But considering that the Chicago Tribune editors endorsed Obama and covet Muslim readers, that would never happen.
Posted on 11/15/2012 6:41:44 AM PST by KeyLargo
chicagotribune.com
'Jihad' ads on CTA buses spark outrage
By Manya A. Brachear and Jon Hilkevitch
Tribune reporters
7:29 AM CST, November 15, 2012
The controversial ads unveiled on the back of 10 CTA buses Wednesday read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” They conclude with the words, “Support Copts. Defeat Jihad,” referring to friction between Muslims and Coptic Christians in Egypt.
Within hours of the buses' first runs, messages appeared on Facebook and Twitter denouncing the campaign. Many said degrading a spiritual tenet of Islam -- one that refers to a Muslim's personal quest to become a better person -- amounts to hate speech.
“This whole campaign insinuates Muslims are violent,” said Asaf Bar-Tura, programs director for the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, which protested the ads on social media Wednesday. “If it's within their legal powers, (CTA) should either not put it up because they incite hate and stereotypical thinking or put a label next to each sign saying `The CTA disagrees with this ad.’ ”
So far, federal judges have sided with the advertisement's sponsor, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which sued transit authorities in New York City and Washington, D.C., when they initially rejected the ads. Those judges ruled that public forums such as buses and trains can't bar advertising entitled to First Amendment protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
But considering that the Chicago Tribune editors endorsed Obama and covet Muslim readers, that would never happen.
let them rage...
The flash word here is Jihad. We know it’s true if taken to the extent prescribed in Islamic scripture, but in this politically correct world the best we can say is “Muslim Extremism.”
Haven’t ads of this same kind appeared in New York except instead of Copts (who are Christian) they say Israeli Jews?
“Those judges ruled that public forums such as buses and trains can’t bar advertising entitled to First Amendment protection.”
Obummer will be sure to tell his dancing friend Rahm to take care of those judges “Chicago style”—ASAP—’cuz they’ll upset his muzzie BFFs.
cough, cough...
There's such a thing as context. If we can believe that there are Muslims who believe Jihad is a call to inner, rather than outer, struggle, we can be sure an ad calling to support the Copts against their bloody attackers doesn't include those Muslims.
If the ad hadn't said, "Support the Copts," I might think you had a case.
Oh, OK - NOW the towelheads speak up.
What about after 9/11? Silence.
After all the beheadings? The killings? The maimings? The killing of wives and daughters for becoming “Too American”? Silence.
Well, let’s get ready - we have 4 more years of this ahead; then the ‘Pubbies will rescue us./sarc
Well, conservatives have been hollering for years that the buses should be privatized. Maybe now they will want to do that.
No human group can, of itself, “save us.” Not the best and most honorable in the world.
It has to be God, who can and does act through human events.
Yes, there are such moderate Muslims, who don’t follow the Islamic scriptures to the full extent of their literalism, and who see the tenet of “jihad” as a call to self control. History shows that they can be recruited all too easily into such literalism, but the status quo is that they generally get along well with others. And the literalistic Islamic crowd hates their guts because they aren’t getting with the program, so to speak.
Anyhow, maybe it would have been wiser to say “Islamic Extremism” rather than “Jihad.” But even that would have drawn tons of protests that “oh, no, we aren’t extremists.”
Leading Egyptian Cleric Denounces The Internet As Infidel Plot, Major Sin…
I’m guessing da Joooos are somehow involved in this conspiracy as well.
Via Digital Journal:
A prominent Egyptian Salafist preacher has denounced the Internet as the gravest of major sins, posing a threat to Islamic societies. He accused the west of deliberately using the Internet to export pornography to Islamic and Arab countries.
Egyptians are frequent visitors to pornographic websites, with five pornographic sites amongst the top 100 searched sites in the country, Al Arabiya reported. Salafist preacher Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Yaqob has now issued a fatwa against the Internet, calling it haram (forbidden).
His wrath is not only limited to the Internet. He considers love outside marriage, which he describes as “adultery of the heart,” as equal a sin as the Internet. Al Arabiya reported he said “In Islam, marriage is the only lawful man-woman relationship.”
He went on to say that the Internet is the biggest challenge facing the Muslim world, calling on Muslim youths to stop their “blind imitation of the West and stand firm against the Western cultural invasion that aims at changing the identity of the Ummah (nation).”
In spite of Yaqob’s decree concerning marriage, Internet searches for gay porn remain rife in Egypt, along with searches for animal sex. The Prosecutor’s ban on Internet porn sites has raised alarm among some Egyptians that further Internet censorship may follow.
nah, private enterprise is directly contrary to the socialists’ goals.
The buses will stay public/government funded. Obummer and his pals will find a way to eradicate the Bill of Rights amendments and it won’t be a problem anymore. Whistling...
Jihad refers to a Muslim’s personal quest to become a better person?
I never dreamed that burning people alive in a church made Muslims a “better person”
WZ is site non grata at FR, but you can bet these clerics have no problem with using the internet to punk the infidel. The ban will be selectively used to eliminate political enemies.
“Moderate Muslims” DO regard it in that more civilized manner.
The troublesome thing is that moderates don’t always stay that way. And once they go “extremist” (i.e. literal) they don’t care any more to “coexist” as the famous logo puts it.
I guess this is just showing the “Beginnings...” Oh wait, wrong CTA.
BenLurkin ~:” Jihad refers to a Muslim’s personal quest to become a better person?
I never dreamed that burning people alive in a church made Muslims a “better person” .
Jihad is a social/ political /religious method of killing people who don’t ‘think like us’, or ‘believe what we do’.
Islam = submission
Jihad is just an excuse for ‘ethnic cleansing’/ religious submission to Islam (”Submission”) power couched in politically correct language in religious doctrine .
The fact that Coptics and Islamics have lived side-by-side for centuries past , and now that Islamics have siezed power and are killing ‘infidels’ / non-beleivers demonstrates that jihad is another power grasp.
Jihad has nothing to do with internal self-control or self-improvement ; it has everything to do with controlling others (submission) by force , and it is unacceptable .
The fact that the international community has not taken a stand against this religious/ethnic cleansing reminds me of Neville Chamberlin .
Another “Holicost” in the making , and we are expected to turn a blind eye to it ?
I’m outraged at the murders. Let’s start with 9/11, Daniel Pearl, Margaret Hassan. I’m outraged that bearded savages murder normal people and that the left defends bearded savages.
“I never dreamed that burning people alive in a church made Muslims a “better person”
It does indeed. The muzzies who commit such despicable acts are not arsonists & murderers.
Praise Allah, they are holy warriors fighting the “infidels”. And yes, this is one definition of `fighting’ for these b@stards!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.