A federal judge has ordered Metro to begin displaying controversial advertisements on Monday, even though the transit agency has worried the ads might incite violence.
The decision came Friday in a one-page order granting an injunction to a pro-Israel group that sought to force Metro to display provocative posters in four stations. The posters, purchased by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), will say: “In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
A spokesman for the transit agency said in an e-mail that it would comply with the court order. Metro was sued last month by AFDI after trying to delay displaying the advertisements in the wake of violence in the Middle East that was sparked by an Internet video that disparaged the prophet Muhammad.
Metro’s lawyers argued in court papers that displaying the posters would endanger the public. “Faced with the choice between endangering the public by displaying the AFDI Ad when it was likely to cause violence on Metrorail, or delaying the display to avoid the danger to passengers and without impinging on AFDI’s freedom of expression, WMATA chose delay.”
But U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer disagreed and in a one-page ruling ordered the transit agency to run the advertisements. The judge said an opinion explaining her reasoning would follow.
This clearly sounds like incendiary language to me. Calling any group ‘savage’ is hardly complimentary and has nothing to do with out country. Metro was right to postpone the ads.
It sounds to me like they need to stop all ads or put serious restrictions on the types of ads they will post. There is just no rhyme nor reason to post this kind of message. It serves no purpose.
Is this judge nuts? Fire in a crowded theater should certainly be employed here. The business owner, Metro, should have the right to display what it wants or doesn’t want.
I feel the court has overstepped. Metro was wrong to accept that kind of ad in the first place. Had it not been accepted, there would be no dispute.
You know that Metro = government, right?
It is from the Greeks metro=meter=mother
No opinion about the signage?
Signage is protected by the 1A as Metro is an arm of the government. If they want to provide ad space they need to provide equal access.
Getting pretty tired of the government not following the Law.
You can also set rules and make everyone go by the same rules.
Metro is quasi government. Sort of a hyrid. Regardless, what would happen if say NAMBLA wanted to advertise? Bet someone would figure out a way around that one real fast, and rightfully so.
Something close has already happened in GA. The KKK is sponsoring a section of road in GA (for cleaning or some-such), and the ACLU is defending their right to put up their little sign.
That message is controversial?
Jihadists aren’t savage?
If violence occurs…the ad’s message is confirmed.
If you modify your speech due to fear of violence by savages, the savages win and you provide incentive for more violence. Should other groups start violence now to make sure that THEIR points of view are respected?
How about the concept that it is just a rude, incendiary message. The world isnt a locker room.
Traditional, rather than bastardized Islam also has a most definite different meaning of Jihad. It is described as a personal struggle in many sects.
Too many people try to define Islam by radical outliers. There are as many different flavors of Muslim as there are flavors of Christianty.
Then there is common sense, good taste, and a whole set of other things that just make this an unacceptable ad.
From another point of view…why post rhetoric that makes conflict with Israel even more likely. Everyone is already sitting on a power keg.
It just creates an unsafe situation.
The ad’s message is confirmed if ????? Let’s see, what happens if it is a rogue?
How about if an orthodox Jew stabs a Muslim?
How about if a someone other than a Muslim does anything because of the message? Then what has been confirmed?
In an indirect way…yes. They are condemning violence.
But you are putting up a strawman argument. The message is a political one, getting the message out that Israel fights the jihadists every day. Should those worried about conflict not ask for support in case the message inflames those that already want to kill them?
ji·had
noun
1.a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
2.any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.
The definition of jihad as a violent struggle is commonly accepted. This ad is not controversial unless the reader is ignoring reality. The context is obvious.
What you are seeing from the jihadists is NOT a “bastardized” view. It is a view held by millions of Muslims. It is militant Islam. HAMAS is not a “bastardized” group. HEZBOLLAH is not a bastardized group. The mullahs of Iran, the entire gov’t, is not a bastardized group.
Violent jihad is an accepted method of advancing Islam. There are almost no condemnations coming from the Islamic world and no mass condemnations at all.
And so, this poster ask you to stand with the civilized world and fight jihad.
That’s what the “war on terror” is all about. Fighting militant Islam.
@Moon-howler
“You can also set rules and make everyone go by the same rules.”
Sort of like the Constitution?
“Metro is quasi government.”
That’s like a girl that’s just a little pregnant.
“Regardless, what would happen if say NAMBLA wanted to advertise?”
They have that right.
“From another point of view…why post rhetoric that makes conflict with Israel even more likely.”
Because its protected. It’s not for the govt to question the purpose of the message. The public at large can but the viewpoint should be allowed to enter the diverse sphere of ideas and opinions.
Also freedom of speech. NSFW. http://instagram.com/p/QYGWYpP9Pd/
It’s Snoop Lions list of why not to vote for Romney and why to vote for Obama.
Do you really think that is acceptable speech on here? Let’s let Momma Elena take a look and be the final arbiter of that one.
Pretty standard liberal thinking about the election.
EEEEKKK!!!! liberals!!! Do you dream liberals crawl out from under every rock and have their way with you?
Paranoia much? Girlie reaction. 😮
Now that you mention it…..no, I don’t have dreams like that.
When I first saw this, my first reaction was, this is not good for Jews. The implication is that Muslims are terrorists. It just isn’t helpful to the situation in the middle east. Also, talking with Moon, as important as first amendment rights are, isn’t is fair that in some places, i.e. a public/private building, it should be void of any political message.
Marinm,
I saw the list, not sure I really even understood the entire rap. Not my kind of music, not exactly Robert Frost prose. Its really not approprite language for this blog.
Has anyone here, defending this message, actually looked into this group?
This group is incredibly offensive, in fact, THEY are the reasons some Muslims might believe that Christianity is on a crusade of conversion.
http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/leave-islam/
Anyone here defending this group as being against violence needs to read this page. This group is against Islam, period.
Look, I am not suggesting that Islam is not struggling right now, that Islam needs to at least enter the 20th century, especially as it pertains to women, but THIS kind of crap will not help in that endeavor.
