Oakland bakery features mural of a convicted terrorist

[bilby]

Standard Derec Whataboutism...

So you think glorifying terrorists is good?
You think people attacking peaceful protesters is good as long as the violence comes from the left-wing?

It's not "whataboutism" to point out the sickening one-sidedness of our contemporary discussion of political violence.

Who gives a fuck if it's good?

Lots of people do lots of stuff that's not good (IMO). Why should I get my panties in a wad about this particular instance? Why are you?

You opened with a perfectly reasonable complaint about the use of violence against people protesting about this mural - they had as much right to protest as the bakery did to put it there, and violence against them was unacceptable. But that uncontroversial position isn't what you are actually here to discuss, is it? In your own words:

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Yes, it fucking well is. Glorifying anyone - regardless of Derec's or anyone else's opinion of them - on private property, just because you want to, is one of the essential freedoms we should all be defending.

 

[RavenSky]

About that "people attacking peaceful protesters" part...

A counter-protester tried to rip the signs the protesters were carrying. While even that is not appropriate, there were no "attacks". To compare these counter-protesters with the Charlottesville nazis is just Derec's inability/refusal to see brown people as anything other than scary monsters.

And for a little more context to this story, while the Jewish group has every right to peacefully protest - and have even gained a police escort to do so - the restaurant owner has been the target of hate mail, threats, and online attempts to harm her business long before this incident.

 

[untermensche]

Fighting against decades of Israeli oppression does not make one a terrorist.

If some nation was crushing you like Israel has been crushing the Palestinians you would feel differently.

The perpetrator of oppression gives up a moral protection against violence. They put their population at risk with their oppression.

Add the continual displacement and theft of land and the oppressor has no moral protection from any violence that falls upon it.

 

[laughing dog]

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

Do you mean that it is correct that a bakery in Oakland in glorifying a terrorist? Or do you mean that it is correct for a bakery in Oakland (or any other place) to glorify a terrorist?

I say yes to both. A private bakery can glorify whomever they wish. They just cannot expect universal acceptance.

The violence against the protesters was wrong. As to why the attackers are not losing their jobs, you'd have to ascertain if they have jobs and if they have not lost them, you'd have to ask their employers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For the record, the woman in the mural claims she was not a terrorist, i.e., did not participate in the bombings she was accused of. She was convicted in a military court in Israel and claims she confessed because that military that tried her tortured her into confessing. Now, personally, I don't believe her, but my personal opinion aside, other persons probably do. The kind of people who might believe her would be the kind of people who would put up a mural of her in their store. [As a double-aside now imagine if Zimmerman had been tried by a military court where your guilt is decided by preponderance of evidence not innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Would the op author declare him guilty or would he be complaining?]

Also, as far as any accusations of The Regressive The Left, let me add that I'm against the grocery store bombing in 1969 or whenever that killed two civilians. I am sure 99%+ of such other card-carrying members of The Regressive The Left are too.

In any case, I didn't click the links but someone previously wrote about a ripped sign. Is that the extent of what triggered Derec into Hasty Generalization Beast mode?

Could someone maybe rationally re-write the op to be a bit more balanced so we can actually understand what's going on here?

 

[dismal]

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

The point is that a private business has a picture on their wall that they want on their wall. Do you think that's incorrect?

Yeah, I don't. But we have some people here who are always wanting to silence offensive speech (to the point where they condone vandalism of public art) and don't think various freedoms apply to you once you "hold yourself open for business".

 

[SimpleDon]

For the record, the woman in the mural claims she was not a terrorist, i.e., did not participate in the bombings she was accused of. She was convicted in a military court in Israel and claims she confessed because that military that tried her tortured her into confessing. Now, personally, I don't believe her, but my personal opinion aside, other persons probably do. The kind of people who might believe her would be the kind of people who would put up a mural of her in their store. [As a double-aside now imagine if Zimmerman had been tried by a military court where your guilt is decided by preponderance of evidence not innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Would the op author declare him guilty or would he be complaining?]

