Slashdot Mirror


Pakistan Blocks YouTube

Multiple readers have written to tell us of news that Pakistan has ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies." This follows increasing unrest in Pakistan over a Danish newspaper's reprinting of cartoons which depict Islam in a less-than-favorable light. The cartoons also sparked controversy when they were first published a few years ago.

100 of 648 comments (clear)

  1. Lets bring these people up to speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century. What's the best way to do it? Just start trading with them like anyone else, it's not their fault that they are a bunch of ignorant, gullible sheep (cue the "omg its like teh USA!!!1" comments).

    Yes it will take time to achieve any results, but economic prosperity and theism are inversely related, and theism in places like Pakistan is really fucked up and needs to be eliminated or at least marginalized.

    1. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So... why is [i]male[/i] genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA?

    2. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Funny

      We really need to bring these people up to speed with the 21st century. What's the best way to do it? Three weeks of heavy meteorite bombardment followed by moving in a new population of sane people.
    3. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remind me what is wrong with circumcision?
      The kids don't get to decide if they want a perfectly healthy part of their body removed.
    4. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The best thing that could be done with Pakistan is to raise the number of books people read.

      Many people there, if they read at all, read religious texts only.

      That's your problem. If they had a wider experience in the written word, they wouldn't be so easily led by Clerics with an agenda.

    5. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by melikamp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works, i.e. solves all problems relating to the unpleasant minority, once and for all. You know what is really ironic? That USians modded the parent +funny, whereas it really should be +insightful. Once you get it into your head that it is your Progress-given mission to bring some sovereign people into the 21-st century, genocide is an obvious answer. Bush would wipe Iraq clean if he could, a long time ago (he obviously does not give a shit about 1M Iraqis, almost all of them civilians, dieing due to war, why would he care about 25M?), but US is not powerful enough to do that with conventional weapons, nor does it have enough clout to get away with it.

      How about, instead of "bringing Arabs democracy" and "liberating them from an archaic religion", you liberate them from economic oppression and let them decide what to do with their own oil? Switch to alternative energy sources, perhaps? Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent? Just my 2 cents.

    6. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by garett_spencley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision. The American Medical Association no longer recommends the procedure and Ontario Public Health Care no longer pays for it.

      It is technically true that cases of penile cancer are virtually unheard of in males with circumcision, but then again, penile cancer is SO RARE to begin with that it even begs the question of whether or not the sample size is large enough to be conclusive.

      And of course, like the other poster pointed out, the children have no say in whether or not a perfectly healthy part of their body is permanently removed.

    7. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by @madeus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So... why is male genital mutilation still acceptable in the USA? That's certainly something that illudes me.

      I'm leaning towards "the parents who do that do their children are ignorant and unthinking, and don't realize it's a practice that's consider barbaric - and is illegal - in more enlightened European countries" and "the commercial nature of the US healthcare system has lead to hospitals routinely carry out entirely unnecessary cosmetic surgery - even when it's harmful to the patient - because it's profitable".

      Religious zealots have certainly managed to brainwash the US populace on this one, to convince them it's a "morally acceptable" practice, even a humorous thing to discuss if you've had your genitals mutilated. In reality, it's an outdated, entirely unnecessary, damaging and irreparable act of barbarism - IMO anyone carrying out this practice on children should be locked up (and, if a medical practitioner, have their license permanently revoked).

      If grown adults want to have this procedure carried out on themselves then, apart from undergoing some counciling, they may as well be allowed to have it carried out by someone qualified. If indeed grown adults were left to make the decision for themselves, I think the percentage of people who would volunteer for this practice would be tiny and the industry around it would almost completely die out in the US (apart from within certain specific religious groups).

      Fat chance of much change on that front happening in the US though.

      Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat: When it can be proven before a judge that a the child is likely to suffer as a result and both parents agree they want it carried out (e.g. if the child is Jewish or Muslim and likely to be teased, harassed or singled out by their cultural peers and so in some way negatively impacted as a result of the operation not being carried out) then it may be carried out (but Doctors or Surgeons are not obligated to carry it out, and may refuse to do it, that it's a violation of the Hippocratic Oath being a common citation as grounds for refusal).

      While I can appreciate on the surface this is an attempt to reach some pragmatic accommodation, I think this is the wrong approach and the law needs to be changed here too. I don't see medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery on children's genitals as acceptable, full stop. It's systematic of the UK justice system though - in the eyes of the populace the government rarely deals with the perpetrators of crimes directly or appropriately - it's easier just to tell the rest of us to change our behaviors to fit in with however they have redefined the problem.
    8. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision.
      No one wants to admit any more that the primary health benefit for which circumcision was made popular in the USA was to "cure" masturbation. That, along with cornflakes.
    9. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by letxa2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...he obviously does not give a shit about 1M Iraqis, almost all of them civilians, dieing due to war

      That number is not generally considered credible except by extreme leftists where the number benefits their agenda. Calculating deaths by polling is rather absurd.

      but US is not powerful enough to do that with conventional weapons,

      Actually, we probably are powerful enough to level the main population centers indiscriminately with conventional weapons. I'm glad we haven't done so, though.

      nor does it have enough clout to get away with it.

      I would hope no-one has enough clout to get away with genocide.

      People do not like to admit it about genocide, but if you do it thoroughly, then it actually works,

      Just because it might work doesn't mean the ends justify the means.

      Develop a defensive military strategy, which should work just fine, as you are on your own frigging continent?

      Because we had a defensive military strategy and we were still hit hard on 9/11, even though we're on our own friggin' continent.