This group is nuts! They have been labeled as a hate group by BOTH ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
She believe that American Law is being “shariaized”. She is a birther, hates liberal Jews, and thinks Molosovic did not commit genocide.
Why don’t we just accept ads from the KKK and the White Aryan Nation then on Metro?
How much of its operation costs come from govt?
This is what happens when a government service attempts to raise money through private means. If Metro were a private organization, it would have every right to reject the ad. As a government-run service, it cannot reject ads based on political content. Perhaps it is time to re-think the wisdom of advertisement on government-run services.
I don’t think there should be any advertising on anything govt. But then there is that nasty quasi word.
I vote for shutting down all ads on anything govt. except maybe govt messages that aren’t political. None spring to mind at the moment.
For starters, if we are going to say metro is govt, and I dont ever think of it that way, then it looks like hell that our govt is calling everyone not Israel, “savage.”
There isn’t any quasi to it. Metro is the govt. that’s why they can’t ban me from carrying a pistol on the VA side of Metro. Any govt that wants to e part of Metro also has to buy into the debt. That’s another reason it’s horrible for PWC to join..on those terms.
Kelly is spot on. If they opened up advertising they opened up a pandoras box.
So exactly which govt marin? Its a compact formed by 2 states and the District of Columbia. They operate as a regional board. I think that uniqueness allows us to use the word quasi rather than pure government as you suggest. Most transit authorities are quasi or semi govt.
I would prefer no advertising regardless of what it is.
Do you evaluate anything in terms other than your boy toys? So what are you going to do, ditch the gun as you roll through DC??
PWC didn’t join when they had an option to join. I was always told they didn’t want the “riff-raff from DC” coming down to PWC to cause trouble and then to go back. That was the pervasive believe back in the 60s when decisions were being made…at least by the PWC public. That sorta makes one Prince William proud, doesn’t it?
From WMATA website
Fares and advertising revenue do not pay for all of the costs of operating Metrorail, Metrobus, and MetroAccess service. The shortfall is covered by contributions from the District of Columbia, Maryland, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Fairfax County, and Falls Church.
Contributions are a politicians way of saying the middle class needs to pay or go to jail.
Notice that Prince William was never in it. There was a reason. Not a very pretty one about why they opted out of it, from what I have been told.
Kelly, is that what the ruling says, because Metro is a government partnership? Did you check out the organization itself?
The judge hasnt issued an explanation for her ruling I don’t think.
@Elena
The ad speaks about jihadists.
HAMAS spouts jihad and demands the death of Israel.
What part of standing with civilization against such terrorists is wrong?
Jihad doesn’t just mean the terrorist version. It generally means personal struggle.
The problem here is you are defining someone else’s religion and you aren’t defining it in a flattering light or a light that is seem by traditional mainstream muslims. In fact, you are defining someone else’s religion in very prejudicial terms. You see “jihad” and see terrorist. Do you think all muslims see that? Most, from what I have read about, do not.
I don’t relate all of Christianity to snake handlers or the Lambs or Christ. Far from it. I see them as fringe. You apparently see all of Muslim as terrorist.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_jihad.html
So much debate over the word quasi. At the end if the day can you own a piece of it? Can you buy stock? Can you have any real ownership interest in this ‘quasi’ entity?
“Do you evaluate anything in terms other than your boy toys? So what are you going to do, ditch the gun as you roll through DC??”
Is your position that women cannot or should not own arms?
I don’t travel into the District or PRMD unless it’s absolutlty required. Very rare. In that case I comply with the law in those victim disarmament zones.
“Notice that Prince William was never in it.”
Amen.
“The judge hasnt issued an explanation for her ruling I don’t think.”
1A is pretty darn clear and I only had a public school education.
“I don’t relate all of Christianity to snake handlers or the Lambs or Christ. Far from it. I see them as fringe. You apparently see all of Muslim as terrorist.”
I support your right and those of any anti-Christians or anti-Jews to post an ad saying whatever you want on a Metro ad.
There are plenty of entities you cannot own part of that aren’t government. Privately owned companies that haven’t gone public would be a good example. SE Johnson that makes Ziploc, Windex, etc comes to mind.
Boy-toys–there’s a lot of false logic there in that one little statement. WRONG. Very few women obsess that much would be closer.
You should be darn grateful for that public education. Have you thanked the taxpayers?
The first amemndment is so darn clear it is revisted yearly by the Supreme Court. Yea, that’s pretty clear.
I am defining Jihad the same way as it is defined in the dictionary and defining it by the actions of those using violence.
This is a case of, if the shoe fits….
Are we to define jihad solely by those that use the term as a peacefully? In context, this ad makes perfect sense. Historically, jihad is a violent act. When the MUSLIMS denounce, completely, jihad as a violent act, THEN we can stop. Until then, jihad, defined as a violent struggle, is an accepted definition by the Muslims and it has not been denounced. It is a traditional struggle.
Not really because the vast majority of the Muslims in the world don’t even talk about it.
Why are we defining it? That would be like me defining the rapture–something I don’t even believe in.
I don’t know what dictionary you are using….one that obviously only uses the one terrorists use. I don’t think terrorists get to own the Muslim religion.
It is this kind of attitude that keeps religions at war and not seeking common ground…it kills any sense of ecumenical spirit amongst people of good will.
It isn’t necessarily a violent act! Why should you get to decide what religion denounces what.
I have no problem attacking bad behavior. I do have a problem attacking a concept that believers don’t all agree upon and assigning the nasty version of it to all followers of the faith.
The reality is, it is this kind of thinking that makes the moderates hate westerners. The nutwingers are going to hate you regardless. Why make sure everyone hates us with prejudicial thinking?
Hmmm Cargo, so I take it you have not read this website and the analysis of the ADL calling them a hate group has no meanig.
Moon, did you KNOW Cargo was a religious scholar?!
Cargo,
Sects of religion define themselves. The westboro baptist church define their ideology, I see BRUU define theirs, every church defines how they worship, as do muslims. Turkey worships one way, Saudi another, etc.
