The assertion was she's not entitled to comment on her grandmother being beaten specifically because she's a legislator in a different country.
If you want to talk about Israel's contributions to creating that problem in Europe in the first place, have at it. That's not what either of us were talking about.
We were speaking about her right to comment about her right to comment about domestic policy in a foreign country.
/u/Assassin47 asserted that she didn't have a right to comment because no politician has a right to comment about domestic policy in a foreign country. You asserted that in this case the general rule doesn't apply because it's her grandmother. I asserted that you are incorrect because she is part of a government that supports policies (that she presumably agrees with) that caused the situation she's complaining about.
If you read the article (and the opinion piece it quotes) she says the following:
My appeal to the people of France is unequivocal: defend diversity, protect minorities and be firm against’ intolerance. The future of your nation depends on your ability to maintain these values. If France fails to protect its Jewish citizens, it will inevitably fail to protect its own identity and integrity.
I am going to urge my grandmother to join us in Israel, a country she should have come to for a long time. But let this serve as a’ warning: when the Jews are gone, the native French will be next to have to leave or submit.
She doesn't believe France should be expelling foreigners with incompatible ideologies. She believes they should keep taking the worlds castoffs. She doesn't talk about making the muslims "leave or submit", no, it's the French that will have to do that.
You can type as many paragraphs as you want, but I'm still going to say that if your grandmother takes a trip to Mexico and gets killed by cartels, you can say "the Mexican government should do something about the cartels," regardless of your job.
The hypocrisy is stupid as fuck. Yes. There's no disagreement there. I also agree that she's supporting the policies that led to it and would probably welcome the destruction of the French people. My sole point is that holding an office in another country on its own doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
She doesn't talk about making the muslims "leave or submit", no, it's the French that will have to do that.
You seem to misunderstand that line. It means if France does not do anything about the muslims, that will be the result.
But let this serve as a’ warning: when the Jews are gone, the native French will be next to have to leave or submit.
To paraphrase: "the muslims aim to make the jews leave or submit. When they are done with that, they will aim to make the French leave of submit." It doesn't mean that the French should leave or submit. It's a warning of the eventual consequence of not dealing with muslims.
Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth like she is. When you acknowledge that she would probably welcome the destruction of the French people, then two sentences later suggest I misunderstand what she means when she says the French will have to leave or submit, you are no longer worth talking to.
The assertion was she's not entitled to comment on her grandmother being beaten specifically because she's a legislator in a different country.
If you want to talk about Israel's contributions to creating that problem in Europe in the first place, have at it. That's not what either of us were talking about.
We were speaking about her right to comment about her right to comment about domestic policy in a foreign country.
/u/Assassin47 asserted that she didn't have a right to comment because no politician has a right to comment about domestic policy in a foreign country. You asserted that in this case the general rule doesn't apply because it's her grandmother. I asserted that you are incorrect because she is part of a government that supports policies (that she presumably agrees with) that caused the situation she's complaining about.
If you read the article (and the opinion piece it quotes) she says the following:
She doesn't believe France should be expelling foreigners with incompatible ideologies. She believes they should keep taking the worlds castoffs. She doesn't talk about making the muslims "leave or submit", no, it's the French that will have to do that.
This kike can get out and stay out.
You can type as many paragraphs as you want, but I'm still going to say that if your grandmother takes a trip to Mexico and gets killed by cartels, you can say "the Mexican government should do something about the cartels," regardless of your job.
The hypocrisy is stupid as fuck. Yes. There's no disagreement there. I also agree that she's supporting the policies that led to it and would probably welcome the destruction of the French people. My sole point is that holding an office in another country on its own doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.
You seem to misunderstand that line. It means if France does not do anything about the muslims, that will be the result.
To paraphrase: "the muslims aim to make the jews leave or submit. When they are done with that, they will aim to make the French leave of submit." It doesn't mean that the French should leave or submit. It's a warning of the eventual consequence of not dealing with muslims.
Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth like she is. When you acknowledge that she would probably welcome the destruction of the French people, then two sentences later suggest I misunderstand what she means when she says the French will have to leave or submit, you are no longer worth talking to.
These are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing two-sided about what I've said.
I accept your concession.