Kuwait Issues Order To Block YouTube

Bashar Abdullah writes "Kuwait Ministry of Communications have issued orders to all ISPs to block YouTube, after some offensive videos to Quran and prophet were posted there. YouTube is 15% of Kuwaiti traffic, ranked #3 on Alexa for Kuwait. Funny thing is, those videos they refer to have been removed and I can't reach them anymore."

Comments

Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Submit post about Kuwait blocking youtube.
2. Misspell prophet
3. ..
4. Profit!

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Really?

The mods work in mysterious ways...

Re:Profit!

[calmofthestorm]

All governments have the same reason to censor, be it US, UK, or any other country. From their perspective, when is control of information ever a bad thing?

What varies is the thing they wave around to make people swoon. Terrorism, child porn, offense to Islam, Holocaust denial, etc.

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well censoring offense to Islam is more of a religious thing than a government thing. When Middle Eastern governments do that they're basically doing it in order to prevent the religious elements from really running amuck (and I mean running amuck worse than the governments have already permitted in order to give the people something to distract attention from the government's policies.) When Western governments try do the same thing they claim it is to be "culturally sensitive" but it is really because they are afraid the offended folks will make good their threats to blow some shit up and kill people.

As for censoring Holocaust denial that's pretty straightforward. Tends to be done in the countries where it occurred. Those who deny the Holocaust tend to do it in order to further their own anti-Semitic ends, to make the case the the Nazis weren't so bad, and "Wouldn't it be great to go back to the good old days and finish what we started... er finish that thing we claim didn't happen but we really want to finish just the same."

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Sshhhhhhh ... these people are "progressive". They have to be able to deny the history, contents and ideas of islam.

Of course islam is antisemitic. The prophet killed 1200 jews in one of his religious massacres (e.g. google for "khaybar"). Saying that religiously massacring jews is wrong is saying islam is evil.

Of course if you do think that massacres are evil, then you're not going to be a fan of the quran, you're going to think the prophet is a monster (which he is, much more so than many others we call monsters), and islam to be excluded from allowed religions, and that muslims are at best as good as nazi's. You can talk very nice with most of them too, after all.

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You should try going against the consensus in slashdot. You might mention the fact that the founder of the islamic "religion" comitted multiple religious massacres.

You could even suggest that this probably means that islam itself is, to say the least, "not opposed" to the idea of religious massacres. You might even say that "jihad" seems to include the practice of religious massacres, both historically and contemporary (e.g. Sudan).

And of course, by any objective standard, you'd be right.

But the consensus on slashdot will be put down firmly. After all regressives (since "progressives" want to let these idiots bring back the 8th century, I refer to them as regressives)

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

TROLL?!! man that's a funny line, right there!

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

You, my friend, have made probably the most ignorant comment I've seen on Slashdot. I'll be the first to say that major problems with the world today are based in religion. And me being an atheist, I have no loyalties to a single one. However, every single religion has had their share of atrocities, including Catholicism / Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, etc. Not a single one is without fault. Singling out Islam as being the only one is shortsighted. By the way "jihad" means "struggle" not "holy war". If you actually make intelligent comments, maybe you wouldn't be modded down.

Re:Profit!

[CSMatt]

Catholicism / Christianity

Not sure why you picked Catholicism in particular. Protestantism also caused a number of atrocities. Remember the Salem Which Trials?

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I am not saying anyone, or any ideology is without fault. I am merely stating facts about a specific religion. Please don't imply things I didn't say. Here's what I am saying, with references, even if they are low-quality references at best.

Everyone knows that the prophet is to islam what Jesus Christ is for christianity. For Christians, the question is "what would Jesus do ?" for muslims the question is "what would the prophet do ?" and the answers are somewhat ... different than those you're used to from christians :

the prophet raped a minor girl, fact (involuntary sex, whether within marriage or not is rape, especially if the girl did not know about the marriage)
he raided caravans, stealing, raping and kidnapping people into slavery, fact (none of these sources are very good themselves, please look up the primary sources yourself)
he comitted SEVERAL religious massacres, fact

Jihad means "holy war". Or at least that's what it meant from the 7th to the late 20th century, in every muslim source. The massacres in arabia, the muslim massacres that eradicated the blacks from north africa, and the utterly massive massacre muslim comitted in India are referred to, in any muslim historical source as "jihads". Whatever else jihad means, clearly to muslims it includes these massacres, so please have your translation include that fact. I realise calling jihad "holy war", with massacre implied, that that is very politically incorrect, but that IS what it means.