FYI, you demonstrate what’s wrong with those who choose to only highlight the negative. Where have your words been admiring the courage of all those Libyians who marched in protest against the militias in their country. What MORE do you need than that as a demonstration of muslims denouncing violence.
It is unforunate that more people choose to focus on the negative and not help promote the people trying to create change for the postive. Some people just thrive on constant conflict, here at home and abroad.
“There are plenty of entities you cannot own part of that aren’t government. Privately owned companies that haven’t gone public would be a good example. SE Johnson that makes Ziploc, Windex, etc comes to mind.”
Very true but I don’t have to interact with them. However I’d I don’t pay my taxes – which are artificially increased to pay for mass transit like Metro – I goto jail.
“You should be darn grateful for that public education. Have you thanked the taxpayers?”
Nope. Never will. If I didn’t attend I’d be put in jail. That’s not a real choice. But yes a public education is one step better than none, I guess. Just so many more options exist outside of that and I hope to have those options available for my kin.
“The first amemndment is so darn clear it is revisted yearly by the Supreme Court. Yea, that’s pretty clear.”
The govt won’t be happy until the entire Consitution is torn up. It’s all about control.
As I said, if the shoe fits:
Thus, our nucleus has formed which chartered its way in the tempestuous ocean of creeds and hopes, desires and wishes, dangers and difficulties, setbacks and challenges, both internal and external. When the thought matured, the seed grew and the plant took root in the land of reality, detached from temporary emotion and unwelcome haste, the Islamic Resistance Movement erupted in order to play its role in the path of its Lord. In so doing, it joined its hands with those of all Jihad fighters for the purpose of liberating Palestine. The souls of its Jihad fighters will encounter those of all Jihad fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the land of Palestine since it was conquered by the Companion of the Prophet, be Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, and until this very day. This is the Charter of the Islamic Resistance (Hamas) which will reveal its face, unveil its identity, state its position, clarify its purpose, discuss its hopes, call for support to its cause and reinforcement, and for joining its ranks. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.
This is what that ad is fighting against.
That is from the HAMAS charter. They call for the death and destruction of Israel through any means necessary, including the murder of innocents.
THEY defined jihad for us and so that is the definition being used.
The shoe doesn’t necessarily fit.
They don’t have the right to define jihad for anyone but themselves. That is like the Catholics or the Methodists deciding they are going to define the Rapture for all of Christendom. The concept isn’t theirs to define. Now, if they want to define it for their congregations, so be it. It is a limited definition, as is your.
There are millions of Muslims out there that don’t share that point of view.
You have a very myopic vision of Islam. Before hopping on the bandwagon you might want to check out the group that is sponsoring these ads.
They have been disavowed by both the ADL and the SPLC as a hate group that spreads anti Muslim sentiment.
http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/pamela-geller-stop-islamization-of-america.htm
Its a dangerous hate group. Its intend is to spread scurrilous information about Islam rather than promoting peace.
It might as well be an ad from the NAZIs or the KKK. “Support Israel, defeat Jihad….” implies a relationship that simply isn’t there. Setting up a civilized man vs savage comparison is unacceptable.
It really pays to check out your organizations before jumping aboard. I posted the ADL because I felt it might be more believable than SPLC, since the ADL is a Jewish organization. Do you really want to be associated with a group like this one?
I checked the organization. According to your logic, the ADL and the SPLC, which is now nothing more than a leftist talking point group, have no right to define Geller’s group.
But, in THIS case, are you truly saying that Israel cannot define “jihad?” Really? When Hamas uses the term in its charter to state that it will not suffer the state of Israel to live? THAT is the relationship.
Do I want to be associated with a group like this? Because I’m arguing that their sign uses terms COMMONLY used by those that are attacking Israel? I don’t think that the term “associate” is the right term.
Furthermore, Geller’s group discusses sharia, the campaign by militant Islam to advance sharia, the campaign by Salafists to continue violent struggle across the world, etc. Have you studied their group or are you just going by what the ADL and SPLC says? They disagree with her agenda and so puts into the worst possible context.
Does Geller go overboard? I don’t know. But her links to actual financial and organizational connections between political Islamic groups are valid. There ARE political Islamic groups that are attempting to influence American society towards sharia.
Why are you willfully ignoring the fact that, in this context, jihad is the appropriate term by the definition that the Muslims use? Why is it so bad to use the appropriate term to describe what Hamas themselves use? When the terrorists stop using the term and are repudiated by civilized Muslims as a matter of course, when the mullahs across the globe denounce said jihadism, THEN we can stop using this definition.
You know what? Forget it. You won’t be convinced that this is nothing more than prejudice, no matter if I brought reams of statements from Muslim sources. You are willing to willfully ignore the context in which Israel finds itself vis a vis “jihad. Go ahead and base your statements on the ADL and the SPLC. THEY’RE experts. No need to actually go look at the words used by Muslims, the Quran, etc.
So… forget it. No one has the right to make comments or judgements based upon another’s actions and statements…especially using THEIR words. That’s the new rule. No judgements or critical thinking allowed.
Cargo, you are the one being stubborn. You are right. You aren’t going to convince me of something I know to be wrong.
I would say that ADL is in a very good position to know about hate groups and terrorism. Am I going to believe that organization over what you say? Seriously now.
Your problem is that you are treating all of Islam the same. You are letting fringe groups define spiritual words. When you do that you aren’t insulting terrorists, you are insulting the entire religion.
To many Muslims, Jihad is not a violent understaking. Only those who take snippets here and snippets there are the ones who think that JIHAD means go kill all the infidels. To most people of Muslim faith, it certainly does not mean that. I see no reason to spread intolerance.
Please don’t read any of this as patience towards those who would harm others or who practice terrorism. Those that harm others are savage.
The NAZIs had all sorts of code for doing the evil things they wanted to do also. Do we give in and turn those words into words to exterminate those we don’t feel are worthy of living or do we call those words by what they really are and not allow other words to become bastardized.
