The Met Police WON'T ban Poppy Day pro-Palestine rally

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given the protest was peaceful you are IMO being melodramatic. The only problems were by right wing thugs trying to attack the protestors and easily dealt with by the cops, who arrested them.

 

Not true - there were problems from both sides - like your history your should broaden the scope of your reading.

 

And asking for one protest-free weekend is not asking much IMO!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

So people can't march against Hamas and other terror groups because of this? Sorry but that's a poor excuse. 

 

 

You could demonstrate the truth of that with evidence of you yourself having done so.

 

It is it you outraged at your own failings?

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wouldn't far right be israeli supporters?

 

Only if you are far left and off your trolley.

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and that is the great and everlasting shame of the western world that has ignored the atrocities that have been happening for over 30 years in the illegally occupied Palestinian land.

The protests should have been happening for 30 years.

Shame that it took this to let people know how the Palestinians have been humiliated, oppressed and murdered with impunity for so long.

 

One can only hope that it results in the expulsion of the illegal israeli settlers from the west bank and East Jerusalem, a genuine and viable free Palestinian state and reparations from israel for all it's crimes in illegally occupied Palestine.

 

Netanyahu in the ICC would be good but unlikely.

 

The short history of Palestine by thaibeachlovers.

[In the jungle]

Hurrah!  Suella got sacked!

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You need to prove that. I've seen zero reports of protestors causing trouble, though right wing thugs were and were arrested for it.

 

Blinkered again Beachlover?

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, NextG said:

PLO is not HAMAS and yes, they were there to represent Palestinians. Why should they be benign?

The point is chanting it is supporting Palestinians. Do you think everyone believes that ‘Israel’ is the victim?

You are wasting your time and mine. 

 

I did not say that the PLO was Hamas.

I pointed out that they were not benign to Israel and Israelis, hence their usage of the slogan wasn't as well.

 

Israel exists between the river and the sea. If someone uses the slogan, he basically denounces Israel's existence.

Hence, chanting 'river-to-the-sea' is more than 'supporting Palestinians', as it implies the destruction, erasure or what have you of Israel.

 

I didn't claim Israel was a 'victim', that's something you just injected to the conversation.

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

Why single out 'ordinary' Muslims and those on the political left?

Because they are the people attending these marches. 

[NextG]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I did not suggest a wide-brush claim as you claim.

 

As for the 'river-to-the-sea' - try harder. Some version of it was indeed used (maybe until the 80's or so) by some Israeli right-wingers, it's not something one often hears nowadays, though. As for it being used by the PLO - how does that contradict by comment? The PLO's original stance was not benign to Israel or Israelis either. How the slogan was used in the past does not have a whole lot of bearing on how it is used today.

 

 

 

 

It was used by Likud…. Yes, the Likud now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

Because they are the people attending these marches. 

The only people?

[NextG]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

Because they are the people attending these marches. 

….and so they should attend. Ordinary people aren’t interested in violence. Just a few on the fringe and the EDF. 

[Wobblybob]

Just a montage of the peaceful protests.

 

 

[NextG]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I did not say that the PLO was Hamas.

I pointed out that they were not benign to Israel and Israelis, hence their usage of the slogan wasn't as well.

 

Israel exists between the river and the sea. If someone uses the slogan, he basically denounces Israel's existence.

Hence, chanting 'river-to-the-sea' is more than 'supporting Palestinians', as it implies the destruction, erasure or what have you of Israel.

 

I didn't claim Israel was a 'victim', that's something you just injected to the conversation.

 

 

….and I told you that the phrase was also used by Likud. The party now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. 
 

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, In the jungle said:

Hurrah!  Suella got sacked!

I wonder if Mark Rowley could go over and personally escort Braverman off the premises.

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, NextG said:

It was used by Likud…. Yes, the Likud now headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. 

 

Indeed. It was even part of their old party anthem. But be that as it may, it's pretty much out of use for years now.

And regardless, this wasn't a protest by Likud members, so not seeing the point.

I'll make it clear (you can check my posting history) that I'm not a fan of Netanyahu, his party or their policies.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Because they are the people attending these marches. 

 

I'm pretty sure that individuals attended these marches for any number of reasons: 1) Some support a peaceful, political solution to the 'Palestinian problem' 2) Some support Hamas and 3) some are pacifists who disown violence in any form. There are, no doubt, other categories.

 

It's quite conceivable that those in groups 1) and 3) would be equally comfortable taking part in a march against Hamas.

 

In any event, your answer still doesn't address the question why a Muslim - rather than any other individual - should be expected to organise such a march.

 

[NextG]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Not true - there were problems from both sides - like your history your should broaden the scope of your reading.

 

And asking for one protest-free weekend is not asking much IMO!

Tell us about the ‘problems from both sides’. Will be interesting to read your version of when you think the problems began 😊

[nauseus]

Already posted.

 

You will find them if you look.

[CG1 Blue]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You could demonstrate the truth of that with evidence of you yourself having done so.

 

It is it you outraged at your own failings?

So you think that because I don't go out on a one-man march against Islamist terror groups, then there is no need for protests against Islamist terror groups? Great logic there Chomper...

[NextG]

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Already posted.

 

You will find them if you look.