Also, as far as any accusations of The Regressive The Left, let me add that I'm against the grocery store bombing in 1969 or whenever that killed two civilians. I am sure 99%+ of such other card-carrying members of The Regressive The Left are too.

In any case, I didn't click the links but someone previously wrote about a ripped sign. Is that the extent of what triggered Derec into Hasty Generalization Beast mode?

Could someone maybe rationally re-write the op to be a bit more balanced so we can actually understand what's going on here?

It seems to me that we are angry that we all agree with each other and with Derec about this. It is unnatural.

 

[funinspace]

For the record, the woman in the mural claims she was not a terrorist, i.e., did not participate in the bombings she was accused of. She was convicted in a military court in Israel and claims she confessed because that military that tried her tortured her into confessing. Now, personally, I don't believe her, but my personal opinion aside, other persons probably do. The kind of people who might believe her would be the kind of people who would put up a mural of her in their store. [As a double-aside now imagine if Zimmerman had been tried by a military court where your guilt is decided by preponderance of evidence not innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Would the op author declare him guilty or would he be complaining?]

Though she may have been abused by the Israeli police/military, she doesn't deny involvement in the bombing. At a minimum it seems that she would be akin to the get away driver at a bank robbery. So IMPOV, she is guilty enough to not be put on any pedestal. There are plenty of non-violent resistors to the Israeli apartheid, that one doesn't need to latch onto her...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmea_Odeh

Although Odeh's legal representation disputes the veracity of her confession to these crimes, based on her allegation that it was obtained after torture by the Israeli military,[12] according to American federal prosecutors the Israeli investigators had found "extensive bomb-making materials and explosives" and "explosive bricks in her room".[25] The Chicago Tribune reports that in the documentary, "Women in Struggle," which was made before her indictment for concealing her arrest, Odeh made no denial that she had a role in the bombings.

Could someone maybe rationally re-write the op to be a bit more balanced so we can actually understand what's going on here?

It's Derec, at least he wasn't derailing another thread...and it is about an event in the US where people weren't nice at all from the leftish side of protesting/counter-protesting. People seem to prefer Derec sneering or to pretend this event isn't something, almost like a Derec-derail...

Note: I already stated that this is hardly comparable to driving over people trying to kill them.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Protesters exercised their right to protest and were physically attacked for doing so.
Rasmeah Odeh and Angela Davis came to roost in the honorary committee that organised the women's march. The 8 person committee consisted of 7 Marxists and one non-Marxist.

While in the UK, the main Left (Labour party) mainly refused Marxist infiltration, I must congratulate the Marxists and ISIS for their coordinated effort in the USA. The ISIS manual BLACK FLAGS OF ROME provides its strategy of aligning with Left wing and civil rights groups so as to spread there on the political front.

Anyway, while free to display political signs to glorify an enemy who hates America, protesters have a right too, provided they also follow the local laws.


Linda Sasour campaigns against Muslims who are involved in civil rights activism in the Muslim world on behalf of women while in the USA she campaigns for more Muslim holidays which in itself is not a problem but not focused on women's rights abroad.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Though she may have been abused by the Israeli police/military, she doesn't deny involvement in the bombing. At a minimum it seems that she would be akin to the get away driver at a bank robbery. So IMPOV, she is guilty enough to not be put on any pedestal. There are plenty of non-violent resistors to the Israeli apartheid, that one doesn't need to latch onto her...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmea_Odeh

Although Odeh's legal representation disputes the veracity of her confession to these crimes, based on her allegation that it was obtained after torture by the Israeli military,[12] according to American federal prosecutors the Israeli investigators had found "extensive bomb-making materials and explosives" and "explosive bricks in her room".[25] The Chicago Tribune reports that in the documentary, "Women in Struggle," which was made before her indictment for concealing her arrest, Odeh made no denial that she had a role in the bombings.

Could someone maybe rationally re-write the op to be a bit more balanced so we can actually understand what's going on here?

It's Derec, at least he wasn't derailing another thread...and it is about an event in the US where people weren't nice at all from the leftish side of protesting/counter-protesting. People seem to prefer Derec sneering or to pretend this event isn't something, almost like a Derec-derail...