Just like "islam" means "submission" yes, but it very VERY strongly implies militarily enforced submission, and certainly does not mean voluntary submission. You are a muslim if you're militarily dominated by islam, if your family does that for example, not if you "believe". Most muslims don't believe, not in the sense that they have faith in God (if you read the quran you'll understand why faith in god is nonexistent in islam, you see allah is a vindictive asshole and the prophet even more, they kill for no reason at all, criminally insane and dangerous individuals, even by muslim standards, and certainly nothing like Jesus Christ in the new testament)

Read the primary sources. Draw your own conclusions. E.g.

When asked whether his soldiers should or should not rape female captives in war, the prophet answered, wait, let me just point you to the source and have you answer this yourself

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3432

He said that, not only was raping them okay, but if they were impregnated, that would not matter.

Now my challenge to you, point me to the section of the new testament were Jesus orders his soldiers to rape captive women. Oh you can't ? Well well, isn't that interesting ?

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

I was grouping Catholicism and Christianity, to include Protestanism. Christians are Christians, from my perspective. I think the only group I can think of that hasn't committed major atrocities are the Amish, unless you consider "technology deprivation" an abuse.

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

You cite sources, admit they are weak, and then say "look them up yourself". Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on. Modern Islam rarely takes on a form for "forced militant behavior" other than extremism we have seen in cults and terrorist groups. And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past.

Re:Profit!

[Pig Hogger]

As for censoring Holocaust denial that's pretty straightforward. Tends to be done in the countries where it occurred.

Er, no. It happens in countries with weak freedom of speech laws and where sionists have subverted key element of society.

Like in Canada, which being the red-coats, never had "needed" a first-amendment...

Those who deny the Holocaust tend to do it in order to further their own anti-Semitic ends,

"Antisemite" is the catch-all trump-card brandished by jews to shut-down critics, no matter how well-founded the critic is. Trouble is, it has been misused so much that it is starting to lose it's efficiency...

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You cite sources, admit they are weak, and then say "look them up yourself". Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on. Modern Islam rarely takes on a form for "forced militant behavior" other than extremism we have seen in cults and terrorist groups. And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past.

"rarely" ... that seems an odd place for such a word. You don't even believe what you're saying yourself. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad ...

And of course, you can't answer for the absurdity of your claim, except by logical fallacies. You just repeat the absurd claim and assume I will let it pass without examining ... Let's analyse your idiotic claim (I can use repetition too as a way to convince people) :

"And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past."

Now this answer you give because you can't answer the question that was posed. The paedophile prophet is a monster, and you cannot point to equivalent actions in the Christian faith, by Jesus Christ. So you just state your point, which obviously requires ignoring this difference. Jesus Christ, whether he was a real person or not, is, in the books of Christianity, a peaceful, wise, patient and sympathetic man that would never hurt a fly. Muhammad, real or not, is, in the books of islam, a vindictive genocidal paedophile rapist and massacrer who killed people merely because someone said they talked about him. That's the example muslims hold their kids to.

And you say "it's just the same thing". Does it really need to be argued that it's not ? Apparently it does ...

So since you don't have an answer on the atrocities that Christians talk their children into. The atrocities Christians ask their children to commit when they ask them to imitate Jesus Christ, there are none, so attempting to answer the question would be extremely contraproductive for you ...

Furthermore, even if you count the crimes of every last Christian that were comitted in the name of Christianity (which would obviously require that you'd be fair and hold islam itself responsible for 9/11, not "just" bin laden himself, but every muslim), there seems to be a bit of a degree difference. Even ignoring that Christianity is the source of the human rights idea in the first place, there seems to be a historical difference.

Christians are accused of killing somewhere between 10.000 and 100.000 people because of religion, over the course of more than 2 millenia. These claims are generally shady, and nearly all of these people were convicted in the contemporary equivalent of a court (which does not necessarily make it fair of course, or even that they knew about the conviction beforehand*, but it's something, I'm not claiming that)

* like in today's sharia courts that convict people who don't know that they stand accused. Then send out, not the police, but "the muslims" a horde, to burn the witch.

By contrast, the source of the islamic "faith" killed over 10.000 people HIMSELF merely for their belief, for being jews, and a few for being black. Muslims, over the centuries killed over a billion people. 300 million hindus in India at least, and that's just the east side. Many millions in Northern africa : so many that there aren't any black North africans left. Massacre upon massacre. Millions of Persians .... At least several million in Turkey ... the list goes on, and on, and on ...