And yes, I have read parts of the Quaran. The point is, it isn’t their words. They have stolen. Not vice versa.
Before a discussion can ensue, a basic agreement on the facts is imperative. As far as the Anti Defamation League is concerned, they work very closely with the FBI. Furthermore, there is also a partnership with these organizations and local law enforcement.
http://www.adl.org/learn/default.htm
So, are the FBI and PWC police now leftist organizations?
Cargo, how many muslim friends do you have? I imagine, not many, if at all. You may find value in reaching out to someone on facebook and asking them questions about their faith. I can offer a few suggestions if you would like. You are ignorant of Islam, of that I am sure. Does the Westboro Baptist Church represent all Christians? Is there a struggle within Islam, yes, but what you do is focus on the aspects that have been hijacked by extremists. You don’t like it when its done to the Republican party, that painting with a broad brush, don’t do it to others. You know, that whole silly golden rule thing.
How many muslim friends do I have? None.
How many Muslims have I worked with for over a year, everyday, fromm Bangladesh? 30-40. In Kuwait. From Kuwait, 4-5. That was in 2006-2007. In 2003, I worked with Kuwaiti officers for 6 months.
They used the term “jihadists” when discussing the terrorists. It was understood that, when used in that context, when used as the signs are using it, that it is the violent struggle that is being discussed. THEY agreed that millions of Muslims believe that jihad, as a violent struggle, especially against Israel, is a good thing. We spoke quite often about politics and military matters. Jihadism, as defined as the “violent struggle” is NOT a fringe belief. Millions support Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Fatah, The Saudi Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Does the Westboro people represent Christians? No. And those Christians are outspoken in stating that, and actually go out of their way to deny that church any success. Do the Muslims do the same? Nope. Are there good, peaceful Muslims..sure. But the sign is not directed at them. And they know it. The CAIR “victim” machine is in full swing to push the narrative that this is about bigotry and not violent, political agendas.
If there is a struggle within Islam, the moderates are losing. THEY should be standing behind this poster, agreeing with it, and denouncing violent jihad at the top of their voices.
What do we hear instead? “crickets”
This isn’t a hijacking. This is the TRADITIONAL definition.
Furthermore, I didn’t describe the ADL as a leftist group, but the SPLC. THEY are the leftists mouthpiece. And they have admitted that they slant their coverage to support the left.
Cargo, I don’t think it is up to you to be telling Muslims at large what they should be doing.
As for renouncing Westboro Baptist, that is an individual church. I don’t feel the need to remounce it because I am Christian. I feel the need to renounce it because I am a human being and they are pigs.
As for what Pakistani soldiers you used to know called terrorists….do you think you should be taking what they said as the standard? You still aren’t out in the field. Do you still want to call the Germans “Krauts?” How about the Vietnamese “Gooks?” Dink?
It sure looked like ADL was in that leftist slur. I am curious. We are talking about the middle east. Why is left/right coming in to play here? Do liberals like terrorists? You think way too much about left or right and less about common sense. Let’s move back to Muslims denouncing others. How do you know what they do and don’t do? You don’t. You are thousands of miles away in many cases. This is just getting absurd. Many people live in areas with poor or non existent security. It is probably a good idea for those who live in unstable envirnments just to say nothing. We all know that the middle east is unstable. Not a news flash. People in those regions don’t the safety we have here or the ability to say what they want without fearing for their lives or the life of their family.
Don’t turn any of this discussion into having support for terrorism. Hate groups shouldn’t get to manipulate the system using our freed speech ideals to spread their venom. That message was very much anti Muslim. There is no justification for allowing incendiary language on our transportation systems in eithe rNYC or Washington.
They have admitted they slant their message re SPLC? Proof please. When did you stop beating your wife?
There is nothing wrong with being liberal. There is something wrong with supporting hate groups. American Freedom Defense Initiative is a hate group. There is enough trouble in that region. Let’s not add to it. Just using common courtesy goes a long way.
It is not traditional definition. re jihad. Regardless of how many times you say it, that is not going to change. It isn’t traditional definition any more than “baptism” is total emmersion down by the river. Baptism means different things to different people. Not the best analogy but its the only one I can think of.
To deny that extremists have hijacked part of Islam and perverted it to their own evil political gains is simply ridiculous.
like I said, no muslim friends. end of discussion. Really, the Libyians didn’t protest en masse? You are simply looking to degrade Islam. You are ignorant of Islam.
For your edification, which is sorely needed apparently. Yes, lets have the blog Jew
educate you on the tenents of Islam.
http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/the_concept_of_jihad_(P1360).html
FIRST: The Quranic definition of the word jihad
The literal definition of the word jihad is: striving to achieve a goal, while the Quranic definition of the word is “striving with one’s self and one’s money in the cause of God”.
“Jihad“
The Quranic Definition
One of the most manipulated concepts in Islam today is the concept of jihad.
The concept of jihad is indeed a Quranic one, but sadly, a false and twisted version of this Quranic concept has been used by terrorists acting in the name of Islam to commit various terrorist acts. These terrorist acts, which occur all over the world, aim at the indiscriminate killing of innocent people. They are being undertaken in the name of “jihad”. These non-Islamic acts have gone a long way towards distorting the image of Islam.
Oh, its end of discussion because I don’t have muslim friends? But you discount working with almost 40 of them, closely, everyday, for more than a year….. It’s ok to discount THEIR beliefs because they contradict your statements? Okay, then.
Oh, and thanks for the definition.
Let’s take a look at the whole definition.
http://www.quranicstudies.com/jihad/the-meaning-of-jihad/
“Contrary to the common belief that is embodied in the misinterpretation of “jihad” as “holy war,” Islamic jihad does not refer solely to fighting in the way of Allah. This, in fact, is a special case of jihad.”
Well…look at that: “does not refer SOLELY to fighting in the way of Allah.”
That is EXACTLY what I was saying. The word jihad in the sign is used in the OBVIOUS context of “fighting in the way of Allah.”