    10. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Aglassis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not entirely true. It has been shown to dramatically reduce the HIV transmission rate so it is being used in sub-Saharan Africa to combat AIDS. I should note that this treatment is done with adult males who can choose for themselves, not babies who are disfigured so as to not anger some invisible man in the sky.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    11. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Education has a lot more impact on a child. Nutrition. Home life. Television.
      You can recover from all of those. You can't (yet) regrow parts of the body that have been surgically removed.
    12. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can recover from all of those. No, you can't. Proper nutrition is essential in your formative years. Your stunted brain development can't be reversed. Behavioral problems can sometimes be reversed, but sometimes not. 18 years of education is hard to replicate later in life. These problems are ALL worse than any consequences of male circumcision - if there are any at all.

      You can't (yet) regrow parts of the body that have been surgically removed. Yes, you can. But that is beside the point. The point is that there is no demonstrated effect on someone who receives a male circumcision - good or bad.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 3, Informative

      The point is that there is no demonstrated effect on someone who receives a male circumcision - good or bad.
      I'm not a doctor, but this guy is.

      Male circumcision permanently removes normal, functional, specialised tissue. It removes specialised sensory tissue [17], half the penile skin [17] and removes the normal gliding function that facilitates intromission [18]. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis [19].
    14. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, no, it does not. Even worse: tell men they are protected (although they are not) and they will not bother using condoms. Ergo, circumcision helps spread AIDS.

    15. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, there's no conclusive evidence that it is harmful either, now is there?
      Yes, there is. Read and learn.
    16. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it was a tradition to chop off the pinky finger, someone with a complete hand would be seen as a freak...

    17. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by spacefrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in the UK it's illegal to carry out the practice, with a caveat So in other words, it's legal.

      Which Eurpoean country is 'more enlightened'? Not only does Wikipedia contradict your statement about the UK, but your 'mysterious enlightened country' is no where to be found.

      I'm strongly opposed to circumcision . . . and talking out your ass.
    18. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Aglassis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Accidentally posted anonymously, sorry. Another thing that I should note about the recommendations of the WHO is that they also supported circumcision of young children, which is ethically troubling and as you have pointed out it has not been shown to be effective. Perhaps with the report you cited they will change their recommendations on that point, but they will probably still consider adult circumcision to be a useful preventative measure.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    19. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by the_bard17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's a quick study for you. Type without your pinkies, and now type with your pinkies - a bit faster, no? You don't need a study to see why pinky fingers are useful.

      Disclaimer: For those of you who suffer from sensitivity to "Too Much Information", now would be a good time to skip this post and continue on. All others, feel free to read on...

      Personal anecdote: I'm uncircumcised. Still got my foreskin, and nobody's taking it from me. Does it serve a purpose? You betcha. I ended up snapping my frenulum several years ago. I simply bandaged it up for a few days, and it healed nicely. However, this required me to pull the foreskin back and keep it there for the duration.

      Woooeeee... lemme tell you, sensitive doesn't even begin to describe it. Y'all circumcised guys might have grown used to it, since you "don't know any better" (assuming they cut on you at birth), but my glans was constantly rubbing, and it drove me crazy. I couldn't wait for it to heal, so I could cover it back up again.

      For any gals that might be reading, my wife mentioned it must be like taking a dry cloth and rubbing against your clitoris all day long. Heaven forbid a dry finger come into contact with her clit... cotton or denim? Ha! There's reasons the foreskin and labia exist... and separating the sensitive bits from the irritants sounds like a good reason to me.

    20. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then you will be happy to know that in the latest elections radical religious are considered the biggest losers. They lost a lot of their political power.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    21. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So...

      Permanently removing any body part a parent chooses from an infant is justified as long as no "double-blind controlled study" shows a harmful affect?

      Children are not property. Unless there is a "double-blind controlled study" showing a benefit, removing body parts is basically ricing your child.

    22. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We have to make excuses for giving a shit about what people do with their genitalia (or the genitalia of their kids). Unless you have an excuse, it's not any of your business.
      Let me stretch this just a bit... "So what if I cut a piece of my kids' genitals? So what if I brutalize them? So what if I rape them? So what if I kill them? I can do whatever I want to them, and it's none of your damn business. They're mine! They're my property!
    23. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's because your views in this matter are so outrageous, it's hard to realize if you're really that deranged, or just pretend to be.

    24. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless it is detrimental
      A few different posts in this thread link to material showing how it is detrimental. The problem is that some people consider the impairment of sexual function not to be detrimental.

      and you need to go all fascist on them.
      I'm all for adults doing whatever kind of mutilation they want to their own bodies. I don't believe they have the same right to alter their child's body. This meets your definition of fascist?
    25. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by the+brown+guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the US was hit that hard by 911, 2k deaths is a lot, but cannot be compared to 1M iraqi deaths.

      --
      Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
    26. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Skim123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Study after study has found no significant health benefits sufficient enough to warrant circumcision. The American Medical Association no longer recommends the procedure and Ontario Public Health Care no longer pays for it.

      I've heard that HPV rates are lower in circumcised men.

      A bit of Googling... Circumcision lowers risk of cervical cancer:

      Women whose sexual partners are circumcised are less likely to develop cervical cancer than the partners of uncircumcised men, concludes a report out today. The difference was statistically significant only in the partners of men considered to be at high risk for infection with human papillomavirus, or HPV, according to the study in The New England Journal of Medicine. HPV causes genital warts in men and women, and certain strains cause virtually all cervical cancers. HPV also has been linked to cancers of the vagina, anus and penis.
      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    27. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Skim123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The best thing that could be done with Pakistan is to raise the number of books people read.

