德國一歲女童遭伊斯蘭移民斬首殺害 默克爾下令封鎖消息

The Gatestone Institute (formerly Stonegate Institute and Hudson New York) is a right-wing[2][3][4] anti-Muslim[5] think tank that publishes articles, particularly pertaining to Islam and the Middle East. The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods.

Zero Hedge's content has been classified as "alt-right",[2] anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and economically pessimistic,[3][4] and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views.[5][6][7][5]


國際人權組織

左膠對所有佢地唔接受既事實都係咁講架啦

德國難民當眾斬首其德國女友及親生女兒

個報告明明連德國政府搜查令都貼埋出嚟
連德國政府檢察官回應都有
你就用人人都可以改既wiki嚟否定

"We don't comment on this rumor," state prosecutor Nana Frombach said to Gatestone when asked about the beheading. All she was willing to acknowledge was that the child had suffered "severe neck injuries." When Gatestone said that §201a could not be applied to the video in question because it did not show anybody's face, she replied that this had "yet to be decided," and that the raid was based on an "initial suspicion." Gatestone then mentioned that Kordewiner, instead of uploading the video anonymously (which would have been easy for him to do), had uploaded it to his YouTube channel, along with his full name and address, rendering the raid's stated goal of "finding evidence" not merely disproportionate but entirely unnecessary. Frombach said that she was not allowed to "comment on details of an ongoing investigation," but that she could "guarantee" that the search warrant had been "approved by a judge."

我都覺得奇怪

白人 只會同情 阿拉伯人/黑人
但對住黃種人, 就只會歧視

明明黃種人 最聽話, 最守規舉

咁我都可以話alt-right 話所有唔同意佢source嘅人都係左膠

呢兩個source係同一篇文

依然反駁唔到呢單新聞係fake news
最簡單 默克爾點樣牽涉其中
你自己個source都講“The office of the state prosecutor is under the authority of Hamburg's state government, a coalition of Social Democrats and the Green Party.”
默克爾係總理 點會介入地方事務？就算你堅持，你都要有證據

其次你依家quote呢段嘢點樣支持你個論點？
個prosecutor又無否認behead，佢係「唔評論」件事。咁又點係封鎖消息？
調查緊件事又唔係事必要向你透露資訊

就算你針對§201a 呢一點來講
你嘅source似乎明顯有誤
／In the meantime, the incriminated video has been deleted from all German websites and YouTube channels (although it can still be found on websites that are out of reach of the German authorities).／

但係事實上Youtube上Heinrich Kordewine條片一直都響度，日期依然顯示係4月12日上載
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lBv0RcPBtA

下面一大堆德文comment
似乎證明德國境內無封鎖啊

當然你可以話個檢查官解釋法律依據吞吞吐吐
但係咁同封鎖消息差好遠嘛？

當然你可以話個檢查官解釋法律依據吞吞吐吐
但係咁同封鎖消息差好遠嘛？

德國檢查官解釋拉發呢單新聞既網民既依據"吞吞吐吐"
唔代表德國政府打算同曾經嘗試封鎖消息

你既口吻同特區政府或香港警方發言人相差不遠
恭喜恭喜

點解會有人將gatestone 當source
呢個網站係最右翼最極端既

原來「解釋"吞吞吐吐"」
就可以同「封鎖消息」相提並論

咁下次啲官員隨口9up應咗佢就肯定係「公開透明」
流料都無所謂

點做得出

"alt-right"
*snap*

跟據你既講法全地球冇一件事可以稱為「封鎖消息」
六四中國發言人出嚟回應過, 所以唔係「封鎖消息」
納粹德國請過記者入集中營採訪, 所以都唔係「封鎖消息」

一個反移民網民因為upload一段個樣打左格而電視台冇打格既現場片
然後有檢察官拎搜查令上門話侵犯私隱
之後又話佢入侵私人場所
負責既檢察官多次公開話自己大力打擊hate crime, 反新移民
記者問檢察官理據就多次拒絕回應