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. I made like 10 cents out of Google Ads. Envy that? I can split

Re:Profit!

[meringuoid]

I was grouping Catholicism and Christianity

Isn't that a bit like 'grouping Germans and Europeans', or 'grouping nouns and words'?

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

I didn't even read your answer, simply because I mentally I tire of your ranting.

Re:Profit!

[Mr. Slippery]

The prophet killed 1200 jews in one of his religious massacres (e.g. google for "khaybar").

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English. The word "massacre" is generally reserved for cases where one side has no ability to resist the other; the word for what occured at Khaibar, where a 1,400 to 1,800-men army of Muslims attacked a fortress occupied by about 10,000, would be "battle" or "siege". HTH.

That the early Muslims fought a lot of people, no one disputes. We may argue about the justification or brutality of these battles. But to call these battles "religious massacres" is simply inaccurate.

Saying that religiously massacring jews is wrong is saying islam is evil.

So saying that religiously massacring Midianites is wrong is saying Judiasm is evil? And saying that religiously massacring Muslims is wrong means that Hinduism is evil? And saying that religiously massacring Protestants is wrong means that Catholicism is evil? And..well, choose your match-up.

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

I guess you could say that. But I was intending to say "not just Catholics, but all Christians". I didn't want to go too far off of my point.

Re:Profit!

[Grishnakh]

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English. The word "massacre" is generally reserved for cases where one side has no ability to resist the other; the word for what occured at Khaibar, where a 1,400 to 1,800-men army of Muslims attacked a fortress occupied by about 10,000, would be "battle" or "siege". HTH.

And what justification did they have for attacking that fortress, regardless of their numerical disadvantage?

That the early Muslims fought a lot of people, no one disputes. We may argue about the justification or brutality of these battles. But to call these battles "religious massacres" is simply inaccurate.

If one group, of one religion, attacks another group of people of a different religion, that generally sounds like a "religious massacre".

So saying that religiously massacring Midianites is wrong is saying Judiasm is evil? And saying that religiously massacring Muslims is wrong means that Hinduism is evil? And saying that religiously massacring Protestants is wrong means that Catholicism is evil? And..well, choose your match-up.

Yes, yes, and yes. Unless perhaps that religion admits its followers were wrong and did great evil in their massacres.

Re:Profit!

[stonecypher]

If one group, of one religion, attacks another group of people of a different religion, that generally sounds like a "religious massacre".

Sure, except when it isn't a massacre. Grandparent is correct: this atrocity is not of the scale to warrant the melodramatically overused term "massacre". The dead don't even outnumber my highschool. Be serious. Also, whether or not religion was the reason the battle started isn't really that important; when you say "religious battle" people think civilians being killed in the streets for their beliefs. This was the clashing of two trained militaries at a military location.

Massacres are for huge groups of people. The wiping out of a major city is a massacre. This is a battle, and not a particularly large one at that.

So saying that religiously massacring Midianites is wrong is saying Judiasm is evil? And saying that religiously massacring Muslims is wrong means that Hinduism is evil? And saying that religiously massacring Protestants is wrong means that Catholicism is evil?

Yes, yes, and yes.

No, no and no. That's the kind of logic George Bush uses. By that logic, the peaceful Muslims in Indonesia are responsible for 9/11.

The people who committed the atrocities are evil. The religions they used as justification are not. Shame on you.

Re:Profit!

[Grishnakh]

No, no and no. That's the kind of logic George Bush uses. By that logic, the peaceful Muslims in Indonesia are responsible for 9/11.

Sorry, but if their religious beliefs include killing people of other beliefs, then yes, they bear some blame. But of course, it's not just Muslims who are guilty of this, it's almost all religions.

If you want to be blameless, you need to cast off your religion.

The people who committed the atrocities are evil. The religions they used as justification are not. Shame on you.

No, shame on you for allowing religious people to continue living in hate without being held accountable for it. The people who committed the atrocities used religions, whose other followers have not stepped up and proven how their religions do not justify these actions. In so doing, they accept blame.

Re:Profit!

[Mr. Slippery]

And what justification did they have for attacking that fortress, regardless of their numerical disadvantage?

