Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Pretty interesting (to me) to do some research in to what has been said here previously re 'riots', prior to the recent unrest in the US

Here is just one example

Let's say Turkey ordered some riot gear during the Istanbul Riots or even Greece for that matter during the austerity riots.

The sale of this equipment would be prohibited because of the possibility that it could be used to violate the HR of peaceful protest.

Anyone want to take a guess who said that

[Kikapu]

Pretty interesting (to me) to do some research in to what has been said here previously re 'riots', prior to the recent unrest in the US

Here is just one example

Let's say Turkey ordered some riot gear during the Istanbul Riots or even Greece for that matter during the austerity riots.

The sale of this equipment would be prohibited because of the possibility that it could be used to violate the HR of peaceful protest.

Anyone want to take a guess who said that

Too easy a question!

[Paphitis]

Me? Liying? I don't think so! I am saying it the way it is.

To claim or imply that the Washington Post reported that "At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids" is a LIE. They merely quoted the claims of the US Park Service. Those claims are shown in the detailed video compilation and timeline put together by the Washington Post to themselves be lies. As were the other lies put out by the criminal entities involved in this disgusting mass violation of peoples rights that were subsequently retracted and corrected in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Lies like tear gas was not used and USSS did not use pepper spray.

And, people around the world are sick of this anarchy and violence. By all means, demonstrate if you want to. We are free countries. Everyone has the right to protest. But only as long as the protestors do not destroy property, deface public monuments, or pose a danger to bystanders or themselves.

I know it is futile to tell you to stop talking for other people. The only people posing a danger to others in this event were the Police and other para military forces. Just watch the video.

Go on, get some expensive lawyers and start some legal action pussies!

The legal action has already been filed. Not that it will make any difference to you given that you previously defended convicted child sex abusers as merely being the subject of malicious gossip from disgruntled children.

Oh yeh, and all the calls for violence were fabricated too were they?

When a famous statue had already been destroyed days prior.

“At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids,” the statement reads. “The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... te-square/

Either way, the police were moving into position and were going to clear the protesters whether they liked it or not by 1900 as per the curfew but the protesters gave the police a few early minutes.

No matter how you try to polish a turd, makes no difference whatsoever. At 1900, everyone that was violating the curfew was risking arrest.

So why did the police decide to have a 25 minute head start? Well many reasons. They were probably ordered by their chain who had received orders from the Secret Service. Can't ignore that.

And maybe they had to because violence erupted. seems fair enough too.

Or maybe they thought they needed to get a move along to clear the streets for curfew at 1900. Can't argue with that one either.

In some countries in the EU, and in countries like Australia and the UK, technically, protests are not allowed because gatherings of more than 10 people have been prohibited - now being increased to 100 people in Australia. So unless the protest is less than 100 people, it's breaking the god damn friggin law. And if that is the law that all citizens are subjected too, then why not Antifa?

So on the one hand, you argue in favour of restrictions, and in the same breath you seem to condone Antifa violating such restrictions.

[erolz66]

No matter how you try to polish a turd, makes no difference whatsoever.

I could not agree more Which is why your attempts to polish the turd of the police action on this day in this place are so laughable. Or the countless other turdish things Trump had done and no doubt the many future ones he will not doubt do.

So why did the police decide to have a 25 minute head start? Well many reasons. They were probably ordered by their chain who had received orders from the Secret Service. Can't ignore that.

And maybe they had to because violence erupted. seems fair enough too.

Or maybe they thought they needed to get a move along to clear the streets for curfew at 1900. Can't argue with that one either.

And maybe Barr ordered the protesters to be cleared regardless of their legal constitutional rights as citizen's in order to clear the space for Trump's photo op. Occam's razor.

So how many verified attacks by police forces on Journalists covering these protests do you think there have been so far Paphitis ? That is attacks not on protesters, not on rioters, not on people throwing missiles at police but on journalists covering the events under constitutional protection. Like the ones on the two Australian journalist covering the Lafayette protests on June 1st that you can see with your own eyes on the Washington post video and countless others. Go on , take a guess. How many do you think Paphitis ? Take your best guess.

[Paphitis]

No matter how you try to polish a turd, makes no difference whatsoever.

I could not agree more Which is why your attempts to polish the turd of the police action on this day in this place are so laughable. Or the countless other turdish things Trump had done and no doubt the many future ones he will not doubt do.

