Judge: Metro must allow anti-jihad ads by Geezer

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Judge: Metro must allow anti-jihad ads

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Saturday, October 13, 2012 03:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1478
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Saturday - 10/6/2012, 7:48am ET

WASHINGTON - A federal judge says the D.C. transit system must allow a pro-Israel ad that equates Muslim radicals with savages.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said in a one-page opinion Friday that Metro must display the advertisement no later than 5 p.m. on Monday.
The ad reads: "In any War Between the Civilized Man and the Savage, Support the Civilized Man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad."
The American Freedom Defense Initiative sued last month for the right to display the ads in the Metro system. A lawyer for the group calls the decision "absolutely correct."

Metro officials had delayed putting up the ads up because of the violent reaction in the Middle East to the video the "Innocence of Muslims," which denigrated the prophet Muhammad.

Metro spokesman Dan Stessel says Metro will comply with the order and the ads will go up this weekend.

In a statement, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says they do not wish to "disallow advertisements that contain any political speech as this would curtail the use of an important forum where ideas are frequently exchanged."

But the group urges metro officials to add disclaimers on the signs and provide free space for ads focused on "promoting understanding and tolerance."

http://www.wtop.com/41/3066129/Judge-Metro-must-allow-anti-jihad-ads

The First Amendment strikes again. You got the right to display questionable judgement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sick, sick, sick. Every time I remember just HOW completely our country is locked into it's blind love of Israel, I get sick all over again. I wonder if we'll ever break the chains...

And my sympathy level goes up for the Palestinian people every time I hear shit like this.

Yeah, freedom of speech, I know. Doesn't mean I don't have the right to decry one-sided propaganda. I wish someone would sue to put up ads depicting suffering Palestinians and show the results of Israeli bombing...that's one way to counter "free-speech" propaganda, but I know in this country it will never happen, dammit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I know they'll also reaffirm PN's right to put up ads comparing all Jews to savage animals, too.

Right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:59 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Sick, sick, sick. Every time I remember just HOW completely our country is locked into it's blind love of Israel, I get sick all over again. I wonder if we'll ever break the chains...

Would you be as miffed if there were no mention of Israel, and the ad was merely against 'Jihad', and the savagery of radical Islam ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:15 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Sick, sick, sick. Every time I remember just HOW completely our country is locked into it's blind love of Israel, I get sick all over again. I wonder if we'll ever break the chains...

Would you be as miffed if there were no mention of Israel, and the ad was merely against 'Jihad', and the savagery of radical Islam ?

Would you feel the same if there was no mention of "jihad", and the ad was merely against the genocide of the Palestinians and the savagery of radical Judaism?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Would you feel the same if there was no mention of "jihad", and the ad was merely against the genocide of the Palestinians and the savagery of radical Judaism?

No, because that's an idiotic question.

Defending oneself from daily, yes DAILY missile attacks isn't 'radical'.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 12:46 PM

JONGSSTRAW

It should not have been allowed. Why create a hateful situation while people are just trying to get to work? If anyone dies as a result of this watch this judge scramble for cover under his desk like the short-sighted idiot that he is for allowing this absurdly provocative ad.

Freedom of speech is not always appropriate or legal. Speech that incites violence and/or puts the public in danger is not protected under the Constitution. What's next...bloody dead fetus pictures at every bus stop put up by anti-abortion groups? Who the f**k would want to see that, regardless of your abortion position.

Hmmm, better than Reuben's.
..One more.
Ben!
..My last one.
Okay.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:03 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Would you feel the same if there was no mention of "jihad", and the ad was merely against the genocide of the Palestinians and the savagery of radical Judaism?

No, because that's an idiotic question.

Defending oneself from daily, yes DAILY missile attacks isn't 'radical'.

No, it's not. You prefer to call it "jihad".

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 7:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Would you be as miffed if there were no mention of Israel, and the ad was merely against 'Jihad', and the savagery of radical Islam ?

No.

Quote:
Would you feel the same if there was no mention of "jihad", and the ad was merely against the genocide of the Palestinians and the savagery of radical Judaism?

Nor that.

