[QatzelOk]

Touched a nerve it seems.

Prove that it touched a nerve.

Where did I ever say that a nerve was touched?

Since you have no counter-argument, I guess we can move into another spam sequence.

***

When I quoted Kevin Barrett who wrote that Israel is basically a genocide project against Arabs and others near the oil fields, you retorted that Acadia was also a genocide project.

You obviously know nothing about Acadia, but if you had spent a few more seconds (and a few more synapses) on thinking, you could have retorted that Canada and the USA were basically genocide projects, and the conversation could have evolved in a constructive direction.

Whereas your reflexive spam ensures that the conversation will go nowhere.

This is not a criticism of your arguments in this thread, it is a notice that you don't have any.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm fine with arresting anyone breaking the law.

But why do you only want to arrest pro-Israel lawbreakers and not pro-Palestine ones?

Please cite the post number or quote my words, where I said "only pro-Israel lawbreakers should be arrested", will you do that please?

You cannot because I never said any such thing, it is a lie, a fabrication or more precisely, a strawman fallacious argument.

[wat0n]

Prove that it touched a nerve.

Where did I ever say that a nerve was touched?

Since you have no counter-argument, I guess we can move into another spam sequence.

***

When I quoted Kevin Barrett who wrote that Israel is basically a genocide project against Arabs and others near the oil fields, you retorted that Acadia was also a genocide project.

You obviously know nothing about Acadia, but if you had spent a few more seconds (and a few more synapses) on thinking, you could have retorted that Canada and the USA were basically genocide projects, and the conversation could have evolved in a constructive direction.

Whereas your reflexive spam ensures that the conversation will go nowhere.

This is not a criticism of your arguments in this thread, it is a notice that you don't have any.

I did touch a nerve indeed!

This narrative doesn't quite fit with the Code Noir and other aspects of French colonies in NA.

Please cite the post number or quote my words, where I said "only pro-Israel lawbreakers should be arrested", will you do that please?

You cannot because I never said any such thing, it is a lie, a fabrication or more precisely, a strawman fallacious argument.

Pro-Palestine protesters who refuse to remove their encampments after colleges ask them to are, in fact, breaking the law. So are those who harass others or vandalize property.

[KurtFF8]

Another reminder that @wat0n is generally being dishonest when talking about the encampments.

Nearly all Gaza campus protests in the US have been peaceful, study finds

[wat0n]

Another reminder that @KurtFF8's source doesn't consider trespassing and harassment to be a form of violent protest.

Even then, he whines a lot but the vast majority of the encampments (87%) have been allowed to stay as mentioned in this post. I highly doubt this type of kid gloves treatment would have been ever granted to any sort of right-wing occupation.

From 18 April — when police arrested more than 100 students at Columbia University in New York — to 3 May, ACLED records over 550 demonstrations linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict occurring on university campuses across more than 450 cities in at least 35 states and Washington, DC. These include mostly encampment-style demonstrations, in which students have set up tents and other temporary structures on university campuses. Though campus demonstrations have been ongoing for just over two weeks, they already represent about 20% of all pro-Palestine demonstrations since the conflict reignited in October 2023. The demonstrations have been accompanied by calls for universities to divest their financial assets from Israeli companies or companies seen as assisting the Israeli military.

Nearly all of the demonstrations that occurred on college campuses — 97% — remained peaceful, while police intervened in more than 10%. In around 70 cases, universities responded to student encampments by calling for police to intervene and remove demonstrators on the grounds that they were trespassing. In some cases, demonstrators fought with police or threw hard objects at them during the intervention. However, roughly 14% of campus demonstrations with police intervention saw demonstrators become violent, while only 2% of demonstrations saw demonstrators become violent when police did not intervene.

Note that even under their definitions, there were 10 violent protests without police intervention. And of the other 10 protests that also became violent with police intervention, there is no distinction between those that became violent before and after police intervention.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another reminder that @KurtFF8's source doesn't consider trespassing and harassment to be a form of violent protest.

Trespassing is not a violent crime. Moreso on campuses which are public spaces. By this, it is meant that they are open to the general public at all times of day or night.

