uo111 5,282 Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 The artist says his intentions were hijacked and manipulated by the mediaRead herehttps://electronicintifada.net/content/why-i-painted-rainbow-flag-israels-apartheid-wall/14660I think the first article was pretty clear that's what he was trying to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmm 979 Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 I think the first article was pretty clear that's what he was trying to do. The first article got its facts wrong and couldn't even stay on-topic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uo111 5,282 Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 The first article got its facts wrong and couldn't even stay on-topic Ehhh hmmm, read the second paragraph in the op. It literally states his intentions. I know it's not bolded, but you guys can read text that's not bolded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmm 979 Posted July 4, 2015 Share Posted July 4, 2015 Ehhh hmmm, read the second paragraph in the op. It literally states his intentions. I know it's not bolded, but you guys can read text that's not bolded. The second paragraph isn't as in depth into the artist' motives as the article Lego posted (whether biased or not). That doesn't remove that the article was wrong on what the change in law in Jordan 1951 actually meant or that the article digresses massively on to completely irrelevant topics. Nor does it mean that alternate articles can't be read too The first article is a general synopsis of the incident (amongst incorrect information and generally irrelevant information), Lego's is a reply from the artist himself - why is that problematic? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.