There is the lesser jihad and the greater jihad. In hadiths, when Muslims spoke of going to war, they spoke of Jihad. When they spoke of struggling against internal struggles, they spoke of the Greater Jihad.
http://sunnah.org/tasawwuf/jihad004.html
Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness? He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca) ‘Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah’s pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).”
The signage is not an insult to Muslims. The signage is a statement of resistance to Jihad as a fight in Allah’s cause. Only those SEEKING to be insulted or attribute violence to ALL Muslims by Jihad will see it as an insult…. Actually no. That’s wrong. Those involved in or supporting the lesser jihad will be insulted as they don’t seem themselves as savages. They see “non-believers” as savages.
I do not submit.
I have never seen such arrogance. Cargo, you would start telling blacks what its like to be a black man if given half the chance.
I don’t see working with people the same as friends who might discuss their faith with you.
it takes a special person to keep believing that they are right even when those who specialize in fighting anti-semitism, extremism and bigotry say that something in incendiary.
@Moon-howler
In a stunning display of candor the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of Montgomery, Alabama admitted today that it does not monitor “the extreme Left” although for years the organization has billed itself as a watchdog of hate groups.
The admission came during a phone interview conducted by Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review, during which Cooke asked a spokesman for SPLC if the organization had plans to begin to track the Occupy movement in light of the foiled terrorist attempt to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio.
The suspects who were arrested in the case are connected directly to the Occupy movement.
According to Cooke the person who first answered his call at SPLC appeared stunned by the question. She then transferred him to a representative who was conducting an international conference on right wing extremism.
In an interview that took on the characteristics of a cat and mouse game, the spokesman offered various nebulous reasons for the Center’s practice of avoiding the tracking of left wing groups.
Finally, Cooke managed to pin down the spokesman on a key point, which led to a stunning admission that SPLC has never been willing to make in the past. The following excerpt sets the stage:
And then he went on a long speech about “anti-abortion extremists” that had very little to do with what I was asking, but no doubt made him feel good. I met this with silence, so he said that, really, the SPLC only tracks those who commit violence or who seek to destroy whole systems in the name of an ideology.
“Isn’t that exactly what happened in Cleveland?” I asked. “These five men, all linked with Occupy Wall Street, attempted to blow up a bridge as an overture to the wholesale destruction of Cleveland, Ohio, and in the name of anarchism. They also looked to blow up the Republican convention.”
“They were anarchists,” he repeated.
“Yes?”
He paused. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”
The problem with the statement is that if SPLC is set up to cover the extreme Right, then it is also set up to cover the extreme Left, which leads to the logical conclusion that apparently the Center is not interested in monitoring left wing hate groups. Their motive is to track and attempt to destroy what they consider to be right wing extremist groups, some of which have not engaged in the type of extremism that has led to violence, although many such groups have done exactly that.
Further, the SPLC spokesman made another telling admission in the interview with Cooke. He stated that the Center covers left wing extremists only when there is a right wing component, such as a case in which a leftist anarchist group is infiltrated by a right wing group.
The logic of such an admission is in itself stunning. A leftist anarchist group may well be engaged in acts of extreme violence, such as, to use an example from the past, Bill Ayers’ Weathermen. But the only way SPLC would monitor the group is in the event that a right wing anarchist group, such as Aryan Nation, infiltrates it.
One is pressed to comprehend how the Weathermen could become any more violent or dangerous simply because it had been infiltrated by Aryan Nation. One is further pressed to comprehend how the Weathermen, which was charged with blowing up federal buildings, could be considered unimportant enough to merit SPLC’s attention, yet Aryan Nation, which has never been charged with blowing up federal buildings, would be considered such an imminent threat by SPLC that it must be closely monitored.
According to Discover the Networks, SPLC’s history and activities expose its political and ideological agenda, which has more to do with advancing left wing causes than monitoring hate groups.
SPLC covered the New Black Panthers and listed them as a hate group. Check it out for yourself.
What difference does it make who they cover. Better to do a few things well than a lot of things half assed.
They started up because of far right intolerance, mostly aimed at blacks if memory serves me correctly. That is their specialty. You sound like someone faulting the coffee party because it isn’t the tea party.
I don’t think there is much left of the Weathermen. As many of you all who bitch about Bill ayers, why not pool your money and hire a private dick to track down his whereabouts. See what he is up to. At his age he is probaby sitting at home drinking hot tea and reading the newspaper.
@Moon-howler
“As for what Pakistani soldiers you used to know called terrorists….do you think you should be taking what they said as the standard? You still aren’t out in the field. Do you still want to call the Germans “Krauts?” How about the Vietnamese “Gooks?” Dink?”
They were not Pakistani soldiers. They were Kuwaiti Soldiers and Bangladeshi workers.
They were not “insulting” the terrorists. They were using the word “jihad” and “jihadists” because that’s how THEY saw it. They told me that the MAIN problem with the jihadists were not that they were violent, but that they were killing too many other Muslims. They all understood the term “jihad” to be an armed struggle for Allah. We specifically talked about that because the American gov’t did not want to call them “jihadists” as that was supposed to give them too much credit. The Kuwaitis, especially, were flabbergasted. Their response was, “What else are they?” They thought that the Americans were fools to not properly identify the enemy.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/southern_poverty_law_centers_lucrative_hate_group_label.html
More.
Now..the ADL…NOT a leftwing group, that I know of. The ADL just thinks that Geller’s group is a bunch of bigots that hates Muslims. Their mission is to stop “defamation” and they are very zealous.
They have every reason to be zealous.
I am not even disapproving of you saying jihadist if you put qualifiers in there. The way the sign stands though, it is constructed such that the word Jihadist implies everyone not Israel is savage. Subtle? not so much. Wars have been faught over less.
Why not say terrorist. Everyone accepts that terrorists are up to bad things. We don’t say terrorist because it doesn’t send that subtle message.
The sign implies no such thing.
It STATES that jihad is savage. And the context is the armed jihad that is directed at Israel. Jihad as a war is part of the Fatah and Hamas missions against Israel.