唔好話呢篇係你地左膠所謂fake news
德文報導已經出左差唔多100日
多次quote到政府/檢察官發言人發言
如果係老作咁多個包括負責既首席檢察官有twitter唔可能唔回應唔否認

用香港做例子:

一個反中港融合網民因為upload一段個樣打左格而電視台冇打格既現場片
然後有警察拎搜查令上門話侵犯私隱
之後又話佢入侵私人場所
負責既檢控官多次公開話自己大力打擊港獨, 反新移民
記者問政府理據就多次拒絕回應

原來響左翼睇中政府咁做係冇錯, 亦唔係想封鎖消息
左翼終於同法西斯合流, 恭喜恭喜

呢單野4月中發生
全球左毒媒體如CNN或BBC或每日電訊報一係選擇冷處理一係直接唔報
左癌冇咁深既如紐約時報華盛頓郵報就直接轉載AP簡訊一字不改

首先你望返個po寫咗啲乜
Angela Merkel's pro-migrant government has banned German media from reporting on a barbaric crime involving a Muslim migrant who allegedly beheaded his one-year-old baby daughter on a train station platform in Hamburg.

依家間間傳媒都有報
咁就已經推翻咗呢個po嘅立場（更加唔好講將Hamburg地方政府同默克爾聯邦政府混為一談）

同埋你點解釋Youtube上面仲見到段片
你個source明明話Youtube channel啲片都cut 埋
如果ban咗點解仲見到

其次你舉嘅例子根本不相干
中國大陸封鎖六四消息
講緊係連搜尋引擎都search唔到 響社交網站講句嘢都畀人滅聲
咁依家你搜尋資料咪又係靠google

"It is not a real press ban. The incident was widely discussed in the German press " , says SCEPTR employee Michiel Van Tongerloo , who is currently studying in Germany. "But the images may not be distributed because of a broad interpretation of a law for the protection of personal privacy . The reason why this video is suddenly fiercely contested and other offensive films are not, of course, open to discussion. "
https://sceptr.net/2018/07/illegale-migrant-onthoofdt-baby-duitsland-beteugelt-berichtgeving/

／一個反移民網民因為upload一段個樣打左格而電視台冇打格既現場片／
無打格，根據你自己個source所講，段片無影到個樣，只係錄到目擊者嘅語音描述

/然後有檢察官拎搜查令上門話侵犯私隱之後又話佢入侵私人場所/

咁條法例的確係咁寫
至於你覺得條法例會否賦予政府過大權力
政府引用時詮釋是否正確
咁就另一回事

／負責既檢察官多次公開話自己大力打擊hate crime, 反新移民／
so?


／唔好話呢篇係你地左膠所謂fake news／
實情樓主引用嘅文章就係fake news
上邊已經解釋咗
無論點都肯定無ban到報導
就連你講beheading 個點
檢察官回應記者嘅“severe neck injuries”同埋warrant寫嘅“almost completely cut through the neck.”吻合

左膠居然支持政府用行政手段攪異議份子

fake new

／一個反中港融合網民因為upload一段個樣打左格而電視台冇打格既現場片／
同今次嘅例子不相干
因為兩段片嘅相異處唔係打格與否
而係有無收錄旁觀者嘅口述

／原來響左翼睇中政府咁做係冇錯, 亦唔係想封鎖消息／
的確唔係封鎖消息
尤其是段片仲響網上廣泛流傳

不過你可以話係過度反應
就算有錯，用「封鎖」呢個字點都係不實

依家間間傳媒都有報

呢單野四月發生
其實全球好多由左癌把持既傳媒都冇報, 使唔使我比個list你定你自己google?

講真, 個標題有D地方可以優化

例如改成

德國一歲女童遭伊斯蘭移民斬首殺害 默克爾政府用行政手段封鎖消息

或者

德國一歲女童遭伊斯蘭移民斬首殺害 全球左癌把持傳媒噤聲