      First things first: let's help raise the literacy rate. You've really got to respect the work being done by the Central Asia Institute, as they are building non-fundamentalist schools in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan, with schools especially targeted to girls. In a perfect world, our government would cut the spending on armament and give the decrease to the CAI to build schools. That's the best long-term strategy to solving fundamentalism, IMO.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    28. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that some people consider the impairment of sexual function not to be detrimental. Actually, the problem that I have with this is that no one has show impairment of sexual function in adults that were circumcised as infants. People in the US seem to be having plenty of sex, and seem to be happy with it. I've yet to see a study linking lack of sexual satisfaction to infant circumcision.

      I don't believe they have the same right to alter their child's body. This meets your definition of fascist? NO. You have the right to your own beliefs. You start to acquire fascist-like tendencies when you foist your beliefs onto others. Come at me with facts, not ideology.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Tore+S+B · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because the male equivalent of female genital mutilation is removing the glans penis. And that's a tad more horrible than something doctors can't even agree on whether is bad or not.

      I don't think circumcision makes any sense, but I think it trivializes female genital mutilation to suggest that they're anywhere in the same league of badness.

      --
      toresbe
    30. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the choice is taken away from the person being mutilated. You never knew how it felt to have sex with your genitals intact, so you can't know what you're missing.

      The problem is that circumcision is done because when the tradition started, people were filthy. Also, it helped keep the kids from playing with themselves.

      Today neither of those points matter. We have antibacterial soap, and oppressing sexual feelings only hurts people in the long run. Let the kid grow up without being mutilated and let them make the choice.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    31. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a perfect world, our government would cut the spending on armament and give the decrease to the CAI to build schools.

      Unfortunately, if the US did that, the fundamentalists would use that as an excuse to attack the schools for being in collaboration with the Great Satan.

      That's the best long-term strategy to solving fundamentalism, IMO.

      Ultimately, the only solution to fundamentalism is that the surrounding society deems it not acceptable. Education is essential in achieving this; however, it is by no means sufficient. It is perfectly possible to be well-educated and an evil fanatic.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by @madeus · · Score: 4, Informative

      So in other words, it's legal. I went out of my way to make the situation and my position clear, you've chosen to try and pick and argument, and be an ass about it.

      In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).

      If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):

      The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.

      To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).

      One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous.

      Which European country is 'more enlightened'? Off the top of my head? Finland and Germany have already ruled it's illegal without consent. As noted, in the UK the legislation also affords more protection than in the US (even if it is still incomplete).

      Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.
    33. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Cederic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      You don't miss it, so you reserve the right to mutilate your son?

      Shit, in this entire discussion you haven't actually given a single good reason why you might want to do it to him.

      There are some potentially good reasons for circumcision. "Because daddy is mutilated" is pretty fucking definitely not one of them.

    34. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't you know that Islam has every right to oppress women and practice medieval style law enforcement?! If we question their beliefs we're being insensitive to their religion, regardless of how evil and backwards it is.

      --
      I have nothing compelling to say
    35. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by websitebroke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm American, but I've spend quite a bit of time in Pakistan (mostly in rural Kashmir and a bit in Islamabad). People over there are very, very gung ho about getting their kids to learn to read. After the 2005 earthquake that flattened most of the homes in the area, the schools were one of the first things to be rebuilt. I got there in less than 2 months after the earthquake, and kids were already back in school. The system is a bit of a mess, and they have very little to work with as far as materials go, but they certainly are desperate to get educated.

      Personally, I think we'd have a much better return on our investment if we took the money we're spending in Iraq and put it into building schools and providing learning materials in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. While we're at it, let's bring some of their young men and women over here to our colleges. Based on how many times I was asked about whether or not it's hard to go to school in the USA, I bet they'd jump at the chance.

      The only time I saw a Qu'ran while I was over there was when I visited a Mosque. People there read pretty much the same sorts things we do.

    36. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by fbjon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the problem that I have with this is that no one has show impairment of sexual function in adults that were circumcised as infants. The first problem is that infants don't have sex, one should hope, so kinda hard to get good self-reported comparison data on this from the source, so to speak. But lets try to get something anyway. A search on PubMed gives some hits, here's a couple of choice quotes from summaries (I don't have access to full articles right now):
      • "A survey of the 35 female and 42 gay sexual partners of circumcised and genitally intact men, and a separate survey of 53 circumcised and 30 genitally intact men themselves, indicated that circumcised men experienced significantly reduced sexual sensation along with associated long-lasting negative emotional consequences."; Adverse sexual and psychological effects of male infant circumcision. Boyle GJ, Bensley GA
      • "We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function; however some specific domains of sexual function (i.e. avoidance and communication) seemed to be affected by the age at circumcision procedure in this cohort of sexually active males. In addition, prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher, with premature ejaculation being the most common dysfunction in the survey. We concluded that childhood circumcision age might affect some domains of male sexual function in adulthood, but not the overall function."; Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions. Aydur E et al.

      People in the US seem to be having plenty of sex, and seem to be happy with it. Right, this is the point where you might hear arguments like "you don't know what you're missing", not to mention that "seem to be happy with it" is a pretty vague statement.

      Also, you say in a post further down:

      All that matters is: does infant circumcision hurt a child physically or emotionally in any lasting way? There does not seem to be anything showing that it does. Try these for starters: Excecutive summary: neonatal circumcision hurts the kids.


      And finally, although circumcised men have lower risk for some infections and penile cancer, WHO states that "some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds". Promoting circumcision is being considered by the WHO as a way of reducing the risk of HIV infections in countries in a particularly dire state, like South Africa. But again, it only reduces the risk, and does not in any way replace the use of condoms. Also, studies are still ongoing on this.


