Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Ilhan Omar’s daughter says she’s been ‘basically evicted’ after suspension


OverSword

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Yup.  People just don't get the fact that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Consequence".

They also seem to have a problem distinguishing freedom of speech from actually making death threats.  They either go to the extreme in making threats or falsely accusing others of making threats.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do stupid things and you win stupid prizes.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this one of the cases where someone "innocently" creates provocation so they can be arrested and then claim they are being victimized? We've just had a case in London where a man wearing all the Jewish regalia, fez; tassel, bangles etc, tried to walk across a pro-Palestine rally in front of the police knowing they would stop him, so he could play the 'police are anti-Jewish' card.

Pathetic provocation and being a nuisance to people trying to do their best to maintain order.

Met police chief praises ‘professional’ conduct of officer in antisemitism row | Metropolitan police | The Guardian

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

No.  This is a privileged child not expecting consequences for her behavior.

…or mummy bailing her out

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Yup.  People just don't get the fact that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom from Consequence".

Right, look what happened to the loons on the 6th BOM exhorted they fully deserve what they got no different to this girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you raise a flag don't cry when it gets saluted.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much sympathy for people who support terrorist organizations like HAMAS.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pellinore said:

so he could play the 'police are anti-Jewish' card.

Is this the case where some cop accused the guy of being "openly Jewish"?  Yes, I see that it is.  Funny that your link NEVER actually states what the cop did that caused the problem.  Here's an article that does:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/london-police-apologize-threatening-arrest-openly-jewish-man-palestini-rcna148676

For those who haven't heard - the cop threatened to arrest a citizen who was walking very near a pro-Palestinian(HAMAS) crowd - for being too "OPENLY JEWISH".  Now, while the cop was probably right about the citizen being a provocateur, his words were disgusting and reminiscent of 1930s Germany.  Since when does the government get to pick and choose who should be "openly" ANYTHING?

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, and-then said:

Is this the case where some cop accused the guy of being "openly Jewish"?  Yes, I see that it is.  Funny that your link NEVER actually states what the cop did that caused the problem.  Here's an article that does:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/london-police-apologize-threatening-arrest-openly-jewish-man-palestini-rcna148676

For those who haven't heard - the cop threatened to arrest a citizen who was walking very near a pro-Palestinian(HAMAS) crowd - for being too "OPENLY JEWISH".  Now, while the cop was probably right about the citizen being a provocateur, his words were disgusting and reminiscent of 1930s Germany.  Since when does the government get to pick and choose who should be "openly" ANYTHING?

He was being deliberately provocative.  The police have apologised for the words. Though I can understand why the officer used them. What do you think the police should have done, turned their backs and let people have a set-to? It is literally their job to prevent disorder at political rallies. 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pellinore said:

He was being deliberately provocative.  The police have apologised for the words. Though I can understand why the officer used them. What do you think the police should have done, turned their backs and let people have a set-to? It is literally their job to prevent disorder at political rallies. 

Exactly!

There are 2 possibilities:  either the Jewish guy was quite innocent of the potentially dangerous situation he was in, and the police did exactly the right thing.  Or he was being deliberately provocative and wanted to provoke a (possibly violent) reaction, in whch case the police did exactly the right thing.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and-then said:

Since when does the government get to pick and choose who should be "openly" ANYTHING?

Huh? tRump based his whole platform on this type concept and he's your golden ahem orange savior.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Essan said:

Exactly!

There are 2 possibilities:  either the Jewish guy was quite innocent of the potentially dangerous situation he was in, and the police did exactly the right thing.  Or he was being deliberately provocative and wanted to provoke a (possibly violent) reaction, in whch case the police did exactly the right thing.   

Idk seems it's like when we have say an NAACP gathering and the good old supremacists show up, ugh how the heck did I assume they were supremacists? Boots and braces, swastikas, kkk, rebel flags , maga hats, tRump paraphernalia , it's kind of a duh give away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, and-then said:

Since when does the government get to pick and choose who should be "openly" ANYTHING?

