Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Bans "Allah" in Screen Names
szembek writes "According to The Register it seems that Yahoo! is banning the use of the string "Allah" in all screen names. The issue apparently became apparent when Linda Callahan attempted to use her surname in her screen name. The following link has an interesting list of terms that Yahoo does allow, and ones they don't."
Is apparently allowed though.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Yes, I know they're a business and can make their own rules (within some common sense boundaries), but it's still sad to see them giving in to this sort of crap. For fear or profit, I don't know, but it's still ridiculous.
I've run into problems with my last name ("Marcum") due to the last three characters.
It's still not as bad as Blizzard's, filtering out words like "basement".
Ignoring the whole political issue of it, if they are going to filter a string, they should at least allow common legit strings that it is a substring of.
I think the entire world should start plastering images of Mohammad everywhere. Drown them in it until they realize they need to practice their religion however they want and leave the rest of the world out of it.
Not that Europe is much better, as my current sig shows. People bitch about the US and Bush, but at least Yahoo is a private corporation making this decision.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
ConsultingFair.com
The whole point of writing articles like this is so people WILL stop using their services. If no one bitched, most people wouldn't know about it.
I read this article yesterday, and it's sad, really, that nazipedophilesodomyisgreat@yahoo.com is allowed, but nancycallahan@yahoo.com is not. It's an example of an idea that probably started as a noble concern. (I would imagine that someone tried to sign up for deathtoallah@yahoo.com in order to troll on a forum somewhere.) But in the processm you come up with something that is really unsolvable. The solution here seems to be that you ban the 7 naughty words (as determined by the FCC) throw in a couple obvious ones (administrator, security, etc.) and leave it at that. If you try to ban certain words, there is way too much grey area. Do you ban the word breast? How about the Yahoo ID breastcancerawareness or chickenbreast? There are just a few areas in life where a couple simple rules won't solve the problem. I am well aware that even banning the 7 naughty words isn't enough, (I could sign up for fuuckme@yahoo.com, and people would understand what I'm getting at.) but that's really as far as you can take it.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Sad part of Yahoo! (got to remember the exclamation point!) buckling under like most of the western media over Mohammed cartoons is that it shows to terrorists and their lackeys is that terror as a political tools works. It's not kooky right wing christians that are the biggest threat to our freedom of speech. It's fundamentalist Islam that seeks to regulate western speech with threats of violence from the middle east.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Much as I might think the original post was logically flawed and offensive (and it was), your rebuttal isn't much better on the logic front. How does being married prevent someone from being bisexual? I could see the logic if he were being accused of homosexuality, but there's nothing to stop a bisexual getting half their fun within wedlock. :)
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I had a run in with the filters before. I usually use stripe or stripe7 as my handle even in games that I play online. On Shattered Galaxy [www.sgalaxy.com], I used to go by stripe in their 2-3 years of beta. Then when they went commercial, I found out that it was a banned name! Turns out anything with strip in it was banned. Similarly Grape gets banned because it had rape in it. What gets banned is getting rediculous. What next? Banning capital A because it might be used to spell Allah? What about local slang, Randy is a common name I see in the US. In the UK it's slang for someone who is sexually excited. Does that mean all Randy's are soon to be banned in the UK? or worldwide?
Putting aside the debate of filtering some completely subjective list of "banned" words, how come companies chock full of techies can't write a simple secondary accept filter to deal with exceptions caught in the first filter? Really, the list of names that include the word "allah" can't be that large.
... || ...)
if(strstr("allah", screenName)) {
if(strcmp("Callahan", screenName) == NULL ||
return true;
return false;
}
else if(...) {
}
I consider it a completely irony that Islam is supposed to be a religon of peace and tolerance. Someone decides to write a dumb cartoon and the Muslim world gets upset. Muslims are always getting upset about something. Threatening death, riots, bombings, etc... And most of the world reacts to try and set things right to appease the Muslim masses Someone writes,critizes or illustrates something about bad about Christianity, people may get upset but the world doesn't do a damn thing. What's wrong with this picture? So now we have to make the world more "Allah" friendly. I find this to be a bug joke on Yahoo's part. Muslims want the world to change for them but refuses to adapt in any way shape or form. No way in fucking hell I'll ever sport an Arab type beard or have my wife wear a buka. I think perhaps the Muslims should get thier collective heads out of their medieval asses and perhaps modernize thier thinking and grow thicker skins.... Peaceful and tolerant religon my ass...