The study looks at any violent conflict that goes beyond pushing or shoving. For example, two people trying to grab a flag from each other was included. To claim that harassment was not included seems implausible.

Even then, he whines a lot but the vast majority of the encampments (87%) have been allowed to stay as mentioned in this post. I highly doubt this type of kid gloves treatment would have been ever granted to any sort of right-wing occupation.

Looking across all Israel-Gaza war protests in the US since 7 October, Acled found that police have intervened forcefully against unopposed pro-Palestinian demonstrations involving students roughly five times as often as they have intervened against unopposed pro-Israel demonstrations involving students, according to updated data through 3 May. (This statistic is based on the percentage of protests of each kind at which police forcefully intervened, not the total number of protests.)

Since 18 April, police have not intervened against any unopposed pro-Israel demonstrations on university campuses, according to Acled’s data.

In regard to this exact issue, the facts show that this type of kid gloves treatment has been granted to any sort of right-wing occupation protesting for the current Israeli occupation.

Note that even under their definitions, there were 10 violent protests without police intervention. And of the other 10 protests that also became violent with police intervention, there is no distinction between those that became violent before and after police intervention.

This seems incorrect. They are careful to differentiate conflict between two groups of protesters and conflict between protesters and police.

[wat0n]

Trespassing is not a violent crime. Moreso on campuses which are public spaces. By this, it is meant that they are open to the general public at all times of day or night.

It is however a form of violence, just like vandalism is.

The study looks at any violent conflict that goes beyond pushing or shoving. For example, two people trying to grab a flag from each other was included. To claim that harassment was not included seems implausible.

So for instance blocking access to a student who then leaves does not count as violence.

In regard to this exact issue, the facts show that this type of kid gloves treatment has been granted to any sort of right-wing occupation protesting for the current Israeli occupation.

They don't.

No right-wing encampments have even been established and even mild forms of right wing expression are often disallowed.

Police doesn't need to intervene as much against pro-Israel protests because the only example you can find of a violent pro-Israel protest was the counter protesters at UCLA. Even then, they didn't clash with police.

This seems incorrect. They are careful to differentiate conflict between two groups of protesters and conflict between protesters and police.

Not really.

A violent demonstration is violent regardless of who causes and is victimized by violence.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is however a form of violence, just like vandalism is.

Vandalism beyond graffiti is counted in the analysis.

And no, trespassing is not considered violence,

So for instance blocking access to a student who then leaves does not count as violence.

Like in the footage shown, where the person was never touched? Yes, that is not violence, since the person was not touched.

They don't.

No right-wing encampments have even been established and even mild forms of right wing expression are often disallowed.

Police doesn't need to intervene as much against pro-Israel protests because the only example you can find of a violent pro-Israel protest was the counter protesters at UCLA. Even then, they didn't clash with police.

Providing. a justification for why police give kid gloves treatment to right wing protesters agrees with my claim. You are merely explaining why you think my cliam is correct.

Not really.

A violent demonstration is violent regardless of who causes and is victimized by violence.

The definition of violence has no impact in the fact that the analysis differentiates between these two forms of violence.

[wat0n]

Vandalism beyond graffiti is counted in the analysis.

And no, trespassing is not considered violence,

Yes, they're arbitrarily not counted as violence.

Like in the footage shown, where the person was never touched? Yes, that is not violence, since the person was not touched.

Not all violence is physical. I'd think leftists who would cry "silence is violence!!" would understand this.

So would those who believe systemic racism is violence.

Providing. a justification for why police give kid gloves treatment to right wing protesters agrees with my claim. You are merely explaining why you think my cliam is correct.

So what you're saying is that leftists who trespass, vandalize university property and even assault other people should not be policed at all.

The definition of violence has no impact in the fact that the analysis differentiates between these two forms of violence.

Actually it does, since all protests where there was trespassing would count as violent.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, they're arbitrarily not counted as violence.

While it is your opinion that vandalism and trespassing should be considered violence, they are not.

Not all violence is physical. I'd think leftists who would cry "silence is violence!!" would understand this.

So would those who believe systemic racism is violence.

