T Nation

NYC Subway Ad


Coming Soon…

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/23/anti-jihad-avage-ads-going-up-in-new-york-city-subway/

I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.

The sign doesn’t say supporting Israel WILL defeat Jihad…put on your Glasses this time and
read it again.
Sadly, Defeating Jihad is impossible anyway, I agree with killing these murdering Jihadist assholes, most whom can’t even spell simple english words on their protest signs(lol!), but it’s tantamount to saying “Defeat Crime In NYC”, yeah right, like one day there will
be no crime in NYC soon and everyone will walk the alleys of Brooklyn at night without
a care in the World…keep dreaming.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

I don’t see how supporting Britain will “defeat the Nazis,” circa 1940.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

I don’t see how supporting Britain will “defeat the Nazis,” circa 1940.[/quote]

Governments are easier to defeat than religions

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

I don’t see how supporting Britain will “defeat the Nazis,” circa 1940.[/quote]

Governments are easier to defeat than religions[/quote]

Nazism was a religion.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

Unsurprising you both read it wrong and don’t see a connection.

When did it become “cool” for liberals to hate Jews?

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

Unsurprising you both read it wrong and don’t see a connection.

When did it become “cool” for liberals to hate Jews?[/quote]

When did it become cool to conflate anti-semitism with a lack a support for Israel?

I’m not going to go into extreme detail, but the term “jihad” is actually translated to mean three different things at once through one term: struggle.

On one level, the term refers to a personal battle toward self-improvement and intellectual effort. On an entirely different level, it refers to working to practice Islam in the face of persecution, which is where the violent connotation we now associate it with comes from. Groups have taken it up for this later reason as a justification of war.

Personally, because of the first, more prevalently practiced definition of jihad, I find this sign to be intolerant. Do I believe we should support Israel? Yes-it is valuable to have an ally in a region where we have few. However, I don’t see supporting Israel as a means to ending jihad. War and aggression will not quell the anger towards the US. That I can guarantee.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

Unsurprising you both read it wrong and don’t see a connection.

When did it become “cool” for liberals to hate Jews?[/quote]

14 May 1948*

  • Correction: the socialists and the like always hated Jewish people; but they weren’t so obvious about it until we had our home back.

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
I’m not going to go into extreme detail, but the term “jihad” is actually translated to mean three different things at once through one term: struggle.

On one level, the term refers to a personal battle toward self-improvement and intellectual effort. On an entirely different level, it refers to working to practice Islam in the face of persecution, which is where the violent connotation we now associate it with comes from. Groups have taken it up for this later reason as a justification of war.

[/quote]

Oh please…

[quote]
Personally, because of the first, more prevalently practiced definition of jihad, I find this sign to be intolerant. Do I believe we should support Israel? Yes-it is valuable to have an ally in a region where we have few. However, I don’t see supporting Israel as a means to ending jihad. War and aggression will not quell the anger towards the US. That I can guarantee.[/quote]

I’ll let you in on a little secret. They’re not really angry at all. They’re just pretending. It’s part of their justification for what they do. They’re actually laughing their asses off at us. And war, or even the threat of war is the only way to end their aggression. If we had a leader with balls none of this would even be happening and there’d be no need for war. Instead we’ve got an appeaser.

Sorry for giving you the definition/history of what a term actually means?

And do you actually think that war or the threat of war is the answer? Have the last 10+ years taught you nothing? Speak softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy should reign above all else with decisive action being taken when needed.

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

And do you actually think that war or the threat of war is the answer? Have the last 10+ years taught you nothing?[/quote]

The last 10? Try the last 220 years for starters. Yes, it taught me a great deal. Didn’t the Second World War teach you anything?

“Didn’t the Second World War teach you anything?”

Tell me one High School in the U.S. that even teaches the Second World War
in a cursory manner, Good Luck, I know the Schools we went to sure didn’t.
But, Boy oh Boy they sure pushed Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and
the Lewis and Clark expedition down our fuckin’ throats…you know, the
IMPORTANT History.

[quote]Karado wrote:
“Didn’t the Second World War teach you anything?”

Tell me one High School in the U.S. that even teaches the Second World War
in a cursory manner, Good Luck, I know the Schools we went to sure didn’t.
But, Boy oh Boy they sure pushed Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, and
the Lewis and Clark expedition down our fuckin’ throats…you know, the
IMPORTANT History.[/quote]

I learned about as much about WWII as I did anything else in high school. If you want to talk about overlooked, it would be a better bet to focus on WWI and the Korean war.

And I think MLK is pretty important, yeah.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

Unsurprising you both read it wrong and don’t see a connection.

When did it become “cool” for liberals to hate Jews?[/quote]

When did it become cool to conflate anti-semitism with a lack a support for Israel?[/quote]

Seconded.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I don’t see how supporting Israel will “defeat Jihad”.[/quote]

Unsurprising you both read it wrong and don’t see a connection.

When did it become “cool” for liberals to hate Jews?[/quote]

When did it become cool to conflate anti-semitism with a lack a support for Israel?[/quote]

Seconded.[/quote]

Around the mid 70s.

Why?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’ll let you in on a little secret. They’re not really angry at all. They’re just pretending. It’s part of their justification for what they do. They’re actually laughing their asses off at us. And war, or even the threat of war is the only way to end their aggression. If we had a leader with balls none of this would even be happening and there’d be no need for war. Instead we’ve got an appeaser.[/quote]

Yeah.

Laughing their asses off while getting bombed.

Sneaky mofos.

So lemme get this straight…this is all a JOKE to them?
That 21 Countries perfectly conspired to jokingly protest
all at the same fuckin’ time as a big practical joke? REALLY?
Well then, if that’s the case, why don’t we give every single one
of them Oscars for “Best Actor” for every one these people,
even giving them “Best Special Effects” Oscars for those Fake Beheadings
of Americans in the years past…WOW, those beheadings looked Soooo Realistic,
They coulda fooled me, and who was Man responsible behind those special effects? Criss Angel??