      So there. Was there anything unclear?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    37. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by wamerocity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just out of curiosity, how do you have a double-blind study with circumcision? I mean the point of a double-blind is to ensure that the person who administers and the person who receives some sort of treatment doesn't know whether they are receiving it or not, to eliminate the placebo effect. How on earth can you hide the fact that somebody received a circumcision? I suppose you could create a fake helmet and glue it on... or something...

      Sorry to be pedantic, but the concept seems funny to me. I do agree with you that circumcision is a complete non-issue compared to everything else that affects a child's life.

      --
      "Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
    38. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it's illegal to do it in the UK unless the child is Muslim or Jewish?

      I.e. moral relavatism rears it's ugly, ugly head. QED

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    39. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my experience, most women are fascinated by an intact penis if they hadn't seen one before. Other women regard it as no big deal. I personally think it looks pretty neat with the foreskin, but if I ever want to look at it the other way I can engage in the perfectly non-destructive act of rolling the foreskin back.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    40. Re:Lets bring these people up to speed by vyrus128 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I like my sex and so do all of us circumcised US males. Speak for yourself, asshole.

  2. Morocco tried to block YouTube once... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Morocco tried to block YouTube about a year and a half ago, because there were videos either making fun of the King or criticizing him.

    The block didn't last long because so many people were (figuratively) up in arms about it. Given the amount of "non-offensive" material (i.e. in this case, material not criticizing the king), the government realized their own stupidity and realized it would be better to have a placated populous than risk unrest over such a small thing.

    Are there parallels here? Possibly not, because I guess the blocks are for different reasons. However, it's not like a large amount of YouTube is about the comic or other representations of Mohammed, so... It will be interesting to see if the people cry out and how the government responds...

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure that was Turkey, not Morocco. I remember because quite a few blog posts in Turkey syndicated my anti-blocking instructions. I'm probably a fugitive there for having a minor amount of technical knowledge. :-P

    2. Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once... by wenchmagnet · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am posting from within Pakistan, youtube is accessible again.

    3. Re:Morocco tried to block YouTube once... by Bootvis · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure no one insulted the Turkish king because Turkey is a republic. I think it is quite possible both countries blocked Youtube at some moment. (and of course stopped blocking after realizing this is a bad idea)

      --
      Read, refresh, repeat.
  3. The offending content by broothal · · Score: 4, Informative
  4. Cover Story by pinkocommie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The danish thing has been going on for a while, it took them this long to ban it for that?
    Otoh there were elections a few days ago and there were multiple clips about rigging that happened in the election.
    Forward to 1:20 or just search for pakistan rigging
    What's the more probable cause for the ban?

    1. Re:Cover Story by siriusnova · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes I have to agree with you on this.

      As a Pakistani who has spent considerable amount of time in and out of the country, this blocking has absolutely nothing to do with "blasphemous content".

      The reality is that right now in Pakistan there are serious allegations of vote rigging going around, the Military Junta in its usual dictatorial form has to find a cover story to block news about any vote rigging as they already do the same with the regular news media. They blocked the biggest Pakistani News TV being broadcast from Dubai, GEO TV, a few months ago over the news station airing reports critical of the current government.

      I really doubt 90% of Pakistanis even care about the cartoons, this is really an excuse to hide under their real motivations, ie vote rigging.

      There are tons of websites that can be stated as "blasphemous" however none of them are blocked, so why block youtube, especially at this point in time.

      Reeks of a CYA cover story to me.

  5. Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!! by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's cause we own the middle east.

    They just dont know it ;)

    --
  6. Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's no need to get all religious about it. ;-)

  7. Re:WHY IS THIS IN POLITICS????!!! by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Youtube is in the USA. Owned by Google to be more precise. They are banning something from USA politics.

  8. Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ain't just Islam, Christianity (or take any religion of your liking) would react the same way if it had the political backing.

    The current situation dictates that a lot of oil is in the hands of people who could get a tad bit upset if you don't let them have what they want, at least in terms of free speech. Free speech isn't listed at the NY stock exchange, so it's worth less than losing business with such countries.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. mTube by pha7boy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Welcome to mTube. To upload videos, please make sure that all models are wearing mTube approved burqas. Religious discussion are to adhere to Quran aproved topics. For information on how to carry out stoning, please see the miscellaneous section.

    --
    -- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
    1. Re:mTube by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pissed off at your sister? Commit a crime. You'll get a trivial sentence while your sister gets gang raped.

      Wait... what's that? All cultures are of equal value? Oh, OK. Sorry.

  10. Re:Screw Mohammed. by rustalot42684 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck you. Banning Youtube is stupid, but that doesn't mean that Islam itself is bad. There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.

  11. End Religion and End Human Suffering! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, so maybe it wouldn't end human suffering, but it would certainly remove about 90% of the motivation for mistrust and a lot more. Some say religion is just the "given" excuse for violence and oppression. But I hold that the majority of people who claim they are killing and oppression for "god" really believe in what they are doing.

    Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous."

    But once you subtract 'religion' and 'morals' from the minds of many, you'll find they actually don't know how to think.

    1. Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering! by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous.

      Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists. Well, I guess religion hasn't been the single greatest force for murder and oppression in the last century after all.

      The statistics speak for themselves. Between the Soviet Union and China, many more died for Communism than because of religious violence.

      By the way, have you considered that to wipe out religion, you'd have to engage in the same techniques of suppression of knowledge that you condemn? But it's all for the good of society, so it's OK, right? :rolleyes:

    2. Re:End Religion and End Human Suffering! by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Communism was like a religion to Stalin and the other USSR leaders.

