Ultra-conservative newspaper cuts Merkel out of Paris March photo

[alhoon]

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-paper-c...131410239.html

The gist: An ultra-conservative newspaper cut Merkel out of the photos of the world leaders parading to show support for free press, free from intimidation. They did it out of modesty and because "A woman's exterior should not be seen and photographed or paraded in front of men"
And because "Including a picture of a woman into something so sacred, as far as we are concerned, it can desecrate the memory of the martyrs and not the other way around"

Increadibly ironic in my opinion. Things like those were partially the reason the world leaders were parading!

So, according to this newspaper, Merkel's supernatural beauty would make men all around the world drool with lust and desecrate the memory of the Martyrs that died at the hands of religious extremists. A woman's place is in the kitchen or something, not parading to honor the dead, seducing people.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, I don't know the Sadducees way of thinking, but what is so sacred about a propagandistic photo?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Stavroforos]

Here's the equivalent picture of all the males were cut out of the picture, just food for thought.

[Yayattasa]

Just so everyone knows, the newspaper is jewish.

[Aikanár]

Just so everyone knows, the newspaper is jewish.

Which implies what? That you cannot read it on a Saturday? Or that it's fit for wrapping it around kosher fish or what do you wanted to say? Or what else did you like to imply? It will be interesting to see you develop that point of yours, that is until after you'll have made it, of course.

[Stavroforos]

Which implies what? That you cannot read it on a Saturday? Or that it's fit for wrapping it around kosher fish or what do you wanted to say? Or what else did you like to imply? It will be interesting to see you develop that point of yours, that is until after you'll have made it, of course.

I think (or hope) that the point that he was making was that it was an ultra-orthodox Jewish newspaper, aka an ultraconservative newspaper.

[Yayattasa]

Which implies what? That you cannot read it on a Saturday? Or that it's fit for wrapping it around kosher fish or what do you wanted to say? Or what else did you like to imply? It will be interesting to see you develop that point of yours, that is until after you'll have made it, of course.

It doesn't imply anything. Why would it need to? I just find funny the OP avoided saying it, when it's obviously the reason all female leaders where edited out from that staged photo.

[Aikanár]

It doesn't imply anything. Why would it need to? I just find funny the OP avoided saying it, when it's obviously the reason all female leaders where edited out from that staged photo.

So all you wanted to say was that a newspaper published a frontpage article that palates and aims at the taste of the majority of its readers?

You don't say!

[Yayattasa]

So all you wanted to say was that a newspaper published a frontpage article that palates and aims at the taste of the majority of its readers?

You don't say!

So are you saying jews hate seeing women in photos?

---
Yet when Iran or North Korea edit their photos everyone loses their mind...

[Gaidin]

Just so everyone knows, the newspaper is jewish.

It's not Jewish, it's Orthodox Jewish. There's a legit difference.

[Yayattasa]

It's not Jewish, it's Orthodox Jewish. There's a legit difference.

Well, Orthodox Jewish are also known as simply Jews, and the ones you call Jews are also known as secular Jews. The difference isn't really legit (no one separtes islam into branches when talking about extremists) and the name is ambiguous. Also, Orthodox Jews don't call themselves like that, to them they are actually tehe Jews while the others aren't, and they have a good case for it too.

[Henry of Grosmont]

Well, Orthodox Jewish are also known as simply Jews, and the ones you call Jews are also known as secular Jews. The difference isn't really legit (no one separtes islam into branches when talking about extremists) and the name is ambiguous. Also, Orthodox Jews don't call themselves like that, to them they are actually tehe Jews while the others aren't, and they have a good case for it too.

I like how you try to twist it here: Orthodox jew are jews and all the rest are secular jews. Lmao.

So, according to you, only radical Muslims are Muslims, the rest are secular Muslims? Which in fact implies that radical Islam is THE Islam. Correct?

[Yayattasa]

I like how you try to twist it here: Orthodox jew are jews and all the rest are secular jews. Lmao.

So, according to you, only radical Muslims are Muslims, the rest are secular Muslims? Which in fact implies that radical Islam is THE Islam. Correct?

What a dumb comment. Where the hell you got that? Do you work in the strawmen factory?

[alhoon]

I didn't mentioned it because I didn't think that it mattered. It was an ultra-conservative newspaper.

[Yayattasa]

I didn't mentioned it because I didn't think that it mattered. It was an ultra-conservative newspaper.

Ignoring all the current ultra-orthodox jewish discrimination against women.

[The Despondent Mind]

I'm starting to think they did this on purpose to cause traffic and publicity.

[Treize]

Every fart these people make is widely published in every western news outlet.

Must be the secular zionists trying to make the real jews look bad.

[Roma_Victrix]

So who is Merket, anyway?

This is not the first time Orthodox Jews have made a splash in news headlines. Just recently a plane was grounded and delayed because a group of Orthodox Jewish men refused to be seated next to women. In that regard they share many common values with their Semitic brothers, the Wahhabist-Sunni Arabs. Meanwhile, secular Jews everywhere face-palm in embarrassment.

Our TWC member here Caligula's_Horse has a good point (from another thread): if, due to shifting demographics, secular Jews one day become outnumbered by Orthodox Jews in Israel, their country is going to have some serious problems.

[Yayattasa]

Read the way that suits you, the information I gave was factually correct. It all would be avoided if the OP actually had said it himself.

[Aikanár]

Read the way that suits you, the information I gave was factually correct. It all would be avoided if the OP actually had said it himself.

Leaving out parts of the information doesn't make statements factually correct, it makes them dishonest. And trying to shift the blame in order to distract from such dishonest statements won't help either.

In contrary, all that does is to further the perception about the intent behind such a posting as expressed in post #22.