issues at tej time that pre date this... Everytime I read onto this it pendulums. " the three documentaries I encourage anoyone to watch are Brief history of Israel Palestine conflict on youtube by TRT world Louis Theroux Specials Ultra Zionists on iplayer The human factor on netflix | |||
 | |||