I'm not an Islamic scholar, but a few minutes on the wik teaches that the "Confederates" who attacked the Muslims at Medina at the "Battle of the Trench" a few years before included the Banu Nadir and the Jews of Khaybar - the guys in the fortress at the Battle of Khaybar.

It was an ongoing inter-tribal struggle. Nasty? Brutal? Sure. Any more so than the work of Moses, or Alexander, or Julius Caesar, or Constantine? Nah.

If one group, of one religion, attacks another group of people of a different religion, that generally sounds like a "religious massacre".

So, for example, the attack by mostly Protestant Americans on mostly Muslim Iraqis would be a "religious massacre"? The Anglo-Zulu War was a "religious massacre"? The Punic Wars were "religious massacres"? No.

Yes, yes, and yes. Unless perhaps that religion admits its followers were wrong and did great evil in their massacres.

Of the religions I mentioned, only Catholicism has a leader who could speak for its entirety.

And it's curious that you seem to be taking every opportunity to point out the "evils" of Islam but have no mentioned these other religions at all.

Re:Profit!

[stonecypher]

Sorry, but if their religious beliefs include killing people of other beliefs, then yes, they bear some blame.

Luckily, every religion listed in the example is explicitly pacifist. Doesn't it make you feel like a jerk to judge religions without even knowing what they say?

If you want to be blameless, you need to cast off your religion.

Horseshit. I'm not religious, but even if I was, I would share no blame for the actions of others hundreds of years ago.

No, shame on you for allowing religious people to continue living in hate without being held accountable for it.

Lal. Right, shame on me for not pretending to be the judge and jury of my fellow man.

whose other followers have not stepped up and proven how their religions do not justify these actions.

Oh, they have. You just don't know enough about history to be aware of it. Funny how the people quickest to judge others are always the people who know the least about the people they're trying to judge...

If you ever learn anything about the religions you're berating, let someone know. I've stopped listening to you.

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Okay let me put it into pieces your mind can actually comprehend.

You claim all religions are the same. Muslims approve raping female prisoners, because they got direct permission for this from their paedophile prophet. In fact, God actually changed his mind explicitly to allow raping captive women, who are kidnapped into slavery by that capture, according to islam (link points to the primary source). more complete secondary source.

You claim "they're all the same". So let's see you pointing out in the new testament (or wherever in the bible) that Christians approve of making sex-slaves out of war captives, and rape those women against their will (hint you want to search exodus, if you're looking looking for a war story involving women, however you're not going to find anything nearly as bad as the above islamic stuff).

So let's have it ... put up or shut up. You claim moral equivalence, I bring up a moral issue, now you provide the equivalent.

Is this short enough for you ? Guess we'll know soon enough.

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

I never claimed moral equivalence. I claimed "immoral equivalence". All religious are equally f*cked up, and all should be banned. The manner in which people interpret their religions simply adds to the madness. In short: ignorance should be intolerable. Which probably includes your posts.

Re:Profit!

[Grishnakh]

Of the religions I mentioned, only Catholicism has a leader who could speak for its entirety.

Not exactly, though. Even if the Pope tries to apologize for the Crusades, he's lying. According to Catholic dogma, the Pope is infallible, so all decisions made by prior popes are by definition correct. So according to the Catholic religion, the Crusades were a good thing. So the only way for modern-day Catholics to not share in the blame for the Crusades is for them to abandon Catholicism.

But having a single leader isn't that important anyway. Religious people are to blame for anything which their holy book teaches, if they claim adherence to this holy book. Islam is evil because its holy book is full of evil things its "prophet" did, and those who willingly follow that religion are thus partly to blame. Similarly, the Christian Bible is also full of evil things that their god supposedly told them to do, so Christians are also partly to blame. The only people who aren't to blame for religious barbarism are 1) those who don't follow a specific religion or hold any book full of evil things to be "holy", and 2) those who follow a religion with a holy book free of such things.

Re:Profit!

[Grishnakh]

Luckily, every religion listed in the example is explicitly pacifist. Doesn't it make you feel like a jerk to judge religions without even knowing what they say?

Sorry, but the only pacifist religion I know of is Buddhism. Christianity and Islam are both violent, warlike religions.

As for knowing what they say, it's written in plain text in their holy books. Both the Bible and the Koran are filled with evil deeds, put forth as "the will of god".

Horseshit. I'm not religious, but even if I was, I would share no blame for the actions of others hundreds of years ago.

