(VIDEO)Woman arrested for defacing anti-jihad poster

Originally posted by micmerciFew things-
1. Alienating a minority? How did you come to that conclusion? Clearly the 6 million Jews on the planet are the minority.

are we talking about new york or the world here.....because in new york, muslms are the minority.
and i want to add...6 million worldwide? erm, there are more than that in the state of new york alone!

2.I'm wondering how you came about the 90% figure. Are you saying that 90% of Arabs support a war to eliminate Jews?

is that how your brain works??...no....but to add, isreal has wars with, egypt, lebanon, syria, iraq and now iran...the adverts call all those states savages??.....the defeat jihad part, on the ad, is in small print compared with the rest

3. Still don't see how this is racist. Politically biased and motivated? YES. Racist? NO. Calling it racist would be the equivalent of saying that calling Zionists an inappropriate name racist. It is not racist either way.

ok...when hitler done this to the jews...what would you call it then?


peace and respect

reply to post by thePharaoh


lol Why didn't that woman in pink just wait till the camera lady left and then go back to it? Instead she chose a cat fight that almost got physical. Who was the other person who videotaped this?

"(VIDEO)Woman arrested for defacing property she didn't own"

Fixed that for you.

/TOA

reply to post by thePharaoh


lol im surprised no one in the US has started a group to hit all of those posters. Non violent protest and civil disobedience are integral tools within a democratic system. There use should be encouraged. These can be empowering acts.
Heck the US would not exist today if it was not for civil disobedience.

She has a bit of a British accent. She also is wearing pink, and using pink spray paint. She could be Code Pink.
When asking the cops why she was being arrested, she stated she was engaged in non-violent protest, and yet she was pushing the camera woman physically out of her way, so maybe not so non-violent, as that is when the cops stepped in. I'm almost certain she is a professional protester, maybe she is one of the Adbusters from Canada, OWS or something like that.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Well, to be fair, the woman assaulted the pink lady first with her tripod. Pink lady may have been "engaging in non-violent protest", but all bets are off when you are assaulted.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Well, to be fair, the woman assaulted the pink lady first with her tripod. Pink lady may have been "engaging in non-violent protest", but all bets are off when you are assaulted.

/TOA

Yeh I actually went back and watched it a second time. But the cops were on the side of the camera girl because she was trying to keep someone from defacing property. Still, I think she is a professional protester and likely imported here from somewhere else.

reply to post by thePharaoh


Who was the Lady stopping the spray painting job?

Why was she there?

Did she follow Mona into the subway?

Kind of strange she was there at the exact time Mona started spraying!

As to the spraying, maybe she wanted to be the next 'Banksy'

reply to post by thePharaoh


The fact that the ad uses the word savage is extremely offensive especially with all the cultures we have warred with (and in some cases pursued a campaign of ethnic cleansing) that we dubbed "Savage" (Native Americans are an example)

With that said.. Vandalism is against the law. She deserved to be arrested. She broke the law.

Nothing to see here folks.

defacing public property, vandalism.
Good luck explaining to a judge how her indignation trumps law.

Doesn't matter what my thoughts on the subject are. There are ways to demonstrate, and ways not to...this clearly is the wrong way.

This is a publicity stunt. The woman is Mona Eltahawy.

Damn...I'm catching the first flight off this planet and going back home to planet Zebulon.

You humans were amusing for awhile, but now it's just getting tiresome.

I do plan on writing a book about how your species segregates itself by the most
minor genealogical traits, and them an even more compelling follow-up of how you
love to define yourselvs based on the most outlandish of superstitious beliefs.....
I'm sure I'm going to have a best seller back home....

.....so long, and thanks for all the fish

One thing it gets me on this thread is the people that are arguing against the poster. They are arguing themselves into a corner.


They imply that if you criticize jihad, that you are criticizing all islam.
They imply that if you say the people engaged in jihad are savages, that you are saying all muslims are savages.

