Leftist youth groups conduct street battles with police in Copenhagen

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by AAHZ


oh really? so its political? personal? please stop being vague. you have taken a stance here kid, but have not really defended ANY of your points so far.

The Council can not buy back the property from someone they didn't sell it to.

[ZEE]

by kid...
I think it's pretty clear that they were political. But can you agree that it matters whether or not the reasons are political or not?

well I cant see the difference. heres what it sounds like: "OK we have a GOOD reason for disrupting the public safety so JOIN OUR CAUSE!" that is your weakest argument yet kid.

[Kidlicious]

Here's another quote from the leader of the churdh.

“When we take over the house, they (the present users) will simply not be able to step through the doors, because the light of God will be too strong for them. The reason for this is that God is stronger than Satan”.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Maybe, but I still have a hard time believing that selling it for a nice profit wouldn't be the best thing to do economically. I don't know what they plan to do with it, but getting a big quick return is pretty nice.

AS you so often point out-- not everyone is motivated by profit.

Plus if it were me , regardless of who the opposition were, if they kept me out of MY building for years and fought me in court, I would be peeved that they had the balls to make an offer only AFTER I win in court. There can be a stubborness factor there.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The Council can not buy back the property from someone they didn't sell it to.

another kid-trick. The fundys bought the house. what is so hard about that? why debate that over and over again?

[Arrian]

Don't know the specifics, except one - this right of usage can be revoked with a three months warning - it's not a grant for eternity.

Which is what I figured.

And no, Kid, it is NOT clear the buyers did this for political reasons (even the activists point to a desire for redevelopment/profit, not politics!). Even if the motive was political... so?

It seems just as likely, as I noted earlier, that the church group became angry with the activists because it took them ~7 years to really take possession of a building they had purchased. The activists fought them in court, and though they ultimately lost, it's not like it didn't cost the church group (time at the very least, which we all know is money ). I'd be pissed off too, even if I didn't think commies were the devil.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Arrian
Heh, gotta love Fundies.

By the way, I've no doubt the fundy group considers these activists their enemies. From what I could gleen from the activist propoganda, the fundy group purchased the house (via the use of a dummy corporation?) in 1999, but it took until 2006 to evict the activists. 7 years of conflict - yeah, that will generally make people hostile to one another.

-Arrian

yup-- 7 years of conflict even between two similar profit-loving corporations can lead to bitter hostility-- add in these groups different worldviews and I can see how they wouldn't like each other

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
Even if the motive was political... so?

So they fight back.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Means that the council and some representatives for the youngsters has made an agreement that while the public owns the building, pays rent, electricity etc, the youngs can use the building as seems fit. Don't know the specifics, except one - this right of usage can be revoked with a three months warning - it's not a grant for eternity.

So its pretty much like being a renter with a rent of zero??

[Arrian]

I wonder... if the church group had used violence against the activists for refusing to vacate their lawfully purchased property, would that have been ok? I say no, but maybe others see it differently...

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Which is what I figured.

And no, Kid, it is NOT clear the buyers did this for political reasons (even the activists point to a desire for redevelopment/profit, not politics!). Even if the motive was political... so?

It seems just as likely, as I noted earlier, that the church group became angry with the activists because it took them ~7 years to really take possession of a building they had purchased. The activists fought them in court, and though they ultimately lost, it's not like it didn't cost the church group (time at the very least, which we all know is money ). I'd be pissed off too, even if I didn't think commies were the devil.

-Arrian

Oh and before the court case even started the Christians broke into the house and violently kicked the person in there out.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Flubber


So its pretty much like being a renter with a rent of zero??

Si.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


So its pretty much like being a renter with a rent of zero??

Or not a renter at all.

[laurentius]

Sounds to me like the fundies more like conned the house for themselves. Now they have the legal system behind them and the police has no option but to enforce the court ruling, at the same time the youth sees no other option but to physically defend their house.

A real satanic plot by the sect claiming to be christian.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Arrian
I wonder... if the church group had used violence against the activists for refusing to vacate their lawfully purchased property, would that have been ok? I say no, but maybe others see it differently...

-Arrian

if that was the case i would be against the fundys as well. good point arrian