I would have some difficulty with either "the savagery of radical Islam" OR "the savagery of radical Judaism" because they link jihad to Islam, and genocide to Judaism", which point the finger at specific religions, despite the caveat of "radical". But to see it only one way and claim the other example is "idiotic" merely shows a gigantic prejudice. To say "defending oneself from DAILY missile attacks isn't 'radical'" is what's idiotic, because at the exact same time, genocide of Palestinians is ALSO taking place, so to ignore one and state the other is stupid.

This is important: What we hear is not the full story. Unless one looks for the facts, what is given to the American public is nothing but one sided.

For one thing, it's not just "jihad" responsible for the rockets fired into Israel. As of 2007, the following groups have been responsible for missile attacks, in percentages:

34% – Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Al Quds)
22% – Hamas (Qassam)
8% – Fatah (Kafah)
6% – Popular Resistance Committees (al Nasser)
30% – unknown

For another, from the same source: "Missiles, rockets and mortars have killed 58 people within Israel up to 2012"--that's from 2001 to 2012. Comparing that to the number of Palestinian lives destroyed by Israel's MANY measures would be more accurate. Death is death, whether by missile or other form of aggression.

What I find VERY interesting is that Wikipedia doesn't seem to contain a page on Israeli missile attacks on Palestine. Wikipedia DOES list civilian casualty figures for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict between 1987 and 2011. The total civilian casualties are:

Palestinians: 6,385 (1620 under the age of 18)
Israelis: 1503 (142 under the age of 18)

I have reduced the number to take out the 1,593 Palestinian fatalities attributed to intra-Palestinian violence. Figures do not include the 600 Palestinians killed by other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip since 2006. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Fata
lities_1948.E2.80.93present ...much more info and details can be found on the same page)

Kinda puts things in perspective. "All numbers refer to casualties of direct conflict between Israelis and Palestinians including in IDF military operations, artillery shelling, search and arrest campaigns, Barrier demonstrations, targeted killings, settler violence etc."

So while the MISSILES fired into Israel versus the missiles fired into Palestine aren't comparable, the number of civilian casualties, if you add in the other ways Israelis have killed Palestinians, are.

As to details of actual missile attacks on Palestine by Israelis, I can find only a few references:

On June 20, 2012:

Quote:
Eight Palestinians have now been killed in Israeli air strikes since Monday. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18521627

January 1, 2009:

Quote:
Since Israel began its air attacks on Gaza on Saturday, at least 393 people have been killed and more than 1,650 injured. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2008/dec/28/gaza-attacks-israe
l-palestine

The only way to find Palestinian casualties from MISSILE attacks is to search around, as I could not find any one source listing them all in the time I was willing to search.

Israel has many ways to kill Palestinians; Palestinians have few ways to kill Israelis. For examples:

Quote:
April 16, 2002: Using helicopter gunships, F16 fighter jets, tanks, and bulldozers, Israeli forces launched a pogrom against Arab villages on the West Bank beginning March 29, as part of a policy of collective punishment of the Palestinian people. http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine52.html

One article, from B'Tselem, The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, states

Quote:
The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative, since it is difficult for B'Tselem to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. The Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths. We do not doubt the reliability of their data, and only use B'Tselem's more conservative numbers because they collect data on both populations. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

Complete statistics on Palestinian casualties at the hands of Israeli forces can be found at http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp

Essentially, what we hear on the "news" about the conflict is hugely about Israel's casualties, virtually nothing about Palestinian casualties, WHICH ARE MUCH HIGHER. Israeli atrocities rarely make the news, and we know why. Until and unless Americans wake up to how our views are colored by the propaganda of a government and the news, the views Rap and others express aren't logical.

To sum up, I wouldn't be "miffed" at an "ad was merely against 'Jihad'", nor would I be miffed at an ad about the "genocide of Palestinians". I'd ADORE to see an ad encompassing BOTH most of all. Americans need to be confronted with the truth on BOTH sides.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The First Amendment strikes again. You got the right to display questionable judgement.

Indeed, however I ONLY support that notion if it applies to BOTH/EITHER/ANY side of an argument.
If they allow one, and block another - that is Tyranny, period.

And all too often, they do.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:34 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

And in a follow-up, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is responding with this ad...

http://www.wtop.com/emedia/wtop/26/2640/264068.JPG

http://www.wtop.com/41/3076360/Muslim-group-plans-to-combat-pro-Israel
-Metro-ads-with-more-ads

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE