Pogroms and blaming the Jews

[Tigers!]

Amsterdam police arrest more than 60 people after attacks on Israeli football fans

Plane carrying fans home lands in Israel as Amsterdam mayor condemns ‘hit and run’ attacks on visiting supporters

www.theguardian.com

Blaming the Jews for it:

Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”.

Starting???

Israel Warned Dutch Police about the Amsterdam Pogrom but Was Ignored

An Israeli who complained to the police about being attacked was assaulted brutally with nightsticks by the cops and is now unable to walk.

www.jewishpress.com

Israel knew there would be attacks well before the supposed "start". Either they have a time machine or the supposed start isn't the start. The police apparently ignored the warnings.

Turns out this entire thing was HUGELY misrepresented;

Provided you take Paul Barry seriuosly,

Please provide reason(s) that your criticism is more credible than Mr Barry’s report on this issue.

A quick search

That provides evidence why you think one should not believe Mr. Barry. Not only does not really rebut Mr. Barry's report, - in many respects it confirms it.

Ignoring that major point, and the point that there are sources in this thread that clearly show that the OP is a very one-sided view of that violence and that Mr. Barry's criticism is justified, your response does not provide a single reason why your implicit view of Mr. Barry's credibility should be taken more seriously that Mr Barry's report or even his credibility.

Looking online Barry seemed to overlook the following in his broadcast

• At least 5 Jews ended up in hospital and no Muslims reporting to hopsital
• Jews were pulled out of canals when they had fled for safety and no Muslims fled into the canals
• The chants of Muslims saying kill the Jews and other assorted niceties
• The Muslims lighting flares and grabbing weapons (yes, just like some Jews did)
• The police started to intervene after the Jews were attacked
• Pictures of Jews being kicked and punched in the street

Now I am not saying that Barry deliberately overlooked incidents that would ruin his narrative that those nasty Jews caused all the problems in Amsterdam. But he does work for the ABC (Aust. Broadcast Corp. for our non- Aust readers) who have recently been caught out editing footage to tell a certain narrative.
He is ramschackle partisan journalistic hack.

And soccer supporters from all over the world seem to like fighting wherever they may be.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Amsterdam police arrest more than 60 people after attacks on Israeli football fans

Plane carrying fans home lands in Israel as Amsterdam mayor condemns ‘hit and run’ attacks on visiting supporters

www.theguardian.com

Blaming the Jews for it:

Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”.

Starting???

Israel Warned Dutch Police about the Amsterdam Pogrom but Was Ignored

An Israeli who complained to the police about being attacked was assaulted brutally with nightsticks by the cops and is now unable to walk.

www.jewishpress.com

Israel knew there would be attacks well before the supposed "start". Either they have a time machine or the supposed start isn't the start. The police apparently ignored the warnings.

Turns out this entire thing was HUGELY misrepresented;

Provided you take Paul Barry seriuosly,

Please provide reason(s) that your criticism is more credible than Mr Barry’s report on this issue.

A quick search

That provides evidence why you think one should not believe Mr. Barry. Not only does not really rebut Mr. Barry's report, - in many respects it confirms it.

Ignoring that major point, and the point that there are sources in this thread that clearly show that the OP is a very one-sided view of that violence and that Mr. Barry's criticism is justified, your response does not provide a single reason why your implicit view of Mr. Barry's credibility should be taken more seriously that Mr Barry's report or even his credibility.

Looking online Barry seemed to overlook the following in his broadcast

• At least 5 Jews ended up in hospital and no Muslims reporting to hopsital
• Jews were pulled out of canals when they had fled for safety and no Muslims fled into the canals
• The chants of Muslims saying kill the Jews and other assorted niceties
• The Muslims lighting flares and grabbing weapons (yes, just like some Jews did)
• The police started to intervene after the Jews were attacked
• Pictures of Jews being kicked and punched in the street

Now I am not saying that Barry deliberately overlooked incidents that would ruin his narrative that those nasty Jews caused all the problems in Amsterdam. But he does work for the ABC (Aust. Broadcast Corp. for our non- Aust readers) who have recently been caught out editing footage to tell a certain narrative.
He is ramschackle partisan journalistic hack.