So why did the police decide to have a 25 minute head start? Well many reasons. They were probably ordered by their chain who had received orders from the Secret Service. Can't ignore that.

And maybe they had to because violence erupted. seems fair enough too.

Or maybe they thought they needed to get a move along to clear the streets for curfew at 1900. Can't argue with that one either.

And maybe Barr ordered the protesters to be cleared regardless of their legal constitutional rights as citizen's in order to clear the space for Trump's photo op. Occam's razor.

So how many verified attacks by police forces on Journalists covering these protests do you think there have been so far Paphitis ? That is attacks not on protesters, not on rioters, not on people throwing missiles at police but on journalists covering the events under constitutional protection. Like the ones on the two Australian journalist covering the Lafayette protests on June 1st that you can see with your own eyes on the Washington post video and countless others. Go on , take a guess. How many do you think Paphitis ? Take your best guess.

Police don't need to polish anything. their duty is to follow their chain of command and protect the public from violence, looting, vandalism and keep the streets safe.

they did their job. They probably didn't want to be there or do such an arduous task, but they had to as that is what they are paid to do and that takes priority from eating donuts.

Plenty of time for donuts after Antifa are moved on and a few are taken to their cells where they clearly belong.

The protesters do not have a constitutional right to vandalise public monuments, private property, light fires, loot or throw stones at Authority. And if Antifa don't believe that is the case, they can file in the Federal Courts. they have plenty of money from George Soros to pay the most expensive lawyers in the country that would do their best to argue until they are blue in the face, but they will still lose.

[Londonrake]

Let's not confuse things here. To be clear I have been discussing with Paphitis a specific event that occurred in Washington DC on June 1st. Am happy to discuss other wider issues but let's not get the two confused.

I agree and apologise to Kicks for (yet again) - momentarily - hijacking his thread. I'm sure he understands and perhaps even agrees that a 3 year old, 250+ post, 29 page thread does have a habit of wandering around a bit now and then. Thanks for your indulgence.

I would further add that I've no real interest in the civil disturbance you cite. Like the Floyd murder it's a matter for the US authorities/people and judicial system to sort out. Quite why the murder has provoked all this indignant hoo-haa in the UK, 4000 miles removed, seems a mystery. I doubt a fraction of the people involved could point to Minneapolis on a map, in order to save their lives.

As to your UK / London specific point Londonrake, why do you see the two things as being mutually exclusive ? I think those breaking the law should be arrested and prosecuted under due process. I also think authorities taking actions with the aim of trying to decrease tensions and the chances of civil disorder breaking out are also entirely sensible. Are you sure your problem with boarding up the statues is not more to do with that decision having come from a Labour Mayor ?

Forgive me but I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually exclusive". I pointed out the fact that technically and quite clearly legally anybody who attended a protest at the moment in the UK could be subject to prosecution. It's a measure of UK tolerance that they haven't been I think. IMHO though, the George Floyd incident has - other than providing some sort of righteous fig-leaf cover - had absolutely nothing to do with the associated events in the UK for quite some time. Moreover, in my view, BLM is anything other than what it claims to be and has provided illegitimate cover for the naked promotion of anarchy.

My personal view is I suspect it's been a "Liberal" conundrum. On the one hand I imagine many of the protesters have been at the forefront in condemning HMG for their alleged inept handling of the pandemic. Particularly vociferous I'm sure on the "Cummings breaks lockdown!" issue. On the other they have this - so rare - opportunity to take to the streets, banners in hand, protesting in their shoulder-to-shoulder tens of thousands (and in some cases giving the police a very enjoyable damn good thrashing) over a profoundly moral issue. Albeit, regarding a foreigner in a foreign country. Hard to let pass. Of course, if it results in a few hundred/thousand old folk dying prematurely, well, that's unfortunate. Acceptable "collateral damage" I imagine. And of course, further Covid deaths will just be added to their complaints about the government's handling of the pandemic. Win-win.

With both my kids and families having been in self isolation for months - like millions of other idiots in the UK - and one of them having the distinct possibility of losing their job, with a mortgage and bills to pay, not to mention putting food on the table, you can perhaps get an inkling of the sense of betrayal they feel at the actions of these self indulgent - to borrow a Kicks word here - cunts.