  12. Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a religion Islam is the petulant, spoiled bully child on the playground - always accustomed to getting what it wants. If it doesn't get its own way, it resorts to acts of barbaric aggression.

    naah, it's worse than that. It gets its own way, in countries throughout the world where there is Sharia. Jeez, how many religions would like to have the government make laws in lock-step with their teachings? All of 'em! But Islam is not content with the countries whose laws and mores it already directly affects, it wants to control the 21st Century nations as well.

    But I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy, so let's look at the bright side: There is no better incentive for the West to pursue alternate energy sources than the opportunity that represents to stem the tide of Islamic Imperialism.

  13. Ignoring the differences between the two... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is presenting "Bad Thing B" in answer to "Bad Thing A" still considered a acceptable method of debate?

  14. Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no better incentive for the West to pursue alternate energy sources than the opportunity that represents to stem the tide of Islamic Imperialism.

    That the Muslim communities in the Netherlands, France, Sweden etc. have been so easily radicalized suggests that the barbarians are already inside the gates. Stemming the tide of Islamic imperialism means not only reducing the power of Middle Eastern theocracies (mainly Saudi Arabia), but ensuring that immigrant communities in the EU assimilate as well.

  15. Re:Screw Mohammed. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >There are lots of tolerant Muslim people out there.

    Maybe but there sure isnt enough of them to say "Hey, lets do away with theocracy." The fact that theocratic governments are allowed makes me think that they arent as 'tolerant' as people like you claim.

    Cue the moral relativist crowd and the people who are going to reply to this by blaming western powers in 3.. 2.. 1..

  16. Re:God by Knave75 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't religious persecution tend to kill the moderates and breed more radicals?

    It is true, I used to be a moderate secularist, but now I'm a rabid and radical anti-religion zealot.

  17. Obligatory by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
    -John Gilmore, 1993
    --
    Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
  18. Re:Lucky they're not offended by the Bible by computechnica · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder if they have blocked this site: Skeptics annotated Quran

  19. Religion and its leaders by Teun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is really shameful how religious leaders continue to try to impress their own (private) values on the rest of the world.
    No later than 9/11 we (in the democratic world) were made aware how narrow the scope of some Muslim leaders is when quite a few of them spoke out with understanding or even admiration for the criminals that crashed these planes killing thousands of innocent.

    Of course this type of behaviour is not limited to Moslims, just look at the retards that, especially in the USofA, are trying to ban education on Evolution or bomb medical clinics.

    Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV :)

    In the case of YouTube there might be a link to my country as an extreme nationalistic member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders) is readying a movie/ documentary called Fitna (Arabic for Evil) about what he perceives as the dangers of Islam and the Quran.
    More and more politicians of wholly undemocratic Muslim nations are protesting with the Dutch government and demanding a stop to this movie as it would be an insult to Islam.
    Mr. Wilders has so far not found a regular broadcaster to air his work and has said he'll distribute it via the net, starting with YouTube.

    The problem will not go away until religious people, starting with their leaders, learn to accept there is more in this world than their own (narrow) view and that a cartoon or critical movie is generally not meant as an insult or attack but to further discussion and even educate on the subjects covered.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Religion and its leaders by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Here in The Netherlands we had a nice one last night, around 01:00 in the night one of the public broadcasters decided to air the old Deep Throat movie, in (eager?) anticipation quite a few religious leaders protested as if they did not have an off button on their TV

      They knew perfectly well they had an off button on their TV. They were angry because they didn't have an off button connected to your TV.

      rj

  20. Re:Screw Mohammed. by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Where are they hiding?"

    In plain sight. By virtue of not being fanatical jihad-monkeys they tend to blend in pretty well with their surroundings just like peaceful Jews, Christians, Wiccans, etc..

    Or did you not know that Muslims can look just like anyone else, speak reasonably, and contribute positively to their communities in unassuming and humble manners?

    Hell, if nothing else it is nice having Muslims in your community because their bodegas are open on Christian holidays. Try getting out in the real world once in a while.

  21. Re:Imho... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Printing them again, knowing what it might cause: provocation.

    So what? These people need to be continually provoked until they understand and accept that there's no percentage in getting upset about it. People using threats and intimidation to censor other people should offend every civilized human being.

    Look, this is the bully syndrome at work, and by not continually provoking them, by giving in to their threats, you're simply following a policy of appeasement. That never works with a bully, ever, because next time they'll want more. I am not prepared to give it to them.

    Furthermore, we're talking about material published on the Internet in another country. They have zero grounds for imposing their own sense of what is acceptable on the rest of the world. It's time they grew up and accepted the fact that the rest of us don't care what they think. As an American, I have to suffer through enough irrational and outright wrong anti-U.S. crap every day, but I don't go around making threats or demanding the Web sites be blocked just because I don't like it.

    These people just need to grow up. Until they do, trying to avoid "provoking" them is not a concern of mine, since they don't seem to care if they provoke me. Not, I might add, that it matters what they say about me or my country. I'm an adult, my skin is pretty thick in that regard.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  22. This is about politics, not religion. by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know the reason they /gave/ is that YouTube content is blasphemous, but what they /didn't/ tell you is that there have been a lot of really embarrassing videos on YouTube recently. One you might have seen in the news was the one where they showed that there was a gunshot before the explosion that officially was supposed to have killed Benazir Buttho. But it's my understanding that there have been a lot of videos that are /personally/ embarrassing to politicians in Islamabad as well, and this is more probably the motivation behind the ban.

    It serves all the sitting politicians' interests to paint this as a religious thing (including the Bush government); it's up to us to try to see through the propaganda.

