Paris critics savegely attacked by Scientologists

So: four Scientologists attacked a peaceful protestor, broke his nose, gave him black eyes and so on. So far, so Scientology. Normally that particular piece of the tech is only put in on parishioners, not 'wogs' with friends with video cameras, etc.

But whatever. The event happened.

Some people posting in this thread have sought to justify actions of the first of the group of Scientologists who delivered a savage beating to clown. They've been very quiet about my question concerning the justification for three more Scientology cult members joining in what was already a one-sided "fight". Why did they feel the need to beat up a peaceful protester who wasn't fighting back?

We do not know.

I will repeat again that.

We do not know.

You are making wild guesses and passing them as verified facts.

The original information posted by mqnl1(that is the information available up to now, and so is the one I use to form opinions) says;


Psychopaths and Freedom

Or on the Church of Scientology's right to beat up its critics

by admin on anomymes-france.eu
March 17, 2011

Judge for yourself the condition in which I found my friend Nono la Patate after his flashraid against the cult on Jules César street.

At least three persons attacked him with punches and body kicks after a first "parishioner" had knocked him to the ground.

This proud member of the Church of Scientology went furious as he was walking toward the org with his two children. Nono and Vicious were peacefully protesting in front of the org and they began using the slogan "No to children in cults!"


He went ballistic and ran toward Jeff Drea to attack him while two other parishioners attacked our friend Anonymous Vicieux, who was trying to help Jeff. He defended himself as best he could ...


Finding strength in numbers, the attacker and his little friends ganged up on Jean-François Drea to put him in an awful state:


..

The main attacker was arrested, a complaint has been filed, and we will pursue every legal avenue in this matter.

Please note very especially the last part.

Unless the french police is weirder than I allow, Is is extremately unlikely that they would had let go three other persons if they were beating one as that is gang beating, and is ilegal in france (but I could be wrong, I do not know)


What I do see is that he (one man) attacked another (one man) and that is a fair fight, as in one in one.

Two or more against one is a coward action and is despicable.

Note that my approval is to the ACTION OF THE FATHER. Who fight one in one.

According to the information, two others attacked somebody called viceiux, and that action is not covered by my approval and have never refered to it.

Is is strange however, that those two persons were not arrested as they supposedly commited a gang attack.

As I say, possible the police are either weird, or incompetent, or I do not know. They are french.

I do not know were you got that data about "four scientologist attacking a peaceful protestor"

That data is no supported by the information available.

So I have to accept that either you;

Have a hidden data line,

Do not care to even bother reading the available data,

Are dub-in in

Or are just fucking lying.

Either option is sad.


And please note that I am not avoiding this line;

At least three persons attacked him with punches and body kicks after a first "parishioner" had knocked him to the ground.

It is in the information available, but it is not in line nor consistent with the information.

If this was the case , why was only one arrested? Gang attack is not legal anywhere
, as far as I know, I will have to google that one for france.



But whatever. I guess that question has no easy answers, if you're an LRH apologist.

.


Please do not put words in my mouth. In no moment I have supoported or aproved a gang attack. That is coward and it is not my way.

I did and I do support a father who was insulted in front of his children while entering his church attacking ONE IN ONE the guy who insulted him


A man fighting against a man is a fair fight, or as inevitable a lot of people chimming in here will say; ONE MAN FIGHTING AGAINST ONE MAN IS A FAIR GAME.

It is.
 
Last edited:

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Please do not put words in my mouth. I no moment I have supoported or aproved a gang attack. That is coward and it is not my way.

I did and I do support a father who was insulted in front of his children while entering his church attacking ONE IN ONE the guy who insulted him


A man fighting against a man is a fair fight, or as inevitable a lot of people chimming in here will say; ONE MAN FIGHTING AGAINST ONE MAN IS A FAIR GAME.

It is.[/COLOR]

intrepido, there is nothing justifyable about a father losing it like that in front of those kids. Nothing. Just touching Nono is considered, by law, an assault. He had no right. He was not defending his children from physical harm or threat of harm. Nono ( Jeff) is not and never has been a violent man. I imagine the kids having nightmares over their father attacking a clown.
 
Last edited:
intrepido, there is nothing justifyable about a father losing it like that in front of those kids. Nothing.

That certainly, it is quite a opinion, yes. You are a very opinionated person.

Just touching Nono is considered, by law, an assault.

If this is the case, can you hazzard a hipothesis as for why the other two persons who supossedly were holding him down and kicking and beating him were not arrested? I really would apreciate if you make a effort at least to adress this inconsistence, as opossed to ignore or not answering this question. (I do know that whatever you say would be pure especulation, we still have no more data about what actually happened, be my guess)

He had no right. He was not defending his children from physical harm or threat of harm.

If somebody in a mask comes to me screaming "no children in cults!" while I am entering the church of my choice, I could very easily construct said action as a DIRECT THREAT to my children. You perfectly know that there is too many perverts in this world.

Anonymous uses masks, unfortunately a direct result of this is that ANYBODY could be the one under the mask.

You just do not know.

