this post was submitted on
458 points (80% like it)
608 up votes 150 down votes

news

unsubscribe193,214 readers

162 users here now

Tired of the bias and hyperbole over at /r/politics and /r/worldnews? You've come to the right place.

/r/news - real news articles only


See a submission that violates the rules below? Report it or message us before complaining in the comments!


Please post news items only.

The only exception is posts maturely discussing the /r/news community. Self-posts aggregating news data and "independent reporting" each count as "news items," but are not an excuse for editorialization.

Your post may be deleted if:

  • it is an editorial, opinion, petition, solicitation, poll or advocacy article.
  • it uses an editorialised title. The headline should not include your opinion of the news, nor any exhortation to action.
  • it links to a paywall site, or a site that steals content.
  • it is inane or of overly limited interest.
  • it is contrived political news. Latest poll numbers or political back-and-forth etc to /r/politics please.
  • it is a repost of a story that has been posted multiple times.

If your post doesn't fit here, consider:

/r/inthenews - all news-related content
/r/politics - for shouting about politics
/r/moderatepolitics - similar, but less shouting
/r/politicaldiscussion - also with less shouting /r/worldnews - news from outside the USA
/r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.
/r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy items
/r/pastnews - news from 10+ yrs ago
/r/AnythingGoesNews for unrestricted news /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting news
/r/misc for none of the above


"The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it." - George Washington


Thanks to Newdles for the header image.

  1. Please subscribe and post all editorial and opinion items to /r/inthenews | Learn more
a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 105 comments

[–]DeadAlready 43 points44 points ago

Am I the only one that doesn't see this as "News"?

[–]HardCoreModerate 8 points9 points ago

its not

[–]duncanmarshall 1 point2 points ago

Someone fly-posts in New York subway. More at 10.

[–]T_Money 4 points5 points ago

Paid for by the "American Freedom Defense Initiative." Yeah, sounds legit.

[–]dcawley 3 points4 points ago

The Anti-Defamation League has classified the American Freedom Defense Initiative as an anti-Islamic hate group. It is not a Jewish group. It was founded by conservative blogger Pamela Geller, who is famous for leading the fight against Park51 in 2010 (otherwise known as the Ground Zero Mega Mosque), and whipping up anti-Islamic sentiment in the Tea Party movement. You can read more about her here.

[–]trousered_ape 24 points25 points ago

Why is it socially acceptable for that Jewish group to put up racist posters? What other religious or racial group can get away with that shit?

[–]jhnsdlk 52 points53 points ago

  1. It isn't.

  2. All of them.

[–]Fantasysage 1 point2 points ago

Lol at #2. The city can reject ads, put up a christian attack ad, see what happens.

[–]Heretical_Fool -1 points0 points ago

All of them.

White Christian Males.

[–]yogurtshwartz 0 points1 point ago

As a white Christian male I find this offensive

[–]rudster 13 points14 points ago

"The American Freedom Defense Initiative" is not by any stretch of the imagination a Jewish group (one of the lunatic founders is Jewish, the other Christian).

[–]Zerv14 12 points13 points ago

Is Islam a race now?

[–]poiu477 -2 points-1 points ago

Nope, but Palestinian is. I think the "jihad" the offending ad refers to is the rebellion against Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, utilizing the most common creed the Palestinians subscribe to as a tool to stir Americans against them by lumping them in with terrorists.

[–]ranscot 4 points5 points ago

Reagan labeled Mandela's African National Congress a notorious terrorist organization when they were rebelling against apartheid as well, so this mismanagement of labels is not new in the USA.

[–]Halgrind 1 point2 points ago

But they were terrorists. Their cause may have been just, but terrorism is defined by tactics.

[–]almodozo 4 points5 points ago

Could you unpack the distinction between terrorism and violent struggle/resistance, and define how the ANC's tactics amounted to the former and not the latter? Not all political violence is terrorism, after all.

[–]ranscot 2 points3 points ago

But that definition, the USA is a rogue state started by terrorists.

[–]Halgrind 0 points1 point ago

Not sure where you're getting "rogue state" from, but it wouldn't be unjustified to call some of the revolutionary soldiers terrorists if they employed those kind of tactics.

[–]ranscot 3 points4 points ago

All revolutions are started by "terrorists" against the status quo state since mankind left the caves. Since the USA has recently been the "winners" writing history, they get to say who is rogue. If the USA ever becomes the "losers", the history of 1950 to 2000 will definitely be labeled "rogue".