There seems to be no argument here.

So what you're saying is that leftists who trespass, vandalize university property and even assault other people should not be policed at all.

No

So we agree that right wing protesters are treated with kid gloves by police.

Actually it does, since all protests where there was trespassing would count as violent.

No

This tangent has nothing to do with trespassing.

You forget that you are complaining that the analysis did not differentiate between inter-protestor violence and violence between protesters and cops.

[wat0n]

While it is your opinion that vandalism and trespassing should be considered violence, they are not.

They are not according to the person who believes that the October 7 massacre was a legitimate form of resistance.

It seems trespassing and vandalism are not violent for such people when directed against Israelis or Jews.

There seems to be no argument here.

Highlights the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to what counts as violence.

Under this token, Jim Crow wasn't violent either.

No

So we agree that right wing protesters are treated with kid gloves by police.

No.

They would be treated with kid gloves only if they'd not be arrested even after attacking cops or resisting police action as leftists do. Since they don't do that, cops have no reason to use force against them.

It is leftists who are treated with kid gloves to the point many at colleges justify their violent protests and provide them with institutional support.

No

This tangent has nothing to do with trespassing.

You forget that you are complaining that the analysis did not differentiate between inter-protestor violence and violence between protesters and cops.

So?

You would still be unable to say most encampments weren't violent if you counted trespassing as violence.

I will note that trespassing into private property can even get you shot and killed under self-defense in the US.

[Pants-of-dog]

They are not according to the person who believes that the October 7 massacre was a legitimate form of resistance.

It seems trespassing and vandalism are not violent for such people when directed against Israelis or Jews.

This is your opinion about what you imagine my opinion to be.

Vandalism and trespassing are not considered violence by the law or most people.

Highlights the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to what counts as violence.

Under this token, Jim Crow wasn't violent either.

This is your opinion about what you imagine my opinion to be.

There is no argument here for me to address.

No.

They would be treated with kid gloves only if they'd not be arrested even after attacking cops or resisting police action as leftists do. Since they don't do that, cops have no reason to use force against them.

It is leftists who are treated with kid gloves to the point many at colleges justify their violent protests and provide them with institutional support.

The facts shown in the analysis and quoted in this thread show that pro-Zionist protesters do not have to deal with police repression.

Even Edan On was ignored by police for hours while he committed violence.

Other violent pro-, Zionists at UCLA have not even been investigated except by media.

So?

You would still be unable to say most encampments weren't violent if you counted trespassing as violence.

I will note that trespassing into private property can even get you shot and killed under self-defense in the US.

So we agree that the analysis does differentiate between violence that occurs before cops show up and after cops show up and that your previous assertion to the contrary was incorrect.

Now we can move on to this new argument.

Prove most protests.were.trespassing. Quote and a link.

[wat0n]

This is your opinion about what you imagine my opinion to be.

You were unable to say if you believe October 7 was a form of legitimate resistance or not.

Vandalism and trespassing are not considered violence by the law or most people.

If so then you wouldn't be able to shoot trespassers into your private property.

There is no argument here for me to address.

Illustrates the double standards and general dishonesty.

The facts shown in the analysis and quoted in this thread show that pro-Zionist protesters do not have to deal with police repression.

Even Edan On was ignored by police for hours while he committed violence.

Other violent pro-, Zionists at UCLA have not even been investigated except by media.

If this was true, pro-Israel rioters wouldn't be arrested. The facts say otherwise.

So we agree that the analysis does differentiate between violence that occurs before cops show up and after cops show up and that your previous assertion to the contrary was incorrect.

It doesn't.

Violent demonstration

This sub-event type is used when demonstrators engage in violence and/or destructive activity. Examples include physical clashes with other demonstrators or government forces; vandalism; and road-blocking using barricades, burning tires, or other material. The coding of an event as a ‘Violent demonstration’ does not necessarily indicate that demonstrators initiated the violence and/or destructive actions, nor does the order of the actors coded necessarily indicate which side of a two- or multi-sided counter-demonstration initiated the violence and/or destructive activity.

Now we can move on to this new argument.

Prove most protests.were.trespassing. Quote and a link.