You could assume that it could be one peaceful protester, but he could be easily a rapist recently escaped from jail. You just do not know.

Please do not let you feelings about the cult cloud your vision in this.

Unfortunately what I said is the cold truth.

He COULD POSSIBLY (because we do not know for sure) have constructed the actions of the clown as a threat of an attack.

I do not know. And you do not know either.


Nono ( Jeff) is not and never has been a violent man.

We do not know. It is VERY adventurous from you to assert such statement , you just do not know. You could assume that. But until proven beyond reasonable doubt it is an assumption.

We do know that he is a person arrogant enough to believe that he has more right than a father to choose the religion in which he should raise his kids. We now that because he himself said so.


I imagine the kids having nightmares over their father attacking a clown.

You are a very imaginative person. Kudos for that.
 

Lamb

Patron with Honors
Intrepido, was there a time that was similar to this where you felt you had been degraded in front of children and did not have the opportunity to knock the crap out of that person? Please, let us know! We can give you a session and free you of your demons.:p
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
You are a very imaginative person. Kudos for that.

Sure. I imagined this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZC9D2NeTEM

ps: Opinionated? hahaha! Boy, I must really push your buttons!

Nono dose not wear a mask. He is not anonymous. He's a professional clown and he usually wears his clown outfit, but I have no info that he was wearing the outfit at the time of the assault except that the video in the OP shows him not wearing one, nor a mask while on the stretcher.

He'd been attacked by the the same guy back in October and that is why he knew his name to give to the police.

It's my understanding from the video Nono posted that, if and when the other attackers are identified, charges will be made against them.
You would have known all that had you actually watched the videos in this thread and done some research on who nono/jeff is.
 
Sure. I imagined this.

No, no, I did not refered to having imagined the attack, I was refering to the kids having nigthmares, they could as easily feel very proud about their dad. It could easily be the case. (you have to reconognize that this could also be the case, we do not know)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZC9D2NeTEM

ps: Opinionated? hahaha! Boy, I must really push your buttons!

Nono dose not wear a mask. He is not anonymous. He's a professional clown and he usually wears his clown outfit, but I have no info that he was wearing the outfit at the time of the assault except that the video in the OP shows him not wearing one, nor a mask while on the stretcher.

He'd been attacked by the the same guy back in October and that is why he knew his name to give to the police.

It's my understanding from the video Nono posted that, if and when the other attackers are identified, charges will be made against them.
You would have known all that had you actually watched the videos in this thread and done some research on who nono/jeff is.

Well, I will look some videos and will read more information as it becomes available.

As I indicated, my opinions and decisions are made from available information, and the one at the time was the initial post.

As information develops, if it turns out I was in the wrong, and it was a unjustified attack (even as you said that there is no such thing as a justified attack, which I do difer) then I am man enough to change my mind and change my opinion and say so.

I do not need to be right and do not fear to be wrong.

If it turns that way, I will be the first one to say so.

As information becomes more available, we will see.

Thank you for adressing my question.

So you were trying to push my buttons? It is not that part of those terrible hipnotic evil exercises know as TRs? I would had thought you were beyond that!
 

Truth&Honesty

Patron with Honors
Intrepido's explosive temper

.

Intrepido,



You obviously have an "explosive temper" that has never been reined in.


The fact that children were present, is just your convenient "excuse" for advocating a brutal and violent solution......to what most people would consider was a minor problem. Fortunately our laws and citizens recognize the simple fact, that assault & battery on another human being is a crime. It is never justified except in cases of self defense.


You should consider taking an "Anger Management Class" - before you end up in jail for beating the crap out of someone, for saying something you disagreed with.



T&H

.
 

Miss Pert

Silver Meritorious Patron
Taken from post on page 3 of this thread -

Psychopaths and Freedom

Or on the Church of Scientology's right to beat up its critics

by admin on anomymes-france.eu
March 17, 2011

<snip>
This proud member of the Church of Scientology went furious as he was walking toward the org with his two children. Nono and Vicious were peacefully protesting in front of the org and they began using the slogan "No to children in cults!"




Originally posted by Intrepido on page 11 of this thread -

If somebody in a mask comes to me screaming "no children in cults!" while I am entering the church of my choice, I could very easily construct said action as a DIRECT THREAT to my children. You perfectly know that there is too many perverts in this world.



You need to practise what you preach, you don't know that the protesters were "screaming." Chanting something in a loud voice is not "screaming" and is not a threatening action. Screaming implies aggression and possible threat, or even irrational behaviour. There is no mention above, in blue, of anybody "screaming," they were just "using the slogan." Nobody, but those present, know if there was screaming involved or not and therefore we do not know if there was any threat intended. With the information available to us at present it would appear we have a cult member irrationally overreacting and attacking a man who was voicing his viewpoint peacefully, as is his right.
 
Taken from post on page 3 of this thread -

Psychopaths and Freedom

Or on the Church of Scientology's right to beat up its critics

by admin on anomymes-france.eu
March 17, 2011

<snip>
This proud member of the Church of Scientology went furious as he was walking toward the org with his two children. Nono and Vicious were peacefully protesting in front of the org and they began using the slogan "No to children in cults!"