  23. Re:Screw Mohammed. by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And yet from these supposedly assimilated folks a disturbingly large amount of funding flows to the Middle East, and they don't seem to protest much when Wahhabi hate literature starts to be distributed in their community."

    Immigrant populations send money home and will continue to do so until exchange rates don't make it profitable to come live in western nations while supporting families elsewhere. Most of that money is going to families who are trying to make do in their ancestral homeland, not terrorist organizations.

    As for hate literature, I have yet to see this happen in my community. On the contrary there are minimum two major interfaith events a year co-sponsored by the largest local mosque and the largest local synagogue not to mention the year end Unitarian celebration that includes Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anyone else who wants to attentd.

    All I have to cite for you is my personal experience gathered while living across the USA in places like L.A., N.Y.C., and now New England. Each of these places has visible Muslim populations, and the examples of interfaith cooperation are everywhere for anyone who cares to look.

    The only really dangerous experience I have had with a religious group was with the 'Black Israelites' in NYC. And anyone who has dealt with them will tell you that there homegrown religious threats as virulent as any imported Muslim variety.

  24. Either I'm in Pakistan by bdraschk · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... and nobody told me, or somebody in Germany has demanded to block youtube, too. Just timeouts here.

  25. Not "a" Danish newspaper by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was all of them this time, unlike the first time the were printed. The cartoon in question was the "bomb in turban" drawing from the top of the original article. The were reprinted as a reaction to an alleged murder plot against the cartoonist.

    I'm not sure what kind of reasoning will lead anyone to attempt to murder somebody for insinuating that their prophet inspire violent behavior. By doing so, they just prove the cartoonist right.

  26. Islam requires theocracy by CustomDesigned · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Islam has an answer to the question of how to stop evil, war, and bloodshed. Their answer is that people need to be forced to be good. An Islamic state with the power to enforce sharia law is essential to the muslim concept of how to overcome evil. When the entire world is under sharia, and everyone is forced to be good, then there will be peace - islam.

    Now there can be liberal interpretations of Islam - where each individual needs to wage "jihad" against their own evil. But this is not the traditional stance, or even an obvious one just from reading Quran. It is an assimilation of the Christian idea that "the line between good and evil runs not between us and them, but through each of our hearts".

    My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. The evil within them is just biding its time, waiting for an opportunity. And no external enforcement by human beings is perfect. There will always be loopholes and opportunities to do evil.

    1. Re:Islam requires theocracy by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. The evil within them is just biding its time, waiting for an opportunity. And no external enforcement by human beings is perfect. There will always be loopholes and opportunities to do evil.

      Indeed, it will fail just as every previous attempt to legislate morality has failed. Like every victimless-crime law in the USA, it would require a complete and total surveillance state/police state to enforce, and you can be assured that the kind of people who want to create such a police state and rule over it are not good people who care about your best interests. There is something seriously wrong with any individual or group who wants to have that kind of power and their acquisition of it is far more dangerous than whatever it was they were supposedly going to protect us from -- with no exceptions. This kind of fanatical approach to "removing evil" or "protecting you from yourself" is evil in and of itself.

      What such attempts can and have done is to take "evil" behavior (be it drugs, prostitution, gambling, whatever) and drive it underground. A completely unregulated, illegal market for such things has always made them more dangerous. Additionally, I wonder if the proponents of Prohibition were willing to have the deaths of everyone who was killed by the likes of Al Capone on their conscience? That pesky Law of Unintended Consequences is something from which people repeatedly refuse to learn.

      I wish we could evolve past this silly notion that good and evil are nothing more than sufficiently-comprehensive lists of "do's" and "dont's", as I think this is where the idea that "forced to behave a certain way = good person" comes from. The whole thing really is a denial of the spiritual nature of human beings and the moral struggles that occur within each person that the outside world never sees. I find it quite ironic that such denials typically come from major religions.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Islam requires theocracy by pinkocommie · · Score: 2, Informative

      That isn't actually accurate. (Disclaimer: I used to be muslim).
      To begin with Sharia was a creation that came into existence many centuries after Islam and was primarily religious folks trying to unify the people against their 'corrupt' leaders using a unified codex across the Islamic lands.
      Nobody can and/or should be forced to do anything. The whole bit about 'There can be no compulsion in religion'
      Even quranically the prophet was told to back off after telling people what was right/wrong because the rest was upto them.
      In the spirit of full disclosure I at the moment believe that religion itself is bunk, regardless of which variety you look at.

  27. Re:God by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We need a night of long knives where every imam, every priest, every rabbi, every religious "leader" wakes up with a slit throat.

    Yeah, violence is the best way to solve the world's problems.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  28. Economic prosperity and Islam by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saudi-Arabia is one of the richest countries in the world, and also one of the most oppressive theist regimes in the world.

    And like Pakistan, we already trade with them, so I don't think you are on the right path.

  29. Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way by jdfox · · Score: 4, Insightful
    >Nowhere did I claim the whole community was radicalized

    You might not have meant to, but you did. Both here and here, you referred to entire religious communities, or a monolithic "they". Do you not see the danger of this habit? As a member of the Christian community, do you wish to be included in the "they" of Timothy McVey, George Habash, August Kreis, the Army of God, the Lord's Resistance Army, etc.?

  30. Moderates strangely quiet by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ["Where are [moderates] hiding?"] In plain sight. By virtue of not being fanatical jihad-monkeys they tend to blend in pretty well with their surroundings just like peaceful Jews, Christians, Wiccans, etc..

    But they don't seem in any affective way to be reigning in the actions of their fanatic counterparts. It's as if they don't care that a small percentage of fanatics are ruining the reputation, economy, and safety of their own country. There are no counter-protests, for example. No red-state-blue-state kind of active political debates.