By supporting that argument, you are the one that is implying all Muslims support the jihad currently going on.

The term “jihad” has an explicit meaning. To criticize jihad, and say those supporting jihad are savages, is referring strictly to a subset of muslims that are actively supporting the violent activities. It is based on the working concept that the jihad movement is just an extremists movement comprised of a limited number of people.

That jihad movement is certifiably savage and violent. To call the people that support that movement “savages” is just being self evident. To the point that it is redundant to call a jihad supporter “violent, and savage”

When you people try to imply that someone is criticizing all islam because they criticize jihad, is implying that the two are inseparable. It implies that all musilms are inseparably tied to, and support a violent and savage movement. YOU are the ones implying that. No one else!

You try to make any criticism of jihad off limits by saying that you are attacking islam as a whole.

The ones that refuse to draw a distinction between jihad and islam is the ones that make large scale war inevitable. They are the ones that make it impossible to address the jihad problem because they try to put it off limits by saying that you are attacking Islam if you talk about, and denounce, jihad. When you can’t address the problem, then it will only grow until there is only one answer left. WAR!!!!

The ones that will be on the losing end will be the muslims. So, by supporting the argument that if "you insult jihad, you insult muslims". YOU are inseparably tying islam to jihad in the eyes of the public. YOU are the one making the slaughter inevitable. And the people that will be slaughtered are the ones you are defending.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I support that statement. I am sorry you want Jihad to continue.

This sign is talking about ALL Muslims. Jihad has two meanings, it can be a war against sin within yourself OR a war against non-believers.

Unlike most people on ATS, I've lived around a lot of Mulsims at one point, arab ones not long off the boat, and they didn't bother me. Maybe if people on here weren't so sheltered, there wouldn't be such a hate-fest.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

I support that statement. I am sorry you want Jihad to continue.

This sign is talking about ALL Muslims. Jihad has two meanings, it can be a war against sin within yourself OR a war against non-believers.

the context of the subway poster is perfectly clear as to which jihad it refers to. You trying to muddy the waters makes it clear that you support that violent jihad and you are just trying to deflect attention from it.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


but you miss the war-mongering angle?

i think your name is missing a Y...Mr Tyranny

Originally posted by thePharaoh
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

but you miss the war-mongering angle?

i think your name is missing a Y...Mr Tyranny

To say that something that is supporting a country’s right to exist, and defend it’s self from a movement that wants to wipe it from existence is “war mongering”, Is asinine..

The ones that are, and have always been “war mongering” are the ones calling for that country to be wiped off the map. But those are the ones involved in that jihad movement we keep talking about. You know, the ones you keep defending.

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Well, to be fair, the woman assaulted the pink lady first with her tripod. Pink lady may have been "engaging in non-violent protest", but all bets are off when you are assaulted.

/TOA

actually continuing to spray paint while the other lady was in the way IS the first assault, i see using the tripod after to push her away as a DEFENSIVE thing. it is spray paint lady who needs to be hit with assault with a deadly weapon charge, (spray paint chemicals are the "deadly weapon").

sadly the spray paint lady while having every right not to like the poster went about things in the wrong way. why not buy advertising of your own to counter balance it? other than she would not have gotten the same thrill as destruction and assault give.

reply to post by Mr Tranny


look, there is no jihad movement, and i refuse to be scared into forming an opinion.

so you think its fine yes..ok, but i`ll tell you that this advert works against isreals cause, and generates more "closet haters" of isreal.

if an isreali stands up and condemns the language in the advert...it would increase public support,
i mean its got to innit? am i wrong?

it would also show that they want peace...not a war
dont forget the opening line...."in a war"....!!

peace

reply to post by generik


the woman "moved" into the way of the spray can...and was politly told to mind her business

it was vandalism...why did it need a hero....fyi, that woman pushed, barged, as well as using her camera tripod as a weapon.

she didnt need to be there...

peace