[wat0n]

I disagree. Most Americans were okay with killing all those people because they think it is awesome that we had so much power.

Nah, in that case you'd have nuked the Soviets or North Korea.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Please quote the text for which you have been asked.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog you already got it.

The hypothetical protests defended by British frauds do not exist.

[Rich]

Zionism was never a religious movement basing its claims on Biblical texts. The early Zionists were secular, many of them atheists, who had consciously rejected the religion of their ancestors. They had no more faith in the historical veracity of Biblical texts than I have. The historical status of the Bible’s claims are irrelevant to the ideology of Zionism.

Zionism was never a mere agent of "imperialism". It was never a mere agent of a great power. It was however born in an era of imperialism and racist attitudes. So while no tool of European imperialism the early Zionists very much shared those attitudes. Hence the earliest plans for a Jewish homeland were not necessarily in Palestine. At the time some Europeans grabbing a bit of land outside Europe was totally natural, it really demanded no further justification. However those attitudes no longer stand. So now virtually all Zionists end up appealing to historical claims however irreligious they are.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog you already got it.

The hypothetical protests defended by British frauds do not exist.

No, you have not quoted the text.

I will assume you misread and are not deliberately lying,

Quote the text now.

[KurtFF8]

"Rallies" as in protests. Yes, it is different because they don't disrupt university operations.

Hence, they are not banned.

Yeah that's not how this works. You've just ignored my last comment so I'll ignore yours too.

Yes, there are antisemitic left segregationists. It is clear when seeing how they attempt to limit the access of Jewish students to common areas college campuses, telling them just avoid "their" spaces - exactly like in segregation.

More lies.

Refusing to use taxpayer money for BDS isn't "harassment". It seems that parasitism is common among the left.

That's not even how BDS works. BDS is a divestment movement. It's that these laws forbid divestment/

No. I'm calling you out for your inability to show the examples I posted are false, and your insistence to deny leftist antisemitism.

By your own metric, they don't prove anything. I shows you a video earlier that was a compilation of multiple instances of pro-regime counter demonstrators being racist and violent against the anti-apartheid activists. You said that it somehow didn't count because they weren't "officially" a part of any group, or that they didn't hold a flag while they said their comments, etc. So by your own logic: you've shown nothing.

Zero proof of this.

Please post at least as many incidents of violence by pro-Israel protesters as I have done for pro-Palestine protesters. Furthermore, please prove evidence that pro-Israel protesters have killed anyone like pro-Palestine protesters have.

I've shown you this, you just dismissed it. And where have pro-Palestine protesters killed anyone?

Still not beating the allegations of the tankie-neonazi alliance, because you can't.

Whining about how truths in footage form are lies doesn't cut it.

You've provided zero evidence of course. It's a baseless claim. And in your case you're making a knowingly false claim which is also called a lie.

[KurtFF8]

Here's just another example of random antisemitic harassment by pro-Palestine individuals members of the tankie-neonazi alliance like @KurtFF8 support.

https://x.com/Doranimated/status/180301 ... glXEQ&s=19

What led up to this altercation? Can you even make out what they're saying to each other? Is the person who spit on the older man a member of any left wing organization? Is he a Leftist? What did the old man say before the video?

I suspect you won't be able to answer any of these questions.

[wat0n]

No, you have not quoted the text.

I will assume you misread and are not deliberately lying,

Quote the text now.

I already quoted the text.

The police was evidently acting by the request of affected students.

Yeah that's not how this works. You've just ignored my last comment so I'll ignore yours too.

I did not.

I corrected it.

A rally is certainly a protest, even if a peaceful one.

More lies.

This is your go-to when you run out of arguments.

That's not even how BDS works. BDS is a divestment movement. It's that these laws forbid divestment/

Right, so you can advocate for it using your free speech if you want.

And the taxpayer also has no obligation to fund your activities if you do it.

By your own metric, they don't prove anything. I shows you a video earlier that was a compilation of multiple instances of pro-regime counter demonstrators being racist and violent against the anti-apartheid activists. You said that it somehow didn't count because they weren't "officially" a part of any group, or that they didn't hold a flag while they said their comments, etc. So by your own logic: you've shown nothing.

The only physically violent demonstration of the video was the attack on the encampment at UCLA, itself a response to violence by pro-Palestine protesters at the encampment in the previous days. I don't see attempts by them to limit their freedom of movement either, just hateful rhetoric which is bad but not as bad as actual physical violence.

And as I said the rhetoric in the video has not been defended by any major Zionist organizations AFAIK.