Oh all the Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes are going to come out of the woodwork
And so will all the dhimmis.
I am a gay man and an atheist who has no intention of following any superstitious belief, Islam included.
The penalty for homosexuality under Shari'a (Islamic law) is death. I learned this from a discussion I had with a muslim from whyislam.org.
I am also an adoptive parent. Shari'a does not recognize adoptive parents. I learned this from the same discussion.
It is permittable for a Muslim to lie to a Kuffar (unbeliever). This is called taqiyya.
The belief that "Islam will dominate the world" is a mainstream belief in Islam. Not an extremist belief, a mainstream belief.
When the editor of Southern Voice (a gay newspaper in the Southeast USA) traveled to Amsterdam, supposedly a "liberal" city, he was gay-bashed and suffered injuries. The perpetrators? Muslims who were following their religious beliefs.
So when you start accusing people like me of having "islamophobic" sentiments, I have to agree and indicate to you that your accusation sounds a lot like, "She deserved to be raped. Didn't you see the skirt she was wearing?"
There are legitimate reasons for both fearing and resisting Islam. The hatred of freedom of expression, the denigration of gays and women, the 7th-century mindset, the second-class status imposed on non-Muslims (dhimmis), and the punitive justice system are all elements of mainstream (NOT "extremist") Islam that need to be discussed, exposed, and resisted. Not apologized for and certainly not defended in the name of "multiculturalism" or anything else!
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Christians don't threaten death to company executives or members of the press if they disagree with their opinions.
You don't know anything about US abortion clinics do you?
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Is there any doubt that we have lost the war on terror? should we even bother fighting it anymore? We repeatedly show these extremist nutcases that they can get whatever it is they want by terrorizing us. Every article about these ridiculous cartoons on CNN.com ends with a disclaimer: CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of repect for Islam when all I can read is CNN has chosen not to reprint the cartoons out of fear of getting firebombed proof that we have lost: Yeah, Osama may be on the run in remote areas of Pakistan & Afghanistan, but it takes me 40 mins to get through security at the airport, and I have to have my personal belongings searched to ride the subway.
"Oh all the Muslim-bashers and Islamophobes are going to come out of the woodwork."
How many people have to die in terrorist acts, how many women have to
be beaten or stoned according to Sharia law , how many authors and
cartoonists have to be threatened , how many countries flags have to
be burned , how many of all of these things have to happen before
right-on apologisers like you actually find the sorry remains of
your rational brain and admit that there is a problem with Islam?
That do stupid things like compare Abortion clinics to cartoons.
While the Christian nuts are also, well nutty, WE KNOW THAT.
So what was your point? To demonstrate that you find equivalency between a group that violently protests what they percieve as murder (I disagree, and think they're nuts) and a group the violenty protests WOMEN'S RIGHTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, and fucking CARTOONS.
Get some fucking perspective.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
And as a whole Muslims don't threaten death either, its just a very voacal MINORITY of them that do.
But why doesn't the silent majority in Islam stand up and vocally reject the extremists? When Pat Robertson made comments about "taking out" Hugo Chavez, the White House publicly repudiated him. When he made comments about God having forsaken the people of Dover, PA for their ditching of Intelligent Design, other theologians went on TV and vocally announced that Pat Robertson does not speak for Christianity.
Where were the majority of Muslims when the mullahs of Iran announced a death sentence on Salman Rushdie? Where are the majority of Muslims when Osama bin Laden comes out with his fatwas saying that Western society is corrupt and should either be destroyed or converted?
Having a silent majority, in most cases, is about as good as having no majority at all.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Avoiding the "trolls and hatemongers" is, like it or not, completely against the concept of freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression very often involves ideas which many may find "offensive". That's just part of the game. To try to filter out that which is "hate" is a pathetically useless exercise, and inherently against liberty.
Yahoo!, if not the entire Western world, must make a decision soon. Either they will have to fully support freedom of expression, or fully disregard it. Of course, disregarding it would basically mean an end to what has allowed Western civilization to progress over the past few centuries.
This mixing of some freedom of expression here and there, if you say the "right" things, but none for people saying the "wrong" things, will only lead to strife.