Terrorists is a noun. The motivating force of those terrorists is jihad. Israel is not dealing with terrorists. It is dealing with jihad and war.
I hate the “war on terror” label. It’s idiotic. Terror is a tactic. We are fighting the Salafist movement. We are fighting the militant jihadists of Islamic supremacy, a religious and political system that seeks to advance sharia to world domination.
And before you tell me I’m crazy, that message is from THEIR writings.
Ok then why did Metro pull the ad? Why did so many people take offense, including many Jews?
It most certainly does imply exactly what I said it implies. Perhaps the discussion shouldn’t be truncated into a sign. That is the first problem.
Another problem might be those who aren’t supporters of Israel or supporters of the state of Israel as it exists today aren’t savages. Basically, its name calling. It structurally implies that those who aren’t Israeli are savages.
“In Any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
A B A A’ B’
Jihad is defined as savage. That means ALL jihad since there is no clear distinction between Jihad as taught to moderate Muslims and the hi jacked version which is used by the thugs, zealots and extremist Muslims.
Why is it that you think so many people took offense? Do you think it was just Muslims who took offense? It isn’t. Why do we need to be displaying someone else’s political propaganda on our subway? I don’t think political messages should be allowed. They need to stick to selling goods and services.
Let’s take a look at what we have here that might indicate your thinking is all being done outside your head.
1. ADL (Jewish)opposes this group and their sentiments
2. metro pulled the ads and risked being sued.
3. Many people who aren’t muslim find the message offensive
4. Jews find the message offensive.
So let me summarize: All of 1-4 are wrong and you, Cargo are right.
There are meds for that.
They took offense because a) the metro doesn’t want any controversy b) political correctness gone wild.
They are not wrong…they are taking offense. That’s different. Each of them are taking offense for different reasons. Some of the Jewish response is due to political differences with Geller. This offense taking because the sign isn’t “specific” enough, is purely political. Its a war of propaganda, politics, and words.
Other Jews support the signs. So, all this supposed argument from authority is useless. Just because some groups oppose it means its wrong? What makes THEM experts or the sole arbiters of what’s right?
Whether they take offense or not, the term “jihad” is being used, IN CONTEXT, because its talking about jihad AGAINST ISRAEL, of violence.
And, because the sign points out that Israel is, in fact, in a religious war, people take offense. They are taking offense BECAUSE the sign is right. Armed jihad is savagery. And that is what is happening to Israel.
If Israel is in a religious war, then why are those doing most of the fighting the more secular Israelis and those pulling the draft dodger cards the children of the ultra orthodox?
Cargo, You think you are correct and I think you are a bigot. There really isn’t anything left to say.
Here you go.
The above signs are in reaction to this campaign. And yes, its from the Blaze, but its the most concise of the articles that show the anti-Israel signs and the ADL comments on them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-israel-ad-campaign-causes-outrage-in-nyc/
Actually, there is nothing even remotely alike about the two signs. One sign calls names and uses an often misunderstood word, Jihad, to help bring the point home.
The other sign shows maps and land loss. Does anyone deny that before the exodus that Palestine had more land? What about before the 6 days war?
No one calls names.
I frankly don’t want Israeli vs Palestinian issues being fought on our public transportation.
I just had another look at the sign. Here’s some logic using the structures of English.
“Defeat Jihad.” That’s the phrase used in the sign.
So, if jihad is only an internal struggle to better accept the dictates of Allah, how does one “defeat” that sort of jihad? Or is the sign is stating “Defeat internal struggles to better yourself as a Muslim?
You can’t. And it isn’t.
Because the phrasing would be nonsensical. The very phrasing, therefore, by the rules of english, points out that the jihad to which is being referred, is something that CAN be defeated. The only type of jihad that CAN be defeated is an “armed struggle.”
Therefore, the sign, in context, is correct.
What has people upset is that it’s controversial and supporters of Palestine might not like it. If nothing can be said because SOMEONE…. SOMEHWERE, takes offense, the result is silence and those willing to offend win ALL of the arguments.
Ah…supporters of Palestine. There it is. i was waiting for it to pop up.
Binary thinking. This isn’t either/ or.
Ah..there it is. Because I said something logical you are automatically going to accuse me of bigotry.
Supporters of Palestine. Who else is using jihad against Israel? Those that support Palestine terrorism. Would supporters of Palestine like the signs? No. So tell me that I’m wrong in my analysis. The Palestinians have a lot of supporters, especially in New York. What part of my statement is “binary?”
As for the ultra-orthodox….I agree with you. They should be in the army too. But…Israel sets the rules on that. Its a religious war because ONE side is using religion as a motivating force to attack another…..Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah are using jihad against Israel.
And its SO “civilized” to consider other opinions bigoted because I argue about the meanings of words. So glad that you can read my mind. Of course, the Muslims that I worked with would disagree with you. But to play your game, perhaps you need to look at your own biases.
Every time someone disagrees with YOUR world view, its because they are a “bigot” or a “racist” or “hateful.” YOU can never be wrong. YOU cannot be the one with a world view that misses reality in many ways. You are appearing to be uninformed on many things and when called on it, you attribute answers to bigotry. Nothing is ever counter to your world view due to principles, facts, or reason. To you, I’m wrong, because I’m a bigot. I could quote you chapter and verse from the Quran…but I’m still wrong and a bigot because my statements don’t fit your your idea of a civilized view.
Because you and some others feel that the statement “Defeat Jihad” is a bigoted saying, no amount of logic, evidence, or counter statements will sway you. I knew that going in. You don’t deal in logic when it comes to these matters. You worry about “feelings.” So, because someone, somewhere, will take offense, its wrong. Even though the sign is accurate. I was waiting for you to finally expose the “you’re wrong because you’re a bigot” phrase. Well…there it is. Again.
We’re in a war against jihadists. Or, I’m sorry….those participating in the lesser jihad. That’s not bigotry. That’s observation. Salafists wish to spread sharia across the world and Islamic terrorists want to kill us.