Also, are you admitting then that these are examples of leftist antisemitism and no better than your alleged pro-Israel racists? Because that denies your claims of moral superiority here.

I've shown you this, you just dismissed it.

Because you're full of shit.

The cops are doing their job, which includes kicking trespassers and harassers out of campus upon university request.

As such, they are not harassing anyone by definition.

And they did not do so targeting Jews either, that is something your tankie friends have been doing.

And where have pro-Palestine protesters killed anyone?

In Thousand Oaks, CA.

You've provided zero evidence of course. It's a baseless claim. And in your case you're making a knowingly false claim which is also called a lie.

I already showed it.

BTW have you ever heard of Briahna Gray Joy?

What led up to this altercation? Can you even make out what they're saying to each other? Is the person who spit on the older man a member of any left wing organization? Is he a Leftist? What did the old man say before the video?

I suspect you won't be able to answer any of these questions.

There is no discernible prior altercation, also, does it mean that if a pro-Israel protester assaults some pro-Palestine one you'll look into whether there was some prior altercation?

I will note this guy said he spat on the old person "for Palestine" meaning that 1) it's not personal, but based on being visibly Jewish since he wears a kippah so chances are that there's no prior altercation, 2) he's doing for political reasons and using the same rhetoric your tankie friends do.

[Sherlock Holmes]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wBbj-5aMB7c

[wat0n]

It's a good thing the Karen was arrested

[KurtFF8]

I did not.

I corrected it.

A rally is certainly a protest, even if a peaceful one.

Let's say it was just simply a protest (it wasn't, it was more a series of conferences coupled with small rallies) and see your logic through: just because a protest for something was at one point not repressed doesn't mean that later protests weren't violently repressed.

This is your go-to when you run out of arguments.

Projection here.

Right, so you can advocate for it using your free speech if you want.

And the taxpayer also has no obligation to fund your activities if you do it.

See this is the thing you keep ignoring. The very people who make boycotts more difficult are also trying to make the free speech component illegal as well. And what do you mean by "fund your activities"? It appears you don't understand what a boycott is. BDS calls for the defunding of a state and its associated businesses, not the funding of something. Another point of confusion by you.

The only physically violent demonstration of the video was the attack on the encampment at UCLA, itself a response to violence by pro-Palestine protesters at the encampment in the previous days. I don't see attempts by them to limit their freedom of movement either, just hateful rhetoric which is bad but not as bad as actual physical violence.

Not a surprise to see you justify the violent attack on the peaceful protests by lying about them being violent.

And as I said the rhetoric in the video has not been defended by any major Zionist organizations AFAIK.

Also, are you admitting then that these are examples of leftist antisemitism and no better than your alleged pro-Israel racists? Because that denies your claims of moral superiority here.

There are no examples of "leftist antisemitism." I won't repeat how your double standard here is so obvious because I've said it so many times. Anyone bothering to read it can see it right away.

Because you're full of shit.

The cops are doing their job, which includes kicking trespassers and harassers out of campus upon university request.

As such, they are not harassing anyone by definition.

And they did not do so targeting Jews either, that is something your tankie friends have been doing.

You're just repeating yourself again and again. All you're doing is defending police repression of peaceful protests. You probably did this during BLM and would have cheered on the repression of the Civil Rights movement.

In Thousand Oaks, CA.

Looks like a of details still need to be released, although the state seems to have just charged him with involuntary manslaughter. Hardly the way you described it.

I already showed it.

You have not. It's just a lie of yours, nothing more.

There is no discernible prior altercation, also, does it mean that if a pro-Israel protester assaults some pro-Palestine one you'll look into whether there was some prior altercation?

I will note this guy said he spat on the old person "for Palestine" meaning that 1) it's not personal, but based on being visibly Jewish since he wears a kippah so chances are that there's no prior altercation, 2) he's doing for political reasons and using the same rhetoric your tankie friends do.

Glad that you're conceding you don't know anything about this video you posted.

And points 1 and 2 do not follow, you have no evidence to support those claims.

I will not respond to you further on these comments. You just keep repeating your same lies over and over. It's a waste of time.

[wat0n]

Let's say it was just simply a protest (it wasn't, it was more a series of conferences coupled with small rallies) and see your logic through: just because a protest for something was at one point not repressed doesn't mean that later protests weren't violently repressed.

I'm not claiming later protests were not repressed. In claiming they were repressed for disrupting university operations by doing actions like trespassing and harassing students, and not their demands.

Projection here.

Are you gonna throw another fit?