Anyone who truly supports such ideals as freedom of expression and freedom of speech must be willing to accept that there will be people who speak out against Islam. There will be people who speak out against Christianity. There will be people who speak out against fish and chips. And if you really do appreciate freedom, then you will not only accept the right of such people to make their points known, no matter how much you disagree with them, but you will actively encourage them to express themselves. That is true freedom, my friend. Self-sustaining freedom.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Some of them are probably innocent, and some of them most likely aren't. The question is how to determine that, which is a difficult decision in a time of war. But they certainly weren't put in jail for thinking the wrong thoughts. They were believed, rightly or wrongly, to be involved in terrorism.
How about the protesters arrested in NYC during the Republican convention - held in jail and mostly released with no charges?
It's called "disturbing the peace". They weren't arrested for having the wrong thoughts, they were arrested for violating the rights of others. You have the right to free speech; you don't have the right to force your speech on others and create a public nuisance.
For example there is the well known Westboro Baptist Church, who are now said to be protesting funerals of American soldiers because those soldiers have been upholding a regime (the Bush Administration) that is soft on "fags" (one of their favorite words) and so on.
I don't see tens of thousands of those people rioting and killing people.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
People do cry about the religious right, but if they had the power people claim, I wouldn't be seeing commercials about a gay cowboy movie which will likely clean up as the Oscars.
I criticize Christianity with abplomb when sanctimonious Christians start using their religious beliefs as an excuse to attack me. I freely admit that Christianity is both a fear-based and a guilt-based religion.
Islam, on the other hand, is a violence-based religion. Notice the "sword of Allah" on Saudi Arabia's flag? Notice the AK-47 on Hezbollah's flag? I don't bother discussing with Muslims, because I don't know if they're lying or not. Christians can put up a good deal of resistance, but Muslims may very well murder me if I dared criticize Islam in the same way I did Christianity. This is one of several reasons why I think Islam should be resisted.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"white people" already know what it means, just because some illiterate rapper gangster wannabe tries to come up with a new definition doesn't change the meaning of the word.
I think you are missing the point. Yahoo! is making a business decision based on a perceived risk that if they do not capitulate to the whims of fundamentalist Muslims, they will invite threats to their business and employees.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Now we see how perfectly compatible is fascism with theocracy. Corporations will do whatever is necessary to enforce religious laws to protect their profits. When the international currency, oil, is controlled by theocrats (Christian, Muslim or otherwise makes little difference), corporate lawmakers will enact those laws, or enforce them privately.
--
make install -not war
First of all, America is not a Christian country. That sort of thing is banned by the Constitution. Mosques are protected here. As a matter of fact, more churches have been burned down in Alabama this week than Mosques have been in the entire US.
I also recognize that christianity is in the same boat. They are actually very similar religions.
Bullshit!
Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek, not burn down an embassy.
According to Islaam, it's OK to enslave those who are not Muslims (see http://www.dhimmitude.org/)
I've seen pictures of the Virgin Mary made from Elephant dung, right here in America. How long do you think such a picture of Mohammed would last anywhere, especially in the Arab world? How long do you think the artist would live, or the museum director, or the mayor of that town?
And yes, there have been a few murders committed by those who call themselves Christian, but those are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and Christains agree with this prosecution. Besides, how many gays and abortion doctors have been murdered this week? Can you point to one story? I can tell you about at least 18 Christians who were murdered in Nigeria this weekend. A Jewish man in France was tortured for three weeks and killed in France by several muslims. How many gays died again?
How many riots have there been because muslims are burning red banners with crosses on them (the Danish flag). How would muslims respond if we were burning flags with a koran on it?
Need I go on? Now, stop being ignorant. Stop comparing the true religion of peace with that of murderous thugs.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
4 words: Innocent until proven guilty.
Peaceful assembly and demonstration is a key and integral part of a democracy. When the guv removes people who oppose their views we have arrived at a police state.
Regardless of what you think of Bush and regardless of what you think of them protestors we must all protect the rights of the protestors to have their say: The famous quote often attributed to Voltaire, that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" seems as relevant now as it ever did.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
- Moses, by command of god, to his "chosen" people. Numbers 31:17-18, KJV
Yes, xianity is so superior. Not only keep the underage virgins for yourselves, but kill everyone else.
Discussions such as this have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and are completely idiotic in this context. Any culture, religion or nation has something like this, so pointing such a thing out to "prove" some racist or stereotypical point is not only flawed, but highly telling of the intelligence level of the one who brings it up.
And BTW, Mary was an unwed teenage mother. Cast her out!