Originally posted by Intrepido on page 11 of this thread -

If somebody in a mask comes to me screaming "no children in cults!" while I am entering the church of my choice, I could very easily construct said action as a DIRECT THREAT to my children. You perfectly know that there is too many perverts in this world.



You need to practise what you preach, you don't know that the protesters were "screaming." Chanting something in a loud voice is not "screaming" and is not a threatening action. Screaming implies aggression and possible threat, or even irrational behaviour. There is no mention above, in blue, of anybody "screaming," they were just "using the slogan." Nobody, but those present, know if there was screaming involved or not and therefore we do not know if there was any threat intended. With the information available to us at present it would appear we have a cult member irrationally overreacting and attacking a man who was voicing his viewpoint peacefully, as is his right.


You present very valid points and I do agree with you.

Please note I said " if ".

Also note I said that he could POSSIBLY and etc.

Glad you can see how available information is what we got.
 
.



You should consider taking an "Anger Management Class" - before you end up in jail for beating the crap out of someone, for saying something you disagreed with.



T&H

.

I do apreciate your concern.

I also object to the part I marked in bold.

You are creating a sweeping generalization.

I do not attack somebody just because I disagree with him.

There is however a few VERY specific cases in which I could see myself doing it.

There is not very many, but they exist.

To use the argument of unlimited "freedom of speech" is naive.

You can not scream "fire" in theather.

You can not wear a printed shirt voicing support for al-quaida"

And etc.

There is many cases that you can imagine.

This case made my blood boil inmediately.

The idea of somebody arrogantly coming to a father entering his church (and remember that whatever you ideas of the cult can be, for him it is his church) that is with his children and arrogantly 'chanting" NO TO CHILDREN IN CULTS...

As in; we know better than you what is better for your children (and as some here in this thread have implied that he is a "bad parent" or a "child abuser" for bringing his children "to a know cult"..

Well.

I can see myself losing it if that were made to me.

This is the truth.

I rather be here holding an unpopular position than lying to myself to be in agreement with everybody here.
 
T

TheSneakster

Guest
Intrepedo34:

Just a couple of questions for you:

(1) are you an eyewitness to the attack and the events preceding it?

(2) do you have video documentation showing that the events occurred differently than reported by the victim?

(3) if the answer to the above two questions is "no", then you are plainly talking out your ass - whether you reached your conclusions on your own or were fed a load of horseshit at some OSA briefing:

(4) or perhaps you are one of the participant attackers trying desperately to justify your involvement in a four (4) man beating administered to an non-violent and unarmed man in a clown suit?
 

anonkatie

Patron with Honors
I have met Intrepido; he actually protested in NY a couple of times in 2008.

Intrepido is not OSA or in, at least as far as I know.

Intrepido is a bit of an example of how the CoS can screw with someone's mind.

I'd quite frankly rather be talking about Nono and wishing him well.
 
Last edited:

Kerry

Patron with Honors
It seems to me that in the cultural context of a certain class of latin American males, it is still a matter of male pride to be addressed with respect (latin American version of it) and certainly not with disdain (again, latin American version/interpretation of that), when alluding to his children (as he sees it) in public. In other words, it is a macho, chauvinistic, knee jerk-reaction to a perceived personal insult. An injury to his self-concept. Nothing much to do with Scientology, (necessarily), except that Scientology couldn't give a hoot about violence to an SP.

In this instance there was no actual insult to his children, the perceived insult was to himself, nothing to do with the children except that they were his and that they witnessed somebody taking issue with how his religion treats children, and, so, following the custom of his particular cultural context, he attacked Jeff, and clearly had no problem with the fact others joined in the melee against Jeff, to attack him some more. This must be the way men behave in his culture.

Would this be the same if the person walking into the cult org with children had been a woman? Would she suddenly rush Jeff and start beating up on him for the same reason? Or would that fall outside of acceptable behaviors of latin American women?



Get well, Jeff. You are a major hero in the fight against Scientology. Kudos to You, brother!
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
Originally posted on WWP (anonymously) and very apposite:
mahatma_gandhi.jpg


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi​

Honestly... what is there left of Dianetics & Scientology, when it has become so degraded? :confused2:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
The assault probably had little to do with the children. That is probably going to be the "justification" used in defense of it but considering the sequence of events it is quite obvious, at least to me, that the father was NOT thinking of his children at the time.
 
This must be the way men behave in his culture.

Finally. Undestanding.

Would this be the same if the person walking into the cult org with children had been a woman? Would she suddenly rush Jeff and start beating up on him for the same reason? Or would that fall outside of acceptable behaviors of latin American women?

Not from a lady of Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, Paraguay or Argentina. Who could possibly invite the man to go inside the church and eat some quiche and salad.

A lady from Nicaragua, colombia, brasil , and posibly mexico will trash you verbaly and possibly beat him to a bloody pulp.




Get well, Jeff. You are a major hero in the fight against Scientology. Kudos to You, brother!

You are right. Once the boil of emotions is pass it is time to adress the welfare of the persons involved.
 
Top