When you're in a crowded theater yelling "FIRE!"

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eight bits said:

When you're in a crowded theater yelling "FIRE!"

…more like he’s in an empty theatre yelling fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, pellinore said:

Is this one of the cases where someone "innocently" creates provocation so they can be arrested and then claim they are being victimized? We've just had a case in London where a man wearing all the Jewish regalia, fez; tassel, bangles etc, tried to walk across a pro-Palestine rally in front of the police knowing they would stop him, so he could play the 'police are anti-Jewish' card.

Pathetic provocation and being a nuisance to people trying to do their best to maintain order.

Met police chief praises ‘professional’ conduct of officer in antisemitism row | Metropolitan police | The Guardian

B*ll*cks as usual Pell'  If the police had to stop the Jewish guy for fear that he would be assaulted, what does that tell you about the protesters? Also the guy was on breakfast news this morning & made a very good point. What if it was a far right protest (i know, not very likely) and the police stopped a black guy walking along the pavement  claimed he was being 'obviously black" & might upset the protesters, would you find that reasonable? Funny how the left only see racism when it suits.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said:

B*ll*cks as usual Pell'  If the police had to stop the Jewish guy for fear that he would be assaulted, what does that tell you about the protesters? Also the guy was on breakfast news this morning & made a very good point. What if it was a far right protest (i know, not very likely) and the police stopped a black guy walking along the pavement & stopped him claiming he was being 'obviously black" & might upset the protesters, would that be ok with you?

They'd be accused of being racists for doing their job - protecting the public

What if it was a guy in a City top who was stopped from walking down a street where several hundred United fans were drinking, after City had just beaten them in the cup final?      Should they just stand by and let him walk by, with a serious risk of being attacked?   Or should they quietly point out that, dressed as he is, he would be better taking a better route home?

More to the point, what if it was a guy in a City top who was intending to walk past the drinking United fans to deliberately provoke and anger them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Essan said:

They'd be accused of being racists for doing their job - protecting the public

What if it was a guy in a City top who was stopped from walking down a street where several hundred United fans were drinking, after City had just beaten them in the cup final?      Should they just stand by and let him walk by, with a serious risk of being attacked?   Or should they quietly point out that, dressed as he is, he would be better taking a better route home?

More to the point, what if it was a guy in a City top who was intending to walk past the drinking United fans to deliberately provoke and anger them?

How about the police arrest the people that do the attacking, or threatening? A novel approach to policing these days I'll grant you.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GLjPo7KWAAAMUDd.thumb.jpg.32919bf96349c95b7551dd6881abaeb2.jpg"How was your day hun? Yep think I'm really getting the hang of running the Met Polices social media accounts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

How about the police arrest the people that do the attacking, or threatening? A novel approach to policing these days I'll grant you.

How about they just keep the peace and if that means advising someone to take a different route to prevent being attacked or threatened, so be it?  

No different really to advising someone not to drive down a road because the bridge has collapsed.

Why is it such an issue.  Unless, of course, you wanted to be attacked or threatened?  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Essan said:

How about they just keep the peace and if that means advising someone to take a different route to prevent being attacked or threatened, so be it?  

No different really to advising someone not to drive down a road because the bridge has collapsed.

Why is it such an issue.  Unless, of course, you wanted to be attacked or threatened?  ;)

Excellent, perhaps the police could use that logic to stop climate protesters blocking the roads, in case angry motorists beat the crap out of them.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, itsnotoutthere said:

B*ll*cks as usual Pell'  If the police had to stop the Jewish guy for fear that he would be assaulted, what does that tell you about the protesters? Also the guy was on breakfast news this morning & made a very good point. What if it was a far right protest (i know, not very likely) and the police stopped a black guy walking along the pavement  claimed he was being 'obviously black" & might upset the protesters, would you find that reasonable? Funny how the left only see racism when it suits.

It's a very poor comparison. There is a bloody was going on between Palestinians and Israelis, so tension is very high. There is no war going on between black and white people. (Except perhaps in the heads of people like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.