See this is the thing you keep ignoring. The very people who make boycotts more difficult are also trying to make the free speech component illegal as well. And what do you mean by "fund your activities"? It appears you don't understand what a boycott is. BDS calls for the defunding of a state and its associated businesses, not the funding of something. Another point of confusion by you.

The free speech component is not being made illegal.

BDS requires funding, one way to get is to request a subsidy. That is exactly what these laws are denying.

If you want to advocate for BDS, don't expect me to pay for it.

Not a surprise to see you justify the violent attack on the peaceful protests by lying about them being violent.

Not peaceful, at all

Trespassing isn't peaceful

Harassment isn't peaceful

Assault isn't peaceful

Stop whining, if you're going to do these things then accept the consequences of your actions

There are no examples of "leftist antisemitism." I won't repeat how your double standard here is so obvious because I've said it so many times. Anyone bothering to read it can see it right away.

Many such examples were provided. I can post more traditional examples too if you want, going all the way back to Marx.

You're just repeating yourself again and again. All you're doing is defending police repression of peaceful protests. You probably did this during BLM and would have cheered on the repression of the Civil Rights movement.

I certainly support repressing trespasses, harassers, assaulters, looters and the like. I don't give a shit if they are left or right wing.

Looks like a of details still need to be released, although the state seems to have just charged him with involuntary manslaughter. Hardly the way you described it.

It is accurate to say he was killed.

If he hadn't, we'd be discussing assault and battery.

You have not. It's just a lie of yours, nothing more.

More tantrums.

Glad that you're conceding you don't know anything about this video you posted.

And points 1 and 2 do not follow, you have no evidence to support those claims.

I will not respond to you further on these comments. You just keep repeating your same lies over and over. It's a waste of time.

Fact is, he spat on an old Jew "for Palestine".

That alone should already raise some eyebrows or what, you can spit on others "for Palestine" too?

[KurtFF8]

Fact is, he spat on an old Jew "for Palestine".

That alone should already raise some eyebrows or what, you can spit on others "for Palestine" too?

Didn't read any of your other comments, I assume they're all just more of the same.

But this one is just you being dishonest. You conceded earlier that you don't know what led up to the altercation. You can't make out most of what's being sad back and forward, and for all you know, the older man started the whole thing. You're just filling in what you assume happened because it fits your narrative but in reality you just have zero proof (as usual)

[wat0n]

Didn't read any of your other comments, I assume they're all just more of the same.

Another tantrum?

But this one is just you being dishonest. You conceded earlier that you don't know what led up to the altercation. You can't make out most of what's being sad back and forward, and for all you know, the older man started the whole thing. You're just filling in what you assume happened because it fits your narrative but in reality you just have zero proof (as usual)

That he said it's "for Palestine" is on the video.

Why don't you also then apply this standard to things pro-Israel protesters do?

[KurtFF8]

That he said it's "for Palestine" is on the video.

Why don't you also then apply this standard to things pro-Israel protesters do?

Source that the altercation didn't start before the video?

[wat0n]

Source that the altercation didn't start before the video?

Then provide source that altercations did not start before the videos posted by Richard Medhurst.

[KurtFF8]

Then provide source that altercations did not start before the videos posted by Richard Medhurst.

Nice deflection attempt. Since you're unable to answer what I'm saying I'll take it as a concession.

I feel like this tweet was written with @wat0n in mind https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1803066997581697126

[wat0n]

Nice deflection attempt. Since you're unable to answer what I'm saying I'll take it as a concession.

I'm simply holding you to your standards

If spitting on an old Jewish person requires "context" to be found condemnable then why wouldn't saying hateful things?

Or let me guess, you think it's actually OK to spit at Jews.

I feel like this tweet was written with @wat0n in mind https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1803066997581697126

Nonsense.

If the violent, racist pro-Palestine protesters shown in videos are just a fringe, why don't the movement leaders condemn them? Why do so many of them take place in the encampments themselves? Why is such rhetoric never, ever, condemned by other protesters? Why do these other protesters they often cheer and celebrate?

If anything, the fraudster Greenwald is evidently projecting here.

[QatzelOk]

...just because a protest is not violently repressed doesn't mean that an institution endorses or "accepts" it. This is quite obvious and it's sad that this needs to be spelled out for you...

wat0n knows that what you have written is true. But he is here just to support the genocide of Palestinians and will say anything to "win" his case.

He is like most of our Western politicians in this regard: paid to defend rich people.

[wat0n]

I think I provided a good answer to that. Also, accepting a protest isn't the same as endorsing it.

It seems that all @QatzelOk has left is to make up some bullshit for an ad-hominem attack.