Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article. That bears repeating. The swastikas are irrelevant, and should not have even been mentioned in the article.
|
I disagree.
They set the context.
Picture this.
One neat front lawn, white picket fence, flower beds, maybe even a US flag in the window or flying in the yard, but a large sign with "Die Bush".
Across the road, you have another house with "six swastikas splashed across a fence and another one etched into the door." And a large sign with "Die Bush".
Which do you think is more likely to be a "person of interest" for the Secret Service?
The reference to the swastikas was
entirely relevant. As I said, it set the context of the location where the "threat" or "statement" was placed and it goes some way to communicating the state of mind of the individual.
On a (kind of) related note, there was a story in Australia last week. Some guy who had swastikas plastered all over his house (in Australia?!!!) was shot dead at his front door. Whilst I lament all human death, it's rather ironic to see someone murdered for promoting symbols of death, persecution, genocide and murder.
Mr Mephisto