Just FFT.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Is there any doubt that we have lost the war on terror?
Well put it this way...
WWII: 1941-1945
War On Terror: 2001-2006(+)
If we can defeat two of the most powerful nations on earth in 4 years, but can't beat a handful of men in 5 years, then we are doing pretty badly as a nation.
If I hear the words "War On Terror" in 2011 out of a politicians mouth, I'm going to very pissed.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
If you think there is a continuum then you do not understand the question. It is wrong to kill babies. It is wrong to deprive women of freedom of choice over their own bodies and subject them to a painful pregnancy for any reason but the welfare of others. Thus, taking the middle ground is to acknowledge that one or both of these injustices are happening.
There are people who are willing to stand by to see these injustices happen, but those are cynical, apathetic people who are of a lower moral character than abortion doctors and those who murder abortion doctors because both these groups are doing what is right in their own reasoning. Don't you see? abortion is the greatest debate in history because to a religious person, or a secular humanist or anyone else, life is sacred. You cannot say that there is part of a life in a woman's womb, you cannot redefine life though existential debate for that is denying your own existence and your own right to life.
To allow abortion in certain cases and deny it in others is to acknowledge abortion as the slaughter of the innocent and as a woman's right. Thus in the cases where it is denied, you are forcing a woman into having her life changed by an unwanted child for no reason but your bossy authoritarian and when abortion is granted you are killing a human that has done nothing to deserve it.
In the US today, abortion is legal, yet when you accidentally terminate a wanted pregnancy through negligent driving it is considered manslaughter. This inconsistency leads to only one conclusion: a fetus is human if and only if its mother wants it. If this is about the beginnings of humanity, how can we not extrapolate this nihilist world view into our own lives? Am I only human because my mother and others continue to love me?
There is no middle ground when talking about what is life, it didn't work for Plato, Descartes or Wittgenstein who are all people smarter than you that have tried to define humanity and it won't work for me. The abortion debate should be thought through by each one of us, because it goes beyond choice or killing babies, it cuts to the very core of each one of our existences. The politically correct middle ground might be the safest option, but most great questions, the middle ground between two extremes is the only one that can be conclusively proved to be wrong.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
So stop with that tired old line.
DID YOU GET THAT? WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MAJORITY.
Why is that SO difficult for you to get? That people can criticize some people without lumping them together? Is it becuase you're incapable of such sophisticated thinking, so you assume everyone else is as unsophisticated as you?
We're talking about the ones who are actually doing what we're denouncing.
So in the future, when you feel the urge to defend the majority, make sure we're denouncing the majority before you waste your time.
"No - yet "we" seem to group them, as a whole, into the "potential terrorist" category."
NO, as I said to you before, that's a made up stupid ass argument that detracts from the discussion. YOU group them into that category, at or at least it appears you do by your constant assertions that "we" do. WE don't.
"And while we're at it, maybe we should stop invading countries in the ME, killing their friends and families and lying about the reasons?"
And finally the truth, you think "we" deserve their enmity.
Perhaps if you weren't so busy assuming everyone is as closed-minded and reactionary as you, you'd realize that
A) these problems existed before there were any western powers in the Middle East.
B) executing little girls for being raped isn't the fault of the West. Nor are any of the anti-human rights stances taken by devout beleivers of islam. That's JUST islam. JUST the religion and its followers.
Maybe you should get your face out of muslim ass and honestly criticise them instead of making up arguments to detract from the issues.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
"The problems with your "ideas" are multiple and fundamental. First, you are judging a religion based upon the actions of a few members of that religion."
How many millions of people need to attack freedom of speech before you understand that it's not just a few bad apples but a fundamental conflict between their beliefs and the right to freedom of speech. They blame all of Denmark for the actions of one newspaper, and expect laws passed to restrict freedom of speech because they don't like dissent from their beliefs.
Vote for Pedro
I consider it sad that even on a self proclaimed site for "nerds" some people insist on describing the actions of a few people as "the muslim world."
How many people does it have to be before people like you stop calling them "a few"? Okay, there are over a billion Muslims in the world. Does that mean if only 5 million of them riot it's a tiny, insignificant subculture within greater Islam? You can't say "the Muslim world" thinks or does something unless at least 50% of Muslims do it? That's ridiculous. You might as well say America did not bomb Iraq, only a small, insignificant, non-representative part of America bombed Iraq.