What part of defeating a misogynistic, medieval, violent, fascistic 7th century philosophy is NOT part of the liberal ethos?
Don’t bother answering. I know your answer. You think that I, and everyone that thinks like me, including the Muslims that agree with me, MUST be bigots.
Let’s not paint everyone with the same broadbrush. You are still trying to continue a conversation that can go no where. Its dead end. Any yes, your remarks are bigotted. You really haven’t differentiated between someone who would fly an airplane into a building and a practitioner of Islam.
Supporter of Palestine is just phase 2. I am not sure what ” supporter of Palestine” even means. Does it mean fair treatment when dealing with other nations or does it mean unerring support of Israel regardless behavior?
Had you chosen to criticize based on behavior rather than religion you might have had more people agree with you. Its the broadbrushing that most people find offensive. Unless “jihad” is uniquely and only practiced by terrorists then it should be off limits as part of hate speech or calling others savage. Some decent observant Muslim believe in a jihad that is not part of killing others in the name of Allah.
Cargo said:
Cargo, I didn’t read your mind. I read what you typed. You tenaciously stuck to your opinion regardless of seeing what others were talking about. You continued your opinion of muslims regardless of what other facts and opinions were presented. You were right. Everyone else was wrong. You definitely left a paper trail. That is why I concluded you were a bigot.
I don’t have a world view on Muslims. I have a world view on not throwing everyone in the brier patch together.
You are welcome to think I am uninformed on many things. I notice that you have an opinion on everything, mainly gathered from one right wing smudge pot or another. Having an opinion doesn’t erase bigotry or being full of it.
No, you are wrong because you fail to differentiate between Muslims who want to worship God in a peaceful manner and those who wish others who aren’t Muslim harm. If you can’t do that then you are, by definition, a bigot. Big difference.
And one last thing, I seriously doubt you have spent years memorizing the Quran. Anyone can read a law opinion. What you come away with is often far short of the mark. However, that never occurs to you, Cargo. You alway set yourself and your skill level right up there with a Mullah or Anthony Scalia and expect the rest of us to pay you that kind of homage.
@Moon-howler
“You tenaciously stuck to your opinion.”
As did you. And none of what I wrote was an opinion OF MUSLIMS. My statements were concerning the term Jihad, and its traditional use AND I brought up actual definitions. Its YOU that keep putting motives and intentions into what I write.
______________________________________
It is YOU that says that I attribute this to every Muslim disregarding anything that I write that shows the opposite, disregarding the fact that I had Muslims agreeing with my definition.
So, if I am so incapable of research to back my arguments, where’s your criticism of Elena? She’s the one that started the “competing” definitions. I don’t expect homage. I just add evidence to my opinion. And so, if its all opinion…what makes you right? Where is YOUR evidence?
“right wing smudge pot” Yep. there’s that bigotry. Because it doesn’t agree with you. You have this bad habit of disregarding any sources that don’t agree with you. What “right wing” source did I use for the definitions of “jihad?”
I used the American Thinker to show the admission of the SPLC to being leftist and I used the Blaze, purely because it had the pictures that Israel objected to because it depicted Israel as imperialistic.
Reading comprehension fail: “No, you are wrong because you fail to differentiate between Muslims who want to worship God in a peaceful manner and those who wish others who aren’t Muslim harm.”
Here’s the SPECIFICS:
1)HAMAS spouts jihad and demands the death of Israel.
2)ji·had
noun
1.a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.
Fighting militant Islam.
3)As I said, if the shoe fits: The souls of its Jihad fighters will encounter those of all Jihad fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the land of Palestine
4)They used the term “jihadists” when discussing the terrorists.
We spoke quite often about politics and military matters. Jihadism, as defined as the “violent struggle” is NOT a fringe belief. Millions support Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Fatah, The Saudi Salafists, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
5)“Contrary to the common belief that is embodied in the misinterpretation of “jihad” as “holy war,” Islamic jihad does not refer solely to fighting in the way of Allah. This, in fact, is a special case of jihad.”
6)And the context is the armed jihad that is directed at Israel. Jihad as a war is part of the Fatah and Hamas missions against Israel.
7)Terrorists is a noun. The motivating force of those terrorists is jihad. Israel is not dealing with terrorists. It is dealing with jihad and war.
Show me ONE PLACE where I said that ALL Muslims, or even a majority of Muslims were violent. Show me one place where I did not qualify my statement.
“Had you chosen to criticize based on behavior rather than religion you might have had more people agree with you.”
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY DESCRIPTIONS WAS BASED UPON BEHAVIOR. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY STATEMENTS WERE QUALIFYING THE TERMS AND DESCRIBING VIOLENCE, SUPPORTERS OF VIOLENCE, OR ADVOCATING VIOLENCE AS A SUBSET OF THE MUSLIMS REFERENCED. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF MY REFERENCES INCLUDED THE DEFINITION THAT WAS BEING DEBATED.
That was the reason for debate. You refuse to acknowledge that Jihad is being properly used in the context of the sign. I refuse to acknowledge your claims that its a bigoted sign, or that I’m bigoted for agreeing with basic english context.
It is you that won’t accept that there is a form of jihad that is commonly accepted and is a violent philosophy and that a large minority, a very vocal and politically active and powerful minority, support jihad as an armed struggle.
You refuse to accept that there is any context involved, blaming it on bigotry.
Instead of possibly acknowledging that there are some violent Muslims in the world that utilize jihad as a motivating force and that is what the sign is discussing, you would rather twist my statements and call me a bigot. Your dedication to “one size must fit all or none” is a discredit to the Muslim world. For if none can be criticized for following the “lesser jihad” because not all of them do…then the world loses and the peaceful Muslims will be lumped into the same group. There will be no difference seen between them. If there is no criticism of jihad as a violent path; if there is no penalty for following that philosophy, then it will continue and more people will die.
Cargo, if you go back to the original premise, the issue was that not all jihad was terrorist jihad and the signage was unacceptable. “Jihad” had been hijacked by extremists and used as a concept of hate.