    Something is out-of-whack. It strongly appears as if they secretly condone such behavior and only complain against it to naive foreign journalists.

    1. Re:Moderates strangely quiet by pijokela · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are no counter-protests, for example. No red-state-blue-state kind of active political debates. There are regular protests in Turkey opposing any change towards a more islamic nation. And I do believe the protesters are muslims. So it's not all black and white.
  31. Re:Hmm. by TurinPT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what you're saying is that pakistanis are backward monkeys who see communication devices as western witchcraft. Nice tolerance you got going there, in another context i'd mistake you for a muslim.

  32. Re:Hmm. by wanderingknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, it is. The whole discussion here is just disgusting. I'm against censorship, but I'm against closed-minded stupidity, too. And the people posting here seem to have plenty of it.

  33. US vs Europe, Muslims vs. Muslims by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it is a difference between EU and US. There is a lot of fear among "moderate" Muslims in Europe about speaking up against the extremists. Far the majority of religiously motivated violence in Europe is extremest Muslims attacking other Muslims they don't consider "Muslim" enough. This goes from murder attempts on Muslim political leaders and academics that are speaking against the extremists, to harassment of women with Arabic names who dress in western style.

    I'm not sure why this is not the case in the US, maybe it is the lower density, or that the "homelands" are farther away. Or maybe you are simply better at integrating immigrants.

  34. Re:Screw Mohammed. by David_Shultz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Islam is the only religion where you can be considered a moderate for not supporting terrorism. Surely that tells you something. Besides, moderate Islam and terrorist Muslims are standing on a par with respect to the rationality of their beliefs. Both groups of people have a view of the world colored by an irrational adoption of some ancient dogma. In supporting one you inevitably support the other, by granting credence to the idea that "faith" is a sensible (and indeed positive) way to go about forming your beliefs. Faith is a danger, no matter who is doing it, because all of our beliefs should be thought through. Moderates give aid and comfort to extremists by supporting the concept of faith and unchecked belief in superstition. There is no such thing as "true Islam" -all brands of Islam are equally fictional. If anything, extremists are closest to a "true Islam" because their behavior most accurately reflects Islamic texts and the life of Mohammad.

  35. Re:Islam - Always Used to Getting its Own Way by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, that lie seems to be commonly published in the US.

    I'm not in the U.S. I'm based in the EU. And when administrators of police and ambulance services tell the press there are certain areas of the city they no longer go to because of violence against non-Muslims from the Muslims living there, it's hard to see how that could be a distortion.

  36. Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nothing to do with DNS. The SOA records are still showing as authoritative on youtube's domain servers with the last update as of 17 Feb 08. What is actually happening is that AS17557 (Pakistan Telecom Authority) is advertising more specific prefixes from their AS which are being blackholed at ingress, rather than the "official" ASN of 36561 which is still visible in BGP, but is less specific. (Those who know about IP routing will know that a more specific prefix always takes precedence over a supernet/aggregate/summary). Basically PTA screwed up the BGP advertisements and are affecting the whole internet, rather than just blackholing internally to their country...

  37. Re:DNS hijackers block YouTube by discord5 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not really relevant, your whois is just showing replies for domains with a "similar" name (when it really shouldn't be doing that). You'll get varying results depending on what whois server you're asking.

    YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM resolves to a (lol) "hacking" and warez site of some sort. It's just someone having fun with DNS and whois.

    Why are you doing a whois when you can't reach youtube? For all intents and purposes, whois is completely useless these days.

    As for youtube being down... Meh, probably some routing problem, or some ship accidentally dragging their anchors over googles datacenters.

  38. Not provocation, solidarity by NIckGorton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cartoons were published by many Danish papers after the police foiled a plot to murder the cartoonist. By publishing these cartoons, the papers were stating something important: we stand in solidarity, we don't give in to bullies, and the sword will never be mightier than the pen.

    1. Re:Not provocation, solidarity by NIckGorton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I understand supporting free speech, but let's face facts here: drawing a picture of Mohammad wearing a bomb for a turban is pretty much exactly the definition of "provocation".

      Its not the right to be provocative or to express solidarity with others in your field that we are talking about. Its the right to free expression.

      However, provocation is often used as an excuse to censor. As someone who is used to that excuse, perhaps its more apparent to me.

      I'm gay. I am married to another man. We live together and love each other in our nice little house in suburban California. The computer on which I am typing this response, and my partner's XO across the table from me in the coffee shop where I am getting caffeinated both have small rainbow flags on them. When he took off while I was writing this, he leaned over the table and gave me a peck on the cheek.

      There are places in the US where what I just typed would make us vulnerable to getting the shit kicked out of us. Having been in places like that, I can tell you the risk is serious. And that risk is used to intimidate people back into the closet. The 14 year old Jr High Student who was murdered this month in Oxnard California is dead undoubtedly because of violent reactions to his behavior, that many people to this day would label 'provocative': He was out as gay, wore effeminate clothing, jewelry and make-up to school. In fact, that is such a common justification for homophobic violence that we even have to have laws that prevent people from using the 'gay panic' defense (that is, a queer person because his behavior was so provocative, incited the defendant to violence.)

      The problem is that any behavior viewed from another standpoint can be provocative. Just as the cartoons of Mohammad are provocative to many Muslims, I find these images from Iran to be provocative (especially given the position of militant extremists within Islam who would like to impose Sharia on the entire world): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dgsZYA1mPY

      I defy you to watch that in its entirety and then tell me how its reasonable that people who torture and then put children to death for consensual gay sex shouldn't have to have their delicate sensibilities shattered by such provocation as having their religion (the same one that justifies those murders) be mocked? (Because its the same militant fundamentalist factions that are offended by the cartoons - not all of Islam. In fact many Muslims are far more shocked at the death threats than the existence of the cartoons.)