Thanks, but since you already know where they lie, perhaps you could save me the trouble of searching through your every post to find it. 
 

[CG1 Blue]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

 

I'm pretty sure that individuals attended these marches for any number of reasons: 1) Some support a peaceful, political solution to the 'Palestinian problem' 2) Some support Hamas and 3) some are pacifists who disown violence in any form. There are, no doubt, other categories.

 

It's quite conceivable that those in groups 1) and 3) would be equally comfortable taking part in a march against Hamas.

 

In any event, your answer still doesn't address the question why a Muslim - rather than any other individual - should be expected to organise such a march.

 

If I were a deeply religious person, and terror groups were carrying out endless barbaric attacks in the name of my religion, I'd want to be out on the streets telling the world "not in my name" etc. 

 

Maybe Hamas and the like wouldn't feel so emboldened to carry out their deliberate attacks on innocent people if they could see Muslims around the world denouncing them with real passion and anger like we see on the pro-Palestine marches. 

[NextG]

26 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Already posted.

 

You will find them if you look.

Took a look and cannot find anything that you posted with regard to pre-1948. Then we can have a conversation about the terror groups who ended up governing the place in question. Do you think they no longer exist? 
We can talk about how the Palestinians and the Jews lived together peacefully, as Arabs and Jews did before and do now; Morocco, as an example. 
But of course, something happened to change all that snd it wasn’t the Palestinians who changed it. 

[NextG]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If I were a deeply religious person, and terror groups were carrying out endless barbaric attacks in the name of my religion, I'd want to be out on the streets telling the world "not in my name" etc. 

 

Maybe Hamas and the like wouldn't feel so emboldened to carry out their deliberate attacks on innocent people if they could see Muslims around the world denouncing them with real passion and anger like we see on the pro-Palestine marches. 

So who is carrying out these ‘endless barbaric attacks’? Can you point out some of these ‘endless’ attacks? Perhaps we can then balance it up with some endless barbaric attacks by non-Muslims. 

[NextG]

17 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If I were a deeply religious person, and terror groups were carrying out endless barbaric attacks in the name of my religion, I'd want to be out on the streets telling the world "not in my name" etc. 

 

Maybe Hamas and the like wouldn't feel so emboldened to carry out their deliberate attacks on innocent people if they could see Muslims around the world denouncing them with real passion and anger like we see on the pro-Palestine marches. 

 

What does ‘deeply religious’ have to do with anything? Should all Muslims be ‘deeply religious’?

It might surprise you to learn that people who aren’t Muslims might understand the rationale behind the attack, even if they don’t agree with the method. It’s easy to sit in your armchair and expect little David to fight fair against a Goliath. It’s not an even fight. So in some people eyes these men are true heroes, giving their lives for their cause. 
That is not something that is going to change or to be snuffed out. So why should anyone condemn it? Israel does not have clean hands in this conflict and there are always going to be people rooting for the other side. No mealy-mouthed virtue signalling is going to change that

[NextG]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Already posted.

 

You will find them if you look.

As I thought… you had nothing. 

[RayC]

43 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If I were a deeply religious person, and terror groups were carrying out endless barbaric attacks in the name of my religion, I'd want to be out on the streets telling the world "not in my name" etc. 

 

Perhaps you would but many of the Christian churches and millions of their followers wouldn't. The Russian Orthodox Church is actively supporting Putin in Russia and you don't have to go that far back in history to witness the Catholic and Anglican Churches turning a blind eye to killings.

 

I'm not trying to act as an apologist for Islam; I'm not religious and have little time for organised religion which imo throughout history has done more harm than good. However, imo it is wrong to castigate ordinary Muslims in this instance.

 

43 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

Maybe Hamas and the like wouldn't feel so emboldened to carry out their deliberate attacks on innocent people if they could see Muslims around the world denouncing them with real passion and anger like we see on the pro-Palestine marches. 

 

Perhaps but, unfortunately, I doubt that the zealots who follow Hamas will change.

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, NextG said:

 

What does ‘deeply religious’ have to do with anything? Should all Muslims be ‘deeply religious’?

It might surprise you to learn that people who aren’t Muslims might understand the rationale behind the attack, even if they don’t agree with the method. It’s easy to sit in your armchair and expect little David to fight fair against a Goliath. It’s not an even fight. So in some people eyes these men are true heroes, giving their lives for their cause. 
That is not something that is going to change or to be snuffed out. So why should anyone condemn it? Israel does not have clean hands in this conflict and there are always going to be people rooting for the other side. No mealy-mouthed virtue signalling is going to change that

 

So why is it you so often engage in virtue signaling, then?

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, NextG said:

Took a look and cannot find anything that you posted with regard to pre-1948. Then we can have a conversation about the terror groups who ended up governing the place in question. Do you think they no longer exist? 
We can talk about how the Palestinians and the Jews lived together peacefully, as Arabs and Jews did before and do now; Morocco, as an example. 
But of course, something happened to change all that snd it wasn’t the Palestinians who changed it. 

 

I believe he was referring to the protest.

[NextG]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I believe he was referring to the protest.

and he was referring to @thaibeachlovers version of history. Keep up. 

[NextG]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So why is it you so often engage in virtue signaling, then?

Did it change anything? QED.