[–]Halgrind 1 point2 points ago

Armed conflict against a government isn't terrorism by default. Citizens have a right to depose a ruling authority to establish self-governance. If they threaten or kill civilians who support their enemies then they are terrorists.

I don't understand your point about rogue states, where did that enter into the conversation? Mandela planned bombings to spread fear. Terrorist. Palestenians who fire rockets at civilians are terrorists. Palestinians who want to govern themselves without interference and use peaceful protests and diplomatic efforts are not terrorists.

"Jihad" is a loaded term that can mean different things to different people, so it's best to avoid using it. Generalizations as in the OP's link are damaging to both sides.

[–]poiu477 2 points3 points ago

What happens when those diplomatic routes fail, and the peaceful protests are violently interfered with?

[–]rudster 1 point2 points ago

You're confused. Palestinians are Arabs, and Arabs are Caucasian (which, finally, is a race).

Find yourself a Palestinian and ask them their family history. Almost universally you'll find their relatives emigrated from various countries in the middle east. Like every other formerly colonized area, the borders are practically all artificial.

In any case, your assumption that all Jihad involves Palestine seems silly. This is, after all, in NYC, where Saudi Arabians crashed planes into a building apparently because of American bases in Saudi Arabia, there because of Iraq. None of that involves Israel.

[–]trousered_ape 1 point2 points ago

We all know what Islam means in the West. They are not referring to Indonesia, are they?

[–]Awkward_Arab 2 points3 points ago

The ads were by Pam Gellar, whose not Jewish.

The organization that made the ads were not Jewish, but I was mistaken about Gellar.

[–]rudster 1 point2 points ago

While her organisation is not Jewish, Pam Gellar is indeed Jewish.

[–]Awkward_Arab 0 points1 point ago

I always thought she was an evangelical Christian. Thanks for the correction.

[–]sixbrow 0 points1 point ago

I like how it says support the civilised, and yet the Islamic poster next to it seems much more civilised to me.

[–]That_one_Canadian 1 point2 points ago

Freedom of speech in america? If you would really like to know I would have to say Christianity, remember that pastor who wanted to burn the Koran and wouldve gotten away with it? Those actions are or should be consider a hate crime. In Canada these poster wouldnt be allowed to be posted as they could incite hatred toward a particular group of people.

[–]youshouldbereading -1 points0 points ago

Because a lot of Americans aren't informed on the conflict and choose to blindly follow so they don't look antisemitic.

[–]suckmyace -2 points-1 points ago

What's stopping them? it's not like they register before they put these up.. just tear it down

[–]ranscot 1 point2 points ago

Instead of tearing them down, I always preferred to do this when I lived in NYC:

http://gawker.com/385680/is-the-new-banksy-loose-in-the-new-york-subways

[–]KookyGuy 6 points7 points ago

Judaism and Islam are very similar religions. I'm sad that some people don't think Muslims and Jews can live in peace, but they have so much in common. I'm glad that others feel the way I do.

Edit: Grammar

[–]jimflaigle 4 points5 points ago

Note to reddit : this is how free speech works, not spray painting the ad you don't like.

[–]ranscot 18 points19 points ago

you realize they pasted that ontop of con ed ad right?

[–]Phelot 5 points6 points ago

No, it's clearly ConEdison taking a strong stance on Israel.

[–]Radico87 1 point2 points ago

If you deal with con ed you know they don't deserve to benefit from marketing.

[–]didaskaleinophobic 4 points5 points ago

Free speech works by paying money to some private company who will rent you a billboard to display a pre-approved message...

Fuck that, ill stock woth spraypaint.

[–]madnickhahaha 3 points4 points ago

I just find it so unbelievable that they still call each other "savages" when they both basically live the same life. Who approved these messages anyway?

[–]RossSim -1 points0 points ago

No dude Jew's live much nicer live typically than Muslim's do.

[–]jb4427 3 points4 points ago

The letter doesn't mention the other half of the concept of Jihad. Yes, there's an "inner struggle" part, but there's the "outer struggle" element. The struggle against "enemies of Islam," which, in the eyes of many extremists, means violent action towards other Islamic people, Jews/Israel, etc.

Do your research before defending this, guys.