As far as Mr Khan is concerned. No. I understand he was advised to take the statue cover-up action by the head of the Met, who has now apologised to about 50 million indignant people. By most accounts though Khan has made a total dog's breakfast of running London. Although - as a good socialist under a Tory administration - he's made strenuous efforts to pass the buck. I actually lived in central London for 3 Mayor terms. Both of Johnson's, whom I have to say I think did quite a good job. Unlike his predecessor, who seemed to spend most of his time courting questionable minority groups (much like his mate Jeremy) when not fleecing everybody else to help him pay for votes.

[erolz66]

I would further add that I've no real interest in the civil disturbance you cite.

Why am I not surprised that having accused me of never taking a firm position on anything, you refuse to do so having entered a thread yourself on the very subject that the thread is about Go on have an opinion and dare to share it, it will not kill you. Interested or not - watch the Washington post video and form an view. Was the response proportional to the violence of the protesters or not. It won't kill you. Or if you prefer to not take a position on this then maybe you might not be so quick to accuse others ?

Quite why the murder has provoked all this indignant hoo-haa in the UK, 4000 miles removed, seems a mystery. I doubt a fraction of the people involved could point to Minneapolis on a map, in order to save their lives.

Not just the UK. Around the world it has led to ordinary citizens coming out on the streets, Nor do I find that so hard to understand as you do. There are issue that vast numbers of ordinary people care about and commonalities that are pretty clear to me.

As to your UK / London specific point Londonrake, why do you see the two things as being mutually exclusive ? I think those breaking the law should be arrested and prosecuted under due process. I also think authorities taking actions with the aim of trying to decrease tensions and the chances of civil disorder breaking out are also entirely sensible. Are you sure your problem with boarding up the statues is not more to do with that decision having come from a Labour Mayor ?

Forgive me but I'm not sure what you mean by "mutually exclusive".

No forgive me. When you said

But, rather than board up revered national monuments in London for their protection and turn a blind eye to the possible viral consequences wouldn’t it make more sense to simply apply the law?

I saw that as you suggesting either do one thing or do the other.

I pointed out the fact that technically and quite clearly legally anybody who attended a protest at the moment in the UK could be subject to prosecution.

Not if they do not break social distancing rules. There have in fact been many protests where social distancing has been fully complied with. They do not get the same press coverage as ones where violence breaks out but as intelligent adults knowing what drives the media we should be able to factor that in when trying to gain an understanding of events. Then again as propagandists pushing a singular narrative we might just scream about MSM bias when it suits our narrative and call everyone who disagrees with us sheep and ignore it when it suits.

Moreover, in my view, BLM is anything other than what it claims to be and has provided illegitimate cover for the naked promotion of anarchy.

It is a position and an opinion so I guess I should be thankful for that. It is just one that I think is not consistent at all with the evidence of who is making up the vast majority of those who are supporting BLM either on the streets or in spirit. Try searching out the peaceful , social distancing compliant, protest that took place in St Albans recently (or the countless others like it across the country and globe) and tell me you REALLY think these people are nakedly promoting anarchy.On the off chance you know it as well as I do - St Albans, Anarchy . Literally a laughable concept.

Particularly vociferous I'm sure on the "Cummings breaks lockdown!" issue.

How could the fact that Cummings was widely perceived by the VAST majority of the UK public, including majorities in sub groups of Tory voters and brexit supporters, to have broken the very rules he was involved in making, not lead to an undermining of others choices in regards to following those rules ?

(and in some cases giving the police a very enjoyable damn good thrashing)

In terms of ratio of those at protests vs how many of them are there for an excuse for right good trashing, then there is a real and material and obvious and massive difference between the BLM protesters and the 'counter' or 'protect the statues' protesters. Another little reality I am sure is of little interest top you in your conclusions about "naked promotion of anarchy"

With both my kids and families having been in self isolation for months - like millions of other idiots in the UK - and one of them having the distinct possibility of losing their job, with a mortgage and bills to pay, not to mention putting food on the table, you can perhaps get an inkling of the sense of betrayal they feel at the actions of these self indulgent - to borrow a Kicks word here - cunts.

They say the apple does not fall far from the tree Do you think they consider those who are at the protests just as an excuse for a bit of fun 'ultra violence' as Alex from clockwork orange would call it, are bigger cunts than those who are protesting entirely peacefully and within the social distancing rules (St Albans) over an issue they consider is important, or do they consider them all equally cunts alike.