And soccer supporters from all over the world seem to like fighting wherever they may be.

So, the police intervened after Jews were attacked, but ignored Palestinians being attacked.
Your opinion about Mr Barry doesn't accord with his actual record. He actually exposes many "journalistic hacks".
How reliable are your online sources? If they are as reliable as the initial news reports, exposed on Media Watch AND elsewhere, then they are not reliable at all, at best minimally reliable, and omitting any non-pro Israeli data.

 

[Tigers!]

Amsterdam police arrest more than 60 people after attacks on Israeli football fans

Plane carrying fans home lands in Israel as Amsterdam mayor condemns ‘hit and run’ attacks on visiting supporters

www.theguardian.com

Blaming the Jews for it:

Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”.

Starting???

Israel Warned Dutch Police about the Amsterdam Pogrom but Was Ignored

An Israeli who complained to the police about being attacked was assaulted brutally with nightsticks by the cops and is now unable to walk.

www.jewishpress.com

Israel knew there would be attacks well before the supposed "start". Either they have a time machine or the supposed start isn't the start. The police apparently ignored the warnings.

Turns out this entire thing was HUGELY misrepresented;

Provided you take Paul Barry seriuosly,

Please provide reason(s) that your criticism is more credible than Mr Barry’s report on this issue.

A quick search

That provides evidence why you think one should not believe Mr. Barry. Not only does not really rebut Mr. Barry's report, - in many respects it confirms it.

Ignoring that major point, and the point that there are sources in this thread that clearly show that the OP is a very one-sided view of that violence and that Mr. Barry's criticism is justified, your response does not provide a single reason why your implicit view of Mr. Barry's credibility should be taken more seriously that Mr Barry's report or even his credibility.

Looking online Barry seemed to overlook the following in his broadcast

• At least 5 Jews ended up in hospital and no Muslims reporting to hopsital
• Jews were pulled out of canals when they had fled for safety and no Muslims fled into the canals
• The chants of Muslims saying kill the Jews and other assorted niceties
• The Muslims lighting flares and grabbing weapons (yes, just like some Jews did)
• The police started to intervene after the Jews were attacked
• Pictures of Jews being kicked and punched in the street

Now I am not saying that Barry deliberately overlooked incidents that would ruin his narrative that those nasty Jews caused all the problems in Amsterdam. But he does work for the ABC (Aust. Broadcast Corp. for our non- Aust readers) who have recently been caught out editing footage to tell a certain narrative.
He is ramschackle partisan journalistic hack.

And soccer supporters from all over the world seem to like fighting wherever they may be.

So, the police intervened after Jews were attacked, but ignored Palestinians being attacked.
Your opinion about Mr Barry doesn't accord with his actual record. He actually exposes many "journalistic hacks".
How reliable are your online sources? If they are as reliable as the initial news reports, exposed on Media Watch AND elsewhere, then they are not reliable at all, at best minimally reliable, and omitting any non-pro Israeli data.

Thank you from responding to my points.

 

[laughing dog]

Amsterdam police arrest more than 60 people after attacks on Israeli football fans

Plane carrying fans home lands in Israel as Amsterdam mayor condemns ‘hit and run’ attacks on visiting supporters

www.theguardian.com

Blaming the Jews for it:

Amsterdam’s police chief, Peter Holla, said there had been “incidents on both sides”, starting on Wednesday night when Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag from the facade of a building in the city centre and shouted “fuck you Palestine”.

Starting???

Israel Warned Dutch Police about the Amsterdam Pogrom but Was Ignored

An Israeli who complained to the police about being attacked was assaulted brutally with nightsticks by the cops and is now unable to walk.

www.jewishpress.com

Israel knew there would be attacks well before the supposed "start". Either they have a time machine or the supposed start isn't the start. The police apparently ignored the warnings.

Turns out this entire thing was HUGELY misrepresented;

Provided you take Paul Barry seriuosly,

Please provide reason(s) that your criticism is more credible than Mr Barry’s report on this issue.

A quick search

That provides evidence why you think one should not believe Mr. Barry. Not only does not really rebut Mr. Barry's report, - in many respects it confirms it.

