So the criminal president of FU Ziegler made allegations, which were happily taken on by the racist Berlin CDU, who like Ziegler, have a strong ideological conviction in embracing support for Israeli crimes and suppressing peaceful protests with violence, which then leads to escalation.
Neither of them is a trustworthy source on this. Until there is a proper court proceeding, where proper evidence is provided and evaluated by a court of law, these claims should not be assumed to be true or false. This is specifically because the people making these claims are evidently not neutral and created the conditions for a counter-escalation to happen, so it is reasonable to assume this counter-escalation and the narrative about it to be part of their strategy too.
Property damage is evident, but a very different category than people being threatened with weapons or dangerous tools. For this claim there needs to be proper court proceedings.
I’m not sure where to continue here. Why is the president “criminal”? Was he convicted in a court of law?
And I’m not really sure what your general point is. Yes, the state wants to get rid of those protesters and now we are getting a court decision on the issue. So where exactly is the issue?
So the criminal president of FU Ziegler made allegations, which were happily taken on by the racist Berlin CDU, who like Ziegler, have a strong ideological conviction in embracing support for Israeli crimes and suppressing peaceful protests with violence, which then leads to escalation.
Neither of them is a trustworthy source on this. Until there is a proper court proceeding, where proper evidence is provided and evaluated by a court of law, these claims should not be assumed to be true or false. This is specifically because the people making these claims are evidently not neutral and created the conditions for a counter-escalation to happen, so it is reasonable to assume this counter-escalation and the narrative about it to be part of their strategy too.
Property damage is evident, but a very different category than people being threatened with weapons or dangerous tools. For this claim there needs to be proper court proceedings.
I’m not sure where to continue here. Why is the president “criminal”? Was he convicted in a court of law?
And I’m not really sure what your general point is. Yes, the state wants to get rid of those protesters and now we are getting a court decision on the issue. So where exactly is the issue?