Note: I already stated that this is hardly comparable to driving over people trying to kill them.

She did kill 2 people however with the first bomb but never declared her conviction when applying for US citizenship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fighting against decades of Israeli oppression does not make one a terrorist.

If some nation was crushing you like Israel has been crushing the Palestinians you would feel differently.

The perpetrator of oppression gives up a moral protection against violence. They put their population at risk with their oppression.

Add the continual displacement and theft of land and the oppressor has no moral protection from any violence that falls upon it.

Blowing up a civilian location with no military value makes you a terrorist. The merits of your cause have nothing to do with it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For the record, the woman in the mural claims she was not a terrorist, i.e., did not participate in the bombings she was accused of. She was convicted in a military court in Israel and claims she confessed because that military that tried her tortured her into confessing. Now, personally, I don't believe her, but my personal opinion aside, other persons probably do. The kind of people who might believe her would be the kind of people who would put up a mural of her in their store. [As a double-aside now imagine if Zimmerman had been tried by a military court where your guilt is decided by preponderance of evidence not innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Would the op author declare him guilty or would he be complaining?]

She's indirectly confessed since. There's no question of her guilt.

Could someone maybe rationally re-write the op to be a bit more balanced so we can actually understand what's going on here?

I don't think the OP has the problem--instead just about everyone tried to derail the thread by talking about her status rather than what he brought up--the left defending the image with violence.

 

[LordKiran]

Fighting against decades of Israeli oppression does not make one a terrorist.

If some nation was crushing you like Israel has been crushing the Palestinians you would feel differently.

The perpetrator of oppression gives up a moral protection against violence. They put their population at risk with their oppression.

Add the continual displacement and theft of land and the oppressor has no moral protection from any violence that falls upon it.

Blowing up a civilian location with no military value makes you a terrorist.

I'm sorry what? If a military is tied to a nation which is responsible for its maintenance, upkeep, and creation, then it stands to reason that military and civilian targets are really one in the same.

Either that or pretty much everyone involved in WW2 is a terrorist.

 

[Bronzeage]

So is there a point hidden within all this meandering bullshit or am I supposed to draw my own conclusions?

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

It's private property. Do you think it's correct to tell someone what they can put on their own wall?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's their wall, they can paint whatever they want on it. Bronzeage is right, this is private property. If you don't like it don't shop there.

 

[funinspace]

Point is that a bakery in Oakland is glorifying a terrorist. Do you think that's correct?

It's private property. Do you think it's correct to tell someone what they can put on their own wall?

Way, way back on that first page...

I do not think they should be prohibited by law to glorify terrorists.

 

[Derec]

It's private property. Do you think it's correct to tell someone what they can put on their own wall?

It's private property but it is still a public accommodation. As such, the public has the right to express opinion about it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's their wall, they can paint whatever they want on it.

Nobody has said that they don't. But those who think it's fucked up to glorify a terrorist likewise have the first amendment right to make that opinion known. Free speech cuts both ways.

Bronzeage is right, this is private property. If you don't like it don't shop there.

Unfortunately I am too far away to not shop there. So posting on an internet forum is the most I can do.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think the OP has the problem--instead just about everyone tried to derail the thread by talking about her status rather than what he brought up--the left defending the image with violence.

Except there is no evidence that "the left" is defending the image of violence - that is the assumption of Derec and yourself.

 

[Derec]

Either that or pretty much everyone involved in WW2 is a terrorist.

Everybody involved in WWII planted bombs in grocery stores?
Odeh's terrorist attack had no other purpose but to murder civilians. Even in WW2 that would count as a war crime.

 

[LordKiran]

Either that or pretty much everyone involved in WW2 is a terrorist.

Everybody involved in WWII planted bombs in grocery stores?
Odeh's terrorist attack had no other purpose but to murder civilians. Even in WW2 that would count as a war crime.

The effect is the same, so yes. The people who firebombed Major cities the world over are terrorists as per LP's definition.