Ignoring that major point, and the point that there are sources in this thread that clearly show that the OP is a very one-sided view of that violence and that Mr. Barry's criticism is justified, your response does not provide a single reason why your implicit view of Mr. Barry's credibility should be taken more seriously that Mr Barry's report or even his credibility.

Looking online Barry seemed to overlook the following in his broadcast

• At least 5 Jews ended up in hospital and no Muslims reporting to hopsital
• Jews were pulled out of canals when they had fled for safety and no Muslims fled into the canals
• The chants of Muslims saying kill the Jews and other assorted niceties
• The Muslims lighting flares and grabbing weapons (yes, just like some Jews did)
• The police started to intervene after the Jews were attacked
• Pictures of Jews being kicked and punched in the street

Now I am not saying that Barry deliberately overlooked incidents that would ruin his narrative that those nasty Jews caused all the problems in Amsterdam. But he does work for the ABC (Aust. Broadcast Corp. for our non- Aust readers) who have recently been caught out editing footage to tell a certain narrative.
He is ramschackle partisan journalistic hack.

Perhaps he is all that. But that does not answer my original question which I will rephrase. Even if he is all that, why is his telling less credible than the OP version?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Here's some news Tigers! that you can celebrate!! Next Monday is the last episode of Media Watch that Paul Barry is hosting. He is being replaced for 2025 by someone called Linton Besser (a female journalist).

 

[Swammerdami]

The roots of anti antisemitism would be a thread for social science. It started when in the 1st 2nd centuries when non Jewish Chrtians coopted the Jewsh Jesus and bible makng it their own.

I assume there is an extra "anti" in there. Right?

'The Jews killed Christ'.

The New Testament writers all agree that Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, a "pagan" Roman. Gospels written in Greek after the Fall of Jerusalem had political motive to assign some blame to the Jews. (Perhaps this is steve's intended point.)

Suppose everything you say were correct. So what? Why the bejesus would any rational observer think who says what about God and who did what to whose ancestors two thousand years ago or eighty years ago outweighs

How far back SHOULD we look? BOTH sides commit atrocities; and "earliest blame" would ping-pong back and forth depending on whether we look back ten months, or 14 months, or three years or seven years.

the current reality that Palestinian fighters target noncombatants and the IDF doesn't, that Hamas is attempting genocide and Israel isn't,

Hamas may WANT genocide but they lack the military strength to actually "attempt" it. If "attempting genocide" is hyperbole for "killing innocent civilians" then it is Israel which leads in killings over any recent interval.

and that most Israelis would buy off on a two-state solution and most Palestinians wouldn't?

Cite?

The Knesset has voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The resolution was co-sponsored by parties in both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition together with right-wing parties from the opposition and even received support from Benny Gantz’s centrist National Unity party.

 

[Bomb#20]

The roots of anti antisemitism would be a thread for social science. It started when in the 1st 2nd centuries when non Jewish Chrtians coopted the Jewsh Jesus and bible makng it their own.

I assume there is an extra "anti" in there. Right?

I assumed so too. Steve can clarify if he wants.

'The Jews killed Christ'.

The New Testament writers all agree that Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, a "pagan" Roman. Gospels written in Greek after the Fall of Jerusalem had political motive to assign some blame to the Jews. (Perhaps this is steve's intended point.)

I think so.

Suppose everything you say were correct. So what? Why the bejesus would any rational observer think who says what about God and who did what to whose ancestors two thousand years ago or eighty years ago outweighs

How far back SHOULD we look? BOTH sides commit atrocities; and "earliest blame" would ping-pong back and forth depending on whether we look back ten months, or 14 months, or three years or seven years.