      If you want to defend the right to be provocative, more power to you. But don't try to piss in my face and tell me it's raining: provocation was EXACTLY the goal of the cartoonist and the publishers in this case.

      No the goal is to speak truth to violence and hatred. Its hard not to give in and meet that violence and hatred with its reflection. Its hard for me to see that video (and I think hard for most human beings not in that culture of violence) and not want to hate Islam. But I don't. I have worked really hard at not hating Islam. I was the chief resident on call in the ER in Brooklyn's largest trauma center that day, had family in Manhattan on 9/11/01, and had close friends who lost family that day. I can still remember the smell afterwards - and knowing that the noxious air that set my asthmatic lungs into spasm was infused with the bodies of three thousand people. It would have been so easy.... painfully easy to demonize and hate an entire religion and culture. To see them as nothing more than animals who should be locked away safely so they cannot harm human beings.

      So I read the Qur'an. Its a beautiful book; simple and very powerful - especially if read from the perspective of someone who is not a believer (and perhaps who is suffering a little PTSD due to the violence of true believers.) I also talked a lot with my co-chief at th

  39. Re:God by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Holy shit. This is the saddest day for /. that I've ever seen: a post claiming religion does nothing but evil (obviously untrue), and that every pastor, priest, etc, should be murdered in their sleep is modded fucking insightful.

    Sorry, but calling for violence against innocent people is in no way insightful, mods. And Mr. AC, consider this: if you'd slaughtered the thousands of religious leaders who have done no wrong, all that innocent blood would be on your hands... and you'd be no better than you make them out to be.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  40. IP hijacking, not DNS hijacking by Nigel+Stepp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not that it's really important, but many are saying there is DNS hijacking going on.

    It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.

    It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.

    I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.

    --
    4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
  41. Re:God by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you ever wondered how radicalism came to be? From reactions to people like you.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  42. Smokescreen for government corruption. by ruinevil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The government spokesman claims that its due to blasphemous videos on youtube, but you have to realize they just shut down a television station because it allowed two banned television anchors work there; anchors who said negative things about the Musharraf government. The entire nation is under martial law and opposition parties are talking about Musharraf rigging the vote. Right before he declared martial law there was courts were look into allegations of election fraud, but he removed the judges from the case immediately after martial law started.


    Pakistan is currently run by a former military leader who gained power in a military coup d'etat, and has in reality always been run by the military at some level. They are a Muslim country only in name; their mullahs/imams have little affect on the government; sort of comparable to Libya, except Pakistan pretends to have a democratic society. Read into the atrocities committed by their military during the Bangladeshi Liberation War ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities ). I read an essay written by Henry Kissinger who compared it to the rape of Nanjing. This is the same guy who advised Nixon to aid Pakistan, in order to prevent Soviets from gaining a foothold in the area.

  43. Re:God by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Informative

    No one mentioned atheism. The 'slit their throats in the night' guy's attitude is what causes radicalism. Unless, of course, you're trying to associate rationality/atheism with genocide, and judging by the false dichotomy you set up, that wouldn't surprise me.

  44. Hypocrisy times a thousand by Blancmange · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's funny that a bunch of Muslims get all upset over a picture of Prophet Mohammad Bomb-for-a-head, while not making nearly quite a fuss over a bunch of Danish Muslim leaders distributing their own image of Paedophile Mohammed (an obvious reference to Mo having a 9 year old girl for a wife[1]) in order to incite more hatred against Danish cartoonists.

    The fanatics seem to be oblivious to the Streisand Effect. The Mohammad Image Archive makes for fascinating reading.

    [1] It's immaculate paraphilia, not paedophilia. Honest, m'lud!

    --
    Blancmange
  45. Disgusted by Pakistan AND Slashdot by oceaniv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been lurking on these boards for about two-three years and the amount of hatred and ignorance on these boards whenever something that has to do with "Islam" comes up is just plain disgusting. Captain Obvious says: 1. A vicious dictatorship, which has recently been accused of the murder of one of the most prominent politicians in the world (Bhutto), decides to ban an important source of information (youtube) from their citizens... (Go see the number of Pakistani political movies on Bhutto's death) 2. They use Islam as an scapegoat to justify their actions so as divert/dilute attention from their personal political motivation by passing on the "blame" to the larger (1 billion) Muslim community 3. At the moment of reading "Islam" and "censor" the so-called freedom-sensitive western slashdotter abandons all rational thought and begins foaming at the mouth. Good job Slashdotters, your intelligence (or rather lack of) is blinding.

  46. Mr. Gilmore's claim is totally wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The amusing thing in this case is that Pakistan screwed up their censorship an managed to knock youtube off the *entire* internet for over two hours.

    The net didn't interpret censorship as damage and route around it; the net interpreted censorship as a superior path and routed everyone into it.

    The belief that technology alone will protect us from political oppression is mistaken and harmful.

  47. Now that this has happened, how do we secure BGP!? by ejoe_mac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, what are the steps to secure the IP space in BGP? How likely is this to occur again? What if Pakistan couldn't subnet accurately? sBGP, where are you?

  48. Christianity by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My problem with Islam is that when a person is externally forced to behave well, that might make the streets safer if done effectively, but that person is still not a good person. Actually, that is my main problem with Christianity. Judging a person not on how they behave, but how they are inside. That is just sick. People should be accountable for their actions, not for their thoughts. That is one of the few things Islam get right. Actually, maybe it is the only thing Islam gets right.