Your ignorance. When was the last time Christians murdered someone for being homosexual? I seem to recall a mass murder a few weeks ago. How many forums ban the word "gay" even though there is nothing wrong with it aside from Christian oppression?
According to your argument, Christians as a group have never murdered anybody, only "a few people" have. Obviously Christians have nothing against gay people since the vast majority have never actually gone around killing gay people. They must want to co-exist peacefully.
But seriously, you're joking right? If Christians were like Muslims, all those prominent gay marriage ceremonies a while ago would have been fire-bombed. Or do you think if someone tried to have a prominent, public gay marriage in, say, ANY Muslim country, they would be allowed?
The christians I know would act no better, and probably worse given a similar situation. After a united middle east had just finished conquering the US, the mexicans and the refugees from the US who escaped the bombs would be less then kindly disposed towards and muslims. When they start making excuses to invade mexico, who has little hope of defending itself, and after seeing on TV the sexual abuse of captive Americans, if some other muslim nation were to print sacrilegious pictures of Jesus being raped by a dog, while also including in these cartoons some of the lies used to justify the invasion of the US, well there would be plenty of riots and lynching of muslims in Mexico.
Eh, bad example. Of course if we were the ones taken over we'd be upset. But do you think Christians in America would be rioting in the streets if, say, the stuff you described happened in some remote part of Russia? It isn't the West's fault if Muslims have this dumb idea of "Pan Muslims Brotherhood" that links everybody's plights together.
It's like you're trying to argue the majority of Christians are as bad as the tiny, insignificant portion of Islam that captures media attention.
The Lord's Resistance Army is a truly bizarre creolization of fundamentalist Christianity and animistic witchcraft much like voudon and santeria only with a lot more insane brutality mixed in. Christianity's been the excuse used by a lot of brutal warlords in the past, but I'm not sure that I'd blame Christianity for this one because this is a really, really weird offshoot of the religion.
The LRA is truly one of the worst horrors of the modern world, and I think it's a real shame that no one with the military might to do something about them has. I think a large part of the reason for that is the horror and revulsion that most military leaders feel at the thought of having to send their soldiers out to fight against an army of traumatized child conscripts. A war like that could psychologically devastate an entire generation of soldiers, and there's little economic gain to be had for a country for stepping into this mess, so the world just closes its eyes and hopes it will go away on its own. It's an utterly disgusting tragedy that will take decades to end and decades more to heal.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Funny, I guess I'm not up on current events. I had no idea the media was covering up all those Christians that are taking over elementary schools in Russia and killing kids by the hundreds, all in the name of the Koran... I mean Bible.
I had not heard about Christians burning down disco's in Bali or blowing themselves up in a teenage hangout in Israel.
I have not heard how Christian "youths" are raping and beheading Muslim school-girls on their way home from school.
When I saw Billy Graham, I must have been in the bathroom when he was screaming "Death to the Infadels, Death to Saudi Arabia, Death to Iran!"
I guess the jews really do own the media.
How many people have the US killed since invading Iraq? 100,000? 200,000?
Gee, that only puts us 800,000-900,000 behind their previous leader. I guess we need to start gassing some Kurdish children to catch up! Actually, your numbers are wildly inflated and the 10,000-20,000 numbers I've heard included active Iraqi military, terrorists, civilians killed by terrorist and the civilians the terrorist hide behind. However, I agree that war sux and any civilian death is a travesty. Everyone in America, including the leadership and military, agrees. Can you say the same about the Arab world? Besides, we are talking about the actions of a religion, not a government. How many Iraqi's voted in the last election and had the choice of more than one candidate?
How many people did the primarily christian US army kill when they invaded Iraq?
Again, the US Army is not a "Christian Army". Trust me, I was a soldier in the US Army and as a Christian, I was the minority.
You know the red cross on a white background was also the symbol of the crusades right?
Did you know that the crusades were in response to a 1000 years of Dhimmitude (read: slavery)? Still, that cross is a symbol of the Christian religion. I still don't see Christians burning down embassies.
But you still see plenty of christians killing others because they are gay or for numerous other reasons
No I don't. I see a few red-necks doing so, and they are strongly condemded by the Christian Church. Then they are tried for murder and imprisoned or put to death, in this country you call "Christian".
Hmm.
I like most of your post.
But it seems to me that the extremes are easier to prove conclusively wrong.
i.e.
Abortion is illegal under ANY circumstances.