That is the reason the sign is unacceptable—it doesn’t differentiate.
You are going to keep on until one of us dies. You don’t seek common ground. You want to overpower. Its quite a study in the Republican mindset, thats for sure.
Sorry, I want peace between Israel and Palestine and the rest of Israel’s arab neighbors. I want peace between Israel and Iran. Bullying and refusal to seek middle ground won’t cut it. Bigots rarely think they are bigotted. What would you do if an extended Muslim family moved in next door to you? Would you sell your house? Contact the FBI? Polish up the arsenol?
Oh and one more thing…I probably object to Pamela Getter’s name calling with savage most of all. Because savage is logistically made synomymous with Jihad and there is no differentiation, then it becomes a bigotry poster.
Refusal to seek common ground?
Like you’re trying to do by calling me a bigot?
I covered the original premise. I showed that the signage, IN CONTEXT, was perfectly accurate. I showed that the term has NOT been hijacked but has been used that way since the beginning.
“What would you do if an extended Muslim family moved in next door to you? Would you sell your house? Contact the FBI? Polish up the arsenol?”
See, this is where YOU are a bigot. Again, I argue semantics, word definitions, SHOW the sources of those definitions, and all you can think is to call me a bigot. You then insult me with those questions. You refuse to use reason. You state that I want to overpower? When all I’m doing is defending my statements and myself from insults. You CANNOT show any bigoted statements other than yours.
And you are lying about my position. That’s the only way I can see it.
“there is no differentiation,” You attribute that to the poster AND to me. Yet I’ve done nothing BUT differentiate. But, by call me a bigot, you can just ignore that. Bullying and refusal to seek middle ground? Where’s YOUR middle ground? You can’t even admit to historical fact. I’ve shown that they poster does differentiate.
And instead of just saying that you disagree with my reasoning, you escalate and call me a bigot. You have a bad habit of attributing malice to disagreement, especially where you don’t have the facts. You attribute malice to any disagreement that stands on principles or reasoning that disagree with yours.
I want peace. You want peace, Israel wants peace.
Now…who is it that doesn’t want peace?
Oh, yeah…Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and those that support them.
Cargo, you are still mired in the fact that you are right rather than the fact you challenged MY opinion as the author of the thread. You started out pounding on me and muslims and you stood me down that radical islamist hadn’t bastardized the religion and hijacked terms to suit themselves.
Rather than discussion you pounded. I see the group with the sign as a bully (do what I want or I will sue you.) After a point of how many exchanges, when you continue to lump all Muslims together, even after being given the opportunity to differentiate, you hold fast to your opinion that they are savages, then I can do nothing but conclude bigotry.
Lest you make a false assumption that I am a big supporter of Islam, nothing could be further from the truth. I have to remind myself daily that everyone isn’t cut from the same cloth and that for every pig out on the street demanding death to the infidels (meaning me just as much as an israeli) there are 3 Muslims like the lady who was so very kind to my mother or the neat man who sells bread to Elena.
It makes for a healthier world for us to look at the troublemakers as just that–trouble maker outliers rather than to look at the baker as “a good Muslim.”
If I am to go with Marin’s description of Metro as a government entity, rather than quasi, as I suggested, then I really resent being forced to display someone’s political message. It is a very dangerous precedence. Do we really want our government being forced to display political messages for people around the world? How about when someone wants Angela Merkel assassinated? NAZIs glorified? Somolias war lord deified? Charlie Manson’s remaining groupies want him offered up for saint hood.
Be careful what you wish for. I understand that you are going to compulsively hold on to your premise and never move off the rock. Your right. My right to consider you not only bigotted on this matter but also OCD over it. Most people would move on, after agreeing to disagree.
i am going to ask you to step out of yourself for a moment and perhaps look at how it looks from my perspective. Remember now, I didn’t lob the first grenade.
Cargo,
Stop digging our hole even deeper. Just step away from the computer, get interested in a hobby that gets you out of your house. Multiple times, throughout your debate here, you have insisted that “This isn’t a hijacking. This is the TRADITIONAL definition. ” You aren’t a scholar of religion, and certainly not Islam. You ARE suggesting that the traditional definition IS one of violence, how can that misconstrued as a sweeping generalization?
Take a break, do something productive instead of commenting on a blog.
Moon,
Fine. FINALLY. Agree to disagree. You didn’t do that. You started calling me a bigot.
I’m the OCD one because I’m REPLYING to your insults?……ok then.
Yes, I challenged your opinion. Apparently, that’s the problem.
Guess I won’t do that anymore.
This is what I was challenging.
“The problem here is you are defining someone else’s religion and you aren’t defining it in a flattering light or a light that is seem by traditional mainstream muslims.”
And I used the Webster dictionary and Koranic sites on the web.
But, since your opinion overrules their scholarly definitions….who am I to argue, right?
Elena,
I called it the TRADITIONAL definition because it IS. If you actually took time to read the ENTIRE definition, you would see that. I took that definition FROM scholars of Islam. I provided quotes and links. Its called research…just like YOU DID when you tried to state that only the peaceful definition is the traditional definition.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it any less true.
Please….. if you can show that the term has not been used historically to describe armed conflict for the advancement of Allah and Islam…I’ll retract every word.
And again, neither of you admit that, in each time I used the term, I did not make a sweeping generalization, that I did NOT include ALL Muslims, but only those that are following armed jihad.
Thank you so much for your concern about me getting a hobby. I did try to “step out of myself” and see it from your perspective. I saw that you were insulting someone who was ARGUING SEMANTICS.
In fact, at no time was I involved in the discussion as to whether the Metro should have put up that sign. Its a simple fix. Ban ALL political ads, including domestic ones. I don’t have a problem with that. Or all ads, period.
I was arguing that your interpretation of the sign could be interpreted in another way. But… go ahead…
Its all about bigotry. The sign, me, disagreement… all bigotry. Oh, and the Muslims that agreed with me and were the first to teach me about it….they’re anti-Muslim bigots too…. can’t forget them.