Humanizing Terrorists

“…My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) tried to place pro-Israel ads in Boston, countering anti-Israel ads that ran there. Our ad read, ‘In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.’ The ad was rejected, and we sued.” – Pamela Geller

Political correctness knows no bounds, it seems. We are living in an increasingly warped culture, in which wrong is becoming right, and dark is becoming light. We’ve almost reached the inside-out point, at which time everything will be inverse. It’s a disturbing time.

It’s interesting that the controversy seems to be regarding the fact that the ads were rejected in general, but what I need to know is why the ads were rejected. Political correctness has so many facets that the rejection could be based on any number of things.

The overlords of the city of Boston could very well be afraid of repercussions. No one bats an eye when Christianity is mocked or slandered, because they know that beyond some weak protests, nothing will happen. But Islam is a violent force which has demonstrated its power many times. People have been killed for drawing Mohammed, and even the creators of South Park were censored when they animated an episode featuring the “prophet.” Islam is dangerous, and I believe the officials in charge of advertising know this well.

Another possibility stays closer to the PC mold. It could be that the officials in charge see the word “savage” as derogatory. This is baseless, because it is perfectly within reason to describe Islamic terrorists as savages. However, political correctness dictates that even people who blow up children are human. We see this in movies and televisions shows in which the enemy is always humanized, almost to the same extent as the protagonist. This has become a trend, to humanize evil.

Who is being helped by humanizing the enemy? Who, but our enemy, would be offended by this ad? Only those with at least some sympathy toward terrorist acts would be offended. If that is the case, who cares? Why are we so afraid of offense when the only people who would object are trying to kill us? It defies any logic. Neither option is acceptable, but at least I understand fear. I do not understand sympathy for savages.

Either way, the city of Boston is behaving terribly in rejecting the pro-Israel ads. However, it is why the rejection took place that is important, because if we know the why, we can push back appropriately. You cannot fight what you do not understand.