Indeed so. I'm not offering an opinion about whether 14 months is better than seven years; I'm pointing out that eighty years is ridiculous. Any time frame longer than the typical age of currently living people is too far back to look for "earliest blame". The pro-Palestinian narrative systematically tries to lure people into thinking of Israelis as illegal immigrants. Israelis are not illegal immigrants. Israelis are not immigrants. To be an immigrant you have to immigrate. The Israelis were born in Israel. They are caught up in a tragedy not of their making, same as the Palestinians. And an "anchor baby" birthed on the north bank of the Rio Grande to a Syrian who stowed away on a Guatemala-bound freighter and snuck through Mexico and swam the river after her water broke is exactly as Native an American as a Native American whose ancestors walked into Alaska from Beringia 12000 years ago.

the current reality that Palestinian fighters target noncombatants and the IDF doesn't, that Hamas is attempting genocide and Israel isn't,

Hamas may WANT genocide but they lack the military strength to actually "attempt" it. If "attempting genocide" is hyperbole for "killing innocent civilians" then it is Israel which leads in killings over any recent interval.

And if your uncle was a woman he'd be your aunt. "Attempting genocide" is not hyperbole. Of course they're attempting it. What, you think 10/7 was a one-off? Hamas is up-front about intending to do it over and over until they get what they want. Since they lack the military strength to kill off the Israelis quickly like Ottomans killing off Armenians, they're trying to kill them off slowly -- by keeping the Palestinians militant, earning the stream of money that keeps them going by delivering in exchange a stream of dead Jews, weakening Israel as best they can, undermining Israel's support in the west, and doing their best to keep the hatred alive so that when the day they have enough military strength to win finally comes, the bloodlust to massacre the Israelis will still be fresh. Killing thousands of innocent civilians right now is their tactic; eventually killing millions is their strategy.

and that most Israelis would buy off on a two-state solution and most Palestinians wouldn't?

Cite?

The Knesset has voted overwhelmingly to pass a resolution rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The resolution was co-sponsored by parties in both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition together with right-wing parties from the opposition and even received support from Benny Gantz’s centrist National Unity party.

But the public voting for right-wing parties isn't because of intransigent insistence on getting it all. It's despair. Israel has a leftist population and culture. They're losing their will to make a deal because they perceive there's no one to make a deal with, no Palestinian government-in-waiting that would keep the terms of a deal and keep the extremists under control.

They thought they had a deal, and at the last moment Arafat pulled out and launched the Second Intifada, and the public realized it had been wishful thinking all along. Arafat didn't pull out because of intransigent insistence on getting it all. That was despair too -- he knew perfectly well if he made the deal he'd be assassinated. The Israeli people understand all this. They won't make a land-for-peace deal because giving up land won't bring them peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And it looks like the video that supposedly implicates the Jews as the start of it doesn't exist:

Media Amplifies “Video” Used to Excuse Amsterdam Violence — Does it Exist?

After last week’s “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam, anti-Israel activists rushed to excuse the brutal assaults. If Israelis and Jews across the city were beaten

www.camera.org

 

[Jarhyn]

And it looks like the video that supposedly implicates the Jews as the start of it doesn't exist:

Media Amplifies “Video” Used to Excuse Amsterdam Violence — Does it Exist?

After last week’s “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam, anti-Israel activists rushed to excuse the brutal assaults. If Israelis and Jews across the city were beaten

www.camera.org

I'll note that my husband watched such a video while we were standing in Amsterdam Centraal that morning, immediately after the thing with the cop and my stick. It was taken down within a few hours, and the site with the post had the other narrative instead.

It existed, and then it appears it was taken down.

I am neither surprised by this fact nor happy with it. It is a tragic commentary on the state of the media and the religious and political interests around Israel: nobody is willing to break ranks on that narrative, especially since the original sources were few and chaos spiraled from a few specific and isolated events; there's a defense department's worth of pressure on maintaining the narrative of both Israel and the US.

 

[laughing dog]

And it looks like the video that supposedly implicates the Jews as the start of it doesn't exist:

Media Amplifies “Video” Used to Excuse Amsterdam Violence — Does it Exist?

After last week’s “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam, anti-Israel activists rushed to excuse the brutal assaults. If Israelis and Jews across the city were beaten

www.camera.org

And we should believe speculatiobs from a pro-Israeli sites because….?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And it looks like the video that supposedly implicates the Jews as the start of it doesn't exist:

Media Amplifies “Video” Used to Excuse Amsterdam Violence — Does it Exist?