Okay the mother AND the child will die when she is about 7 months pregnant.
Abortion is legal under ANY circumstances.
Okay we are killing an 8 month old baby that could survive outside the womb.
So the middle ground must be where the correct answer lies or there may be -no- correct answer. Heads you lose, Tails you lose.
If you get down to it, even if you use birth control prevent the union of sperm and egg that would have occured- you just prevented a human life. Maybe not violently but just as surely as if you had aborted it at 8 months.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It all comes back to where life begins- If a zygote has life, it is wrong to kill it.
I assume you're vegan, because animals have life too, and therefore it is wrong to kill them.
But then plants are alive, so it's wrong to kill plants too.
Fungus? Alive.
Cultured bacteria? Plankton? Alive.
What do you eat without committing -- or relying on someone else to commit -- a wrong?
Doesn't matter what the religion or reason. Those who feel powerless, who feel no other recourse is open to them because they're being stepped on and subjugated, will often resort to violence and force.
It's hard to say what the religious beliefs of the leaders of Germany and Italy were because they contradicted themselves so much in word and action. They were certainly Christian in name and used a lot of religious rhetoric, but it's hard to say that they were devout, practicing Christians. It is more likely that they were simply exploiting Christianity in the same manner as all other authoritarians.
Authoritarian and nationalist / xenophobic movements all rely on an ethos of the superiority of the group based on shared (and often inherited) values. Even atheistic movements in the Soviet Union and in China shared these characteristics in their revolutions. The real problem is not religion but the tribal, "pack animal" instincts that are the core of these movements in history. Religion just provides the excuse, but the real malaise is deeper and ultimately is universally human.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The key difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists right now is that Christain fundamentalists typically have a pretty decent quality of life, and Islamic fundamentalists don't.[...]If you took all of the wealth in the US and Europe and handed it over to the Middle East, I have a feeling that you'd soon see an awful lot of poor, desperate, angry Christians burning flags in the street while a bunch of well-fed, well-clothed Muslim families watched from their living rooms and wondered what in the hell could possibly make those Christian lunatics so rabid.
The wealth of the US and Europe is handed over every day to the Middle East. At about $60 a barrel. Many of your top-brand islamic fundamentalists their pockets with your money. In fact, the GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is $12900, that is 13 times that of Mali ($1000), a peaceful stable secular democracy. The Malinese are (mostly) moslem, but very nonfundamentalist. If you want a poor Christian country, there is Malawi ($700). Comparably quiet.
No, being the haves or have nots doesn't seem to be the explanation. Try again.
wut. What war with spain? The last time the UK was at war with spain was, christ, the 18th century?
Yep, that's exactly right- there has been NO need for the UK to control Ireland since the 18th century. ALL of the rest has been human rights violations.
Ireland was never useful as a strategic property, unless you planned to invade the US or something.
Wrong. During the Reformation, when England went Protestant, a very real fear was that the Catholic Spanish Armada would use Catholic Ireland as a steping stone to attack England. To prevent that, Cornwall invaded Ireland, and used Scotish Presbyterian settlers to kick the Irish off their land. ALL of the "troubles" can be traced to that invasion.
And the IRA only fought over the north; the south, and vast majority, is completely free.
You don't think the IRA started in 1921 do you? No, they've been around since the 1700s.
And it still remains in UK hands, so the IRA didn't get what they wanted.
Actually, the UK is negotiating a date to hand it over- and the IRA already got an election out of the deal.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"So why not just choose another name that doesn't contain the word? Yahoo's systems are privately owned and operated. They choose their policies and proceedures."
1) If you read the article, you would know the most obvious answer (Linda Callahan *DID NOT* sign up with Yahoo, she signed up with Verizon, who has an agreement with Yahoo.)
2) You remind me of the person who says something like 'America is the greatest country in the world, and if you want to go around saying bad things about it you should move to another country' (in case you can't figure out what is wrong with that statement, America is (arguably) better than many other countries in large part because we have the first amendment, to wit, freedom of speech. It makes no sense to tell people who assert their constitutional rights that they should leave the country which guarantees them those rights for availing themselves of those rights.)
3) In America, we have laws against descrimination. While IANAL, their policy most likely violates those laws in the same way that opening a store that sells to everyone but blacks, or people with names that sound like they might believe in Buddha, would violate those laws.
Hope that makes it a little more clear for you
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun