"In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Palestine/Defeat Zionism." Would that be considered hate speech? <iframe src='http://widget.newsinc.com/single.html?WID=2&VID=23823109&freewheel=69016&sitesection=nypost' height='320' width='425' scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginwidth='0' marginheight='0'></iframe>
Israel learned the wrong lesson from the Holocaust/Goebbels. Spoiler Yup, godwin's law - second post.
Just because you don't like the ad doesn't mean you can destroy. Good for the unnamed woman. If an ad said Filipinos were evil and sucked and deserved to die, I wouldn't like it. In all honesty, I really wouldn't care, and I sure wouldn't go so far as to try and damage it. I have better things to do with my time.
Without question, it is illegal to destroy it and you don't have the right to destroy it. But is it hateful?
It's not nice, because it paints all Palestinians as savages, or at least could be understood this way. Protected speech, though.
Skewed, misguided, insulting... and again I'd say a terrible attempt at garnering positive attention. I don't know about hate speech. Hateful in general, in a tacky and petty sense, yes.
That's the wrong question. The question is how to react to it. Muslims, being pyschopaths, respond like the vandalizer in NYC. And in doing so, they prove the point of the original ad. Savages indeed.
Really? COULD be understood that way? Who in the world is stupid enough to construe it in any other way? Maybe someone who has their rose-tinted glasses on, perhaps... Yeah... something tells me you aren't the Zen master you'd have us believe you are. Huh. Looks like someone forgot their rose-tinted glasses at home. It's nice to see that the ad is doing what it had probably intended to do. Now that's marketing!
is Jihad a country? race? sex? religion? creed? does Jihad need to be defended from the evil Israelis?
Well, the ad doesn't say "defeat Palestinians", right? It says "defeat Jihad", which is understood by many as violent Islamism (I understand that it is originally meant to mean something else) - so the ad could indeed very well mean that the "savages" are only those Palestinians/Islamists who are violent. Do you understand? As I said, I still don't think it's a very nice ad, because it could well be understood in a different way, but if you go by the words on the ad, above interpretation is well possible.
You certainly shouldn't deface the poster while there is someone actively defending it with their life. Wait till there are no witnesses. Duh.
As you know, there are TONS crasser statements all over your Arabic media regarding Israel. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aV9M3mmqOII" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/udDXUZEYUIc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZL0C2QvqIlo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I'd say indoctrinating children with hate like this is much more hateful than that ad. But congratulations on trying to pretend that poor Palestinians/Muslims are victims of hate speech, while not dishing out hate speech.
It says Support Israel as well, creating the implicit suggestion that the only dissenting Palestinians are the ones carrying out a violent Jihad. The other point is that the ad uses two words here: Civilized and Savage. These are two linguistically-charged words only used in ethnocentric cultural discussion which mean to aggrandize and belittle, respectively. The Israelis are being equated to being civilized, and the obvious implication is, at BEST, that the Palestinians who rebel are Jihadis (as no other contingent of their people could possibly be represented here ), or that they are Savages. Pick your poison. If, however, IF that is not what the ad intended to depict, then it has failed utterly. Just take a look at the words of gwayneco in this thread. People are obviously going to construe the most obvious conclusion from that advertisement, and that is why the advertisement has drawn so much backlash. The fact of the matter is it is, if nothing else, intentionally inflammatory in of that what it's trying to say is ambiguous. You choose the less inflammatory interpretation obviously, because it fits your narrative, and others choose the more inflammatory interpretation because it fits their narrative. MY argument is that there shouldn't even be room for an inflammatory interpretation. If I saw that ad and felt that there was no leg for dissenters to stand on, I would not be claiming it to be hate speech. But if you were to flip the script, you can account on a torrent of anti-Semitic allegations being leveled against the ad.
I used to be sympathetic to their cause, but in the last dozen or so years it has become clear that Palestinians are TEH SUCK.
At some point one nation/ coalition has to win the war and the loser must accept the loss and move from the land they lost -- the current situation will never work.