After last week’s “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam, anti-Israel activists rushed to excuse the brutal assaults. If Israelis and Jews across the city were beaten

www.camera.org

I'll note that my husband watched such a video while we were standing in Amsterdam Centraal that morning, immediately after the thing with the cop and my stick. It was taken down within a few hours, and the site with the post had the other narrative instead.

It existed, and then it appears it was taken down.

I am neither surprised by this fact nor happy with it. It is a tragic commentary on the state of the media and the religious and political interests around Israel: nobody is willing to break ranks on that narrative, especially since the original sources were few and chaos spiraled from a few specific and isolated events; there's a defense department's worth of pressure on maintaining the narrative of both Israel and the US.

This would make perfect sense if it were exposed that the video was not what it purported to be.

And it looks like the video that supposedly implicates the Jews as the start of it doesn't exist:

Media Amplifies “Video” Used to Excuse Amsterdam Violence — Does it Exist?

After last week’s “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam, anti-Israel activists rushed to excuse the brutal assaults. If Israelis and Jews across the city were beaten

www.camera.org

And we should believe speculatiobs from a pro-Israeli sites because….?

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

 

[laughing dog]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

 

[laughing dog]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

If you agree it is speculation, why are you arguing?

 

[Tigers!]

Here's some news Tigers! that you can celebrate!! Next Monday is the last episode of Media Watch that Paul Barry is hosting. He is being replaced for 2025 by someone called Linton Besser (a female journalist).

The last credible host of Mediawatch was Stuart Littlemore (not Stuart Littlemouse).
I will wait to see how this Linton Besser goes.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Here's some news Tigers! that you can celebrate!! Next Monday is the last episode of Media Watch that Paul Barry is hosting. He is being replaced for 2025 by someone called Linton Besser (a female journalist).

The last credible host of Mediawatch was Stuart Littlemore (not Stuart Littlemouse).
I will wait to see how this Linton Besser goes.

So, will I wait to see what the new host is like. Incidentally, Linton Besser is actually male; when I originally checked the name I somehow got the impression that he was a female by accident.

 

[laughing dog]

Here's some news Tigers! that you can celebrate!! Next Monday is the last episode of Media Watch that Paul Barry is hosting. He is being replaced for 2025 by someone called Linton Besser (a female journalist).

The last credible host of Mediawatch was Stuart Littlemore (not Stuart Littlemouse).
I will wait to see how this Linton Besser goes.

So, will I wait to see what the new host is like. Incidentally, Linton Besser is actually male; when I originally checked the name I somehow got the impression that he was a female by accident.

What type of accident?

 

[Tigers!]

Here's some news Tigers! that you can celebrate!! Next Monday is the last episode of Media Watch that Paul Barry is hosting. He is being replaced for 2025 by someone called Linton Besser (a female journalist).

The last credible host of Mediawatch was Stuart Littlemore (not Stuart Littlemouse).
I will wait to see how this Linton Besser goes.

So, will I wait to see what the new host is like. Incidentally, Linton Besser is actually male; when I originally checked the name I somehow got the impression that he was a female by accident.

What type of accident?

That would have been a nasty accident.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

If you agree it is speculation, why are you arguing?

So now it's supposedly about me?

They were asked to produce the evidence and responded by instead removing the claim.

Why do you think that doesn't mean they realized they didn't actually have the evidence? It's "speculation" because it doesn't make the Jews look bad?

 

[laughing dog]

Speculation? They're just asking various news sources to confirm their evidence--and said places are reacting by removing the claim instead. The only way that makes sense is if they realized they had fallen for something false.

Phrases such as “reason to doubt” and “impossible to prove” indicate speculation.

Because you can't prove a negative.

If you agree it is speculation, why are you arguing?

So now it's supposedly about me?

They were asked to produce the evidence and responded by instead removing the claim.

Why do you think that doesn't mean they realized they didn't actually have the evidence? It's "speculation" because it doesn't make the Jews look bad?

That is not a rebuttal but an evasion..

I see no reason to believe the speculations and reporting of a pro-Israeli organization, especially when some of the reporting is contradicted by eyewitnesses.