Encampments kept despite colleges ordering to disperse are undoubtedly trespassing.

Those encampments that are allowed remain enjoy institutional support, which is another fact undermining your victimist narrative.

[QatzelOk]

...Encampments kept despite colleges ordering to disperse are undoubtedly trespassing...

Your war on trespassing, is duly noted.

We have to go back to the "first trespass" of Zionism trespassing on Palestine - to resolve the situation.

Thank you for reminding everyone of the primary "trespass."

[Pants-of-dog]

You were unable to say if you believe October 7 was a form of legitimate resistance or not.

If so then you wouldn't be able to shoot trespassers into your private property.

Illustrates the double standards and general dishonesty.

If this was true, pro-Israel rioters wouldn't be arrested. The facts say otherwise.

Pro-Israel rioters are arrested for being caught on film doing violent acts while the police did nothing.

Anti-genocide protesters are arrested for protesting.

The facts show deference for right wing protesters.

It doesn't.

Encampments kept despite colleges ordering to disperse are undoubtedly trespassing.

Those encampments that are allowed remain enjoy institutional support, which is another fact undermining your victimist narrative.

There seems to be no argument in any of this.

[wat0n]

Your war on trespassing, is duly noted.

We have to go back to the "first trespass" of Zionism trespassing on Palestine - to resolve the situation.

Thank you for reminding everyone of the primary "trespass."

They weren't trespassing, if anything, they were legal immigrants who bought their property.

Pro-Israel rioters are arrested for being caught on film doing violent acts while the police did nothing.

Anti-genocide protesters are arrested for protesting.

The facts show deference for right wing protesters.

The actual facts, not your imaginary ones, say otherwise. Indeed, it's why you can't provide specific answers to each of my arguments but have to claim protesters chanting for the extermination of Israelis are anti-genocide.

There seems to be no argument in any of this.

How so?

Trespassing is a crime.

Allowing encampments in your property implies supporting them.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, @wat0n , you have repeatedly claimed that the campus protests are trespassing. You have not provided any evidence of this.

So moving on:

The attack against protesters at UCLA is probably the most glaring example of state support for Zionist protesters. The only person charged so far is Edan On, despite several other assailants being identified in media. Apparently, Zionist activists can be filemd beating people for hours while cops watch, he identified in national media, and still not be charged with a crime.

[KurtFF8]

Another reminder that @KurtFF8's source doesn't consider trespassing and harassment to be a form of violent protest.

Firstly, students protesting at their own universities is not trespassing. And even if it were (by some technicality), it is not violence by any definition of violence.

And your "they're harassing everyone" meme is just not reality based. You're just making this up based on one or two anecdotes that you claim are examples of this.

[wat0n]

Firstly, students protesting at their own universities is not trespassing. And even if it were (by some technicality), it is not violence by any definition of violence.

And your "they're harassing everyone" meme is just not reality based. You're just making this up based on one or two anecdotes that you claim are examples of this.

Trespassing is violence, if someone trespassed your home I'm sure you'd call the cops or shoot him yourself.

Students can perfectly trespass in their schools, indeed, students who are barred from campus due to being found to have sexually abused another student are trespassing if they return without permission. This isn't something unique to leftist protesters who are being finally seeing they are not exempt from the rules.

Yes, @wat0n , you have repeatedly claimed that the campus protests are trespassing. You have not provided any evidence of this.

They are trespassing the moment schools tell them to vacate the encampments and they refuse to.

So moving on:

The attack against protesters at UCLA is probably the most glaring example of state support for Zionist protesters. The only person charged so far is Edan On, despite several other assailants being identified in media. Apparently, Zionist activists can be filemd beating people for hours while cops watch, he identified in national media, and still not be charged with a crime.

If this is correct, anyone victimized by them can sue.

In reality though very few of the segregationists who trespassed have been charged or are due to face justice.

[Pants-of-dog]

At this point, it is not even clear that @wat0n knows what he is talking about.

Anyway, CNN had an article where they publicly name some of the Zionist assailants.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/ucla- ... index.html

Apparently, police do not read CNN or know how to use publicly available evidence.