As far as Mr Khan is concerned. No. I understand he was advised to take the statue cover-up action by the head of the Met, who has now apologised to about 50 million indignant people. By most accounts though Khan has made a total dog's breakfast of running London. Although - as a good socialist under a Tory administration - he's made strenuous efforts to pass the buck. I actually lived in central London for 3 Mayor terms. Both of Johnson's, whom I have to say I think did quite a good job. Unlike his predecessor, who seemed to spend most of his time courting questionable minority groups (much like his mate Jeremy) when not fleecing everybody else to help him pay for votes.

What a surprise So any polls or anything to back up your 50 million people being indignant at the boarding up of these statues, is it is just rhetoric as usual ? For the record I lived most of my life In London under a GLC run by Livingston and small part of it under him as Mayor. Surprisingly I think he showed more passion and commitment for London and all those who live in it than any politician before or since.

[Londonrake]

I can't be arsed with all the interleaving quotes.

I think I made my points and I did so more for others than to influence you - which frankly, is always a pointless exercise. You're the epitome of a closed mind.

This is what you do - every time. Bludgeon! Bludgeon. Bludgeon! It strikes me that, although you read people's posts your predominant thought is invariably "How can I counter this" rather than attempting to understand what they're trying to say. You argue purely for the sake of it. Strutting around the forum, "sorting people out" on any subject, Ardvark to Zulu. You get off on arguing.

Speaking of which, you have a habit of arguing at length (always! ) and then, when challenged, saying something along the lines of "But I haven't expressed a view. I've only presented the facts which contradict yours" that's somewhat different from saying "I don't have a view on that" which I've done here. I don't recall you ever actually admitting your view clearly on whether you thought the UK should leave the EU or not. It was always cloaked in obfuscating BS about "We should have a say on how we leave". It's called having the courage of your convictions. Most of the time - you simply don't.

If people didn't break social distancing rules they could protest? What's that? Some sort of barking defence? Which planet are you on?

Sorry, not enough effect there:




The rest? Well, I have better things to do. I will leave the last word to you - you absolutely always have the last word of course (Bludgeon! Bludgeon! Bludgeon!)

I will just bail out of the thread at this point - for now - by borrowing one of GR's more moderate expressions from his extensive portfolio. "You can piss off!".

[cyprusgrump]

I can't be arsed with all the interleaving quotes.

I think I made my points and I did so more for others than to influence you - which frankly, is always a pointless exercise. You're the epitome of a closed mind.

This is what you do - every time. Bludgeon! Bludgeon. Bludgeon! It strikes me that, although you read people's posts your predominant thought is invariably "How can I counter this" rather than attempting to understand what they're trying to say. You argue purely for the sake of it. Strutting around the forum, "sorting people out" on any subject, Ardvark to Zulu. You get off on arguing.

Speaking of which, you have a habit of arguing at length (always! ) and then, when challenged, saying something along the lines of "But I haven't expressed a view. I've only presented the facts which contradict yours" that's somewhat different from saying "I don't have a view on that" which I've done here. I don't recall you ever actually admitting your view clearly on whether you thought the UK should leave the EU or not. It was always cloaked in obfuscating BS about "We should have a say on how we leave". It's called having the courage of your convictions. Most of the time - you simply don't.

If people didn't break social distancing rules they could protest? What's that? Some sort of barking defence? Which planet are you on?

Sorry, not enough effect there:




The rest? Well, I have better things to do. I will leave the last word to you - you absolutely always have the last word of course (Bludgeon! Bludgeon! Bludgeon!)

I will just bail out of the thread at this point - for now - by borrowing one of GR's more moderate expressions from his extensive portfolio. "You can piss off!".

ErLolz is a total joke - I've never come across anybody on the Interwebz that was so utterly wrong about everything yet so sure of themselves - apart from BorDo obviously...

I still wonder if BorDo is another of ErLol's multiple accounts...

[Londonrake]

ErLolz is a total joke - I've never come across anybody on the Interwebz that was so utterly wrong about everything yet so sure of themselves - apart from BorDo obviously...

I still wonder if BorDo is another of ErLol's multiple accounts...

I did wonder, too. I'm just waiting for his contemptuous dismissal over claims of Labour anti-semitism, followed a few posts later by expressing the desire that HMS Belfast should turn its guns on the nearest Jewish community.

Seriously, there's never a shred of leeway given. Nor "I understand your view/feelings but.....". Never agreement on absolutely any issue. It's all "How can I counter this". And that, normally in a mind-numbing blitz of obfuscating verbosity.

Sometimes - after many, many efforts, you have to acknowledge you're just banging your head against a wall, then Ad Hominem (aka the naked truth) is simply the only answer. Been there.