[–]critropolitan 3 points4 points ago

Every religion has multiple interpretations of its doctrine and tenants. I wouldn't assume that the implied interpretation in the poster isn't a plausible one (though in fairness I do not know it to be the case either).

[–]firstsnowfall 1 point2 points ago

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

Qur'an 2:193 "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers."

Muslim:C9B1N33 "The Prophet said: ‘I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prostration prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are protected."

Qur'an 5:94 "Believers, Allah will make a test for you in the form of a little game in which you reach out for your lances. Any who fails this test will have a grievous punishment."

Ishaq:578 "Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing the Prophet's fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us the Prophet gained victory."

How can those be misinterpreted? There are sooo many more like that. The Quran is riddled with violent rhetoric, and Muhammad's life was one of a warlord who slaughtered many innocent people, which certainly sets a powerful precedent.

[–]jb4427 2 points3 points ago

Posts actual citations supporting argument, gets downvoted.

Wow, Reddit's love affair with Islam has gotten bad.

[–]duncanmarshall 2 points3 points ago

You're forgetting about the other half of the concept of 'Earth', which in the eyes of morons means "flat disc we all live on".

When defining things, best stay away from what's "in the eyes of extremists".

[–]firstsnowfall -1 points0 points ago

Its in the Quran. Pretty straight forward. Don't defend weird beliefs that you haven't even studied yourself

[–]duncanmarshall 0 points1 point ago

Well fortunately I have even studies them myself.

edit: and then he fixed his typo.

[–]firstsnowfall 0 points1 point ago

You've read the Quran yourself? And you still think that jihad is a matter of interpretation? Maybe you need to read more closely and also learn about the early history of Islam, particularly the life of Muhammad. There are very clear and straight forward instances in the Quran which incite violence against non-believers. Muhammad himself slaughtered many Jews, contradicting his earlier testament that "People of the Book" should be respected. He changed his mind once he realized that Jews wouldn't convert to Islam.

[–]duncanmarshall -1 points0 points ago

What does this have to do with whether we should give equal weight to extremists' opinions when defining words?

[–]firstsnowfall -1 points0 points ago

Holy shit you're dense. My point is that the "extermist" position bears a lot of weight since it's based on actual Quran verses and Islamic history. The position isn't "extremist" at all since it isn't based on any mistranslation or misinterpretation.

[–]duncanmarshall -1 points0 points ago

Meh, you're a moron.

[–]firstsnowfall 0 points1 point ago

How am I a moron? You haven't offered any counter arguments. Sounds like your view is mired in beliefs with no factual evidence. One definition of stupidity is believing something even when confronted with contrary evidence.

[–]KookyGuy 1 point2 points ago

It is true there are two kinds of Jihad. However, Muhammad himself said the internal struggle is more important "“The most excellent jihad (struggle) is that for the conquest of self”"

[–]firstsnowfall -2 points-1 points ago

That is an unsubstantiated quote. It seems to be everywhere, yet there is no actual source for it. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/what-muhammad-said.html

[–]KookyGuy 1 point2 points ago

You're really linking to jihadwatch? You don't think they're a little biased?

[–]firstsnowfall 0 points1 point ago

He's only making a point that the quote is missing a citation. If you can find the citation, then you can prove him wrong. The quote is floating around everywhere, yet nobody actually knows where it originates from.

[–]almodozo 0 points1 point ago

Looked up the organization: The Dialogue Project

[–]blazin_chalice -1 points0 points ago

Is this unintended irony?

Israel has acted poorly over the years and there are enough parallels with regard to actions on either side to merit comparison.

[–]monkey_joe -1 points0 points ago

Free speech is great because it reveals people for who they really are. The use of the word savage to describe anyone opposed to the Jewish state or its politics is demeaning and disturbing, probably like the rest of her ideology.

[–]officinalis -1 points0 points ago

Fuck the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

[–]Hero_Of_Sandwich -1 points0 points ago

Too bad most people who see the sane advertisement are just going to think "tl;dr".

[–]Brushstroke -3 points-2 points ago

It is true that Judaism and Islam have much in common and could live in peace with each other, but it is certainly not true that either of the two religions are religions of peace when it comes to modern society. The only good, decent Jews and Muslims are those who are secular.

[–]uberalles2 -5 points-4 points ago

Some small Jewish group condemns the ad. Probably a group of 2 people.