Yes, actually you would. If you were a neo-Nazi, and went around talking about how great Hitler was, you could be lumped in with the worst of that prior era, and would also share blame for anything any modern-day neo-Nazis do. Similarly, if you're a member of an Abrahamic religion and claim belief in its holy book and its lack of error, then you have to account for all the deeds in that book.

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

All religious are equally f*cked up, and all should be banned.

This proves that you are exactly the same as your parent poster. You both think that nobody should be allowed to believe something different than you. You are both, right this very moment, shaking and screaming with impotent, infantile rage at the knowledge that they are free to do so. You both know, deep in your puny little brains, that you will never, ever live to see that freedom that you so violently hate (and therefore fear) taken away, and that makes you both shriek like spoiled children. And you are both lying when you claim otherwise.

Re:Profit!

[calmofthestorm]

Those that deny the holocaust also start to get believed more often if it's illegal to do so.

If we allow open debate their lies get exposed and it works out the same way. But you can't debate someone if it's illegal to say it.

Re:Profit!

[calmofthestorm]

The best part of your first paragraph is that the A.C. was rated flamebait:-)

The inconsistencies in the Holocaust can generally be explained away when your country offers honest debate. Of course, if discussion is censored, it being faked starts to look a lot more plausible.

Re:Profit!

[calmofthestorm]

Deeds in the book. Yes. Deeds of its followers, no.

This is a general point, I agree it's the same thing in this case.

Re:Profit!

[calmofthestorm]

> According to Catholic dogma, the Pope is infallible, so all decisions made by prior popes are by definition correct.
A common misconception.

The pope is only infallible when he speaks /ex cathedra/. (ex cathedra is the cheat code for his infallible mode)

Otherwise the Church would have been dragged down forever ago by such conflicts between different Papal statements.

You are of course right about following books, though it is possible to view Gnostic interpretations of the Bible as nonviolent (since the God of the old and new testaments is not the same).

Jesus' teaching is very much nonviolent and completely pacifistic, but Christianity also includes Judaic teachings, which are as violent as any other ancient tribal religion.

Re:Profit!

[calmofthestorm]

> "Antisemite" is the catch-all trump-card brandished by jews to shut-down critics, no matter how well-founded the critic is. Trouble is, it has been misused so much that it is starting to lose it's efficiency...
Not exactly. It's a catch-all trump-card used by Zionists to try to claim that all Jews agree with their political views. Many Jews are against Israel's government's heavy-handed actions much as many of us in the US aren't too happy about the War on Terra.

Please don't confuse the two. Anti-zionism IS NOT the same as antisemitism.

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

"massacre (ms'-kr)
n.

      1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly"

Mohammad strictly forbade the killing of anyone who surrenders, anyone who was not a combatant (Read: civilian), and any woman or children. That doesn't sound so indiscriminate, non?

Check an unbiased history of Mohammad's battles. He was extremely practical and pragmatic in the way he dealt with his enemies, always preferring the defeated to agree on a peace treaty and some taxation. Nothing more, nothing less. No scorched earth policy, unlike most other faction at the time.

Oh, and Jihad was never to be declared by anyone but a central government, and was used strictly against Arab pagans, not against followers of the other Abrahamic religions. And even then, offensive Jihad wasn't permitted until a ruling by one scholar more than a hundred years after Mohammad's death.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam

Now compare it to the actions of "Islamic" terrorists and extremists. How in the HELL do they jive with the ancient rulings of Islam? You can't find one they DIDN'T violate! Don't mistake the slaughter committed in the name of a religion as a slaughter that is sanctioned by it. The manipulative always find an easy prey in the form of the religiously uninformed. At that point, furthering an agenda is simply a matter of twisting facts.

Re:Profit!

[Pig Hogger]

Oh, I don't... It's the sionists who do... :)

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You requested one word be changed, with no impact whatsoever on the meaning, so I'll just do that.

You claim all religions are the same. Muslims approve raping female prisoners, because they got direct permission for this from their paedophile prophet. In fact, God actually changed his mind explicitly to allow raping captive women, who are kidnapped into slavery by that capture, according to islam [usc.edu] (link points to the primary source). more complete secondary source [islam-watch.org].

You claim "they're all the same". So let's see you pointing out in the new testament (or wherever in the bible) that Christians approve of making sex-slaves out of war captives, and rape those women against their will (hint you want to search exodus, if you're looking looking for a war story involving women, however you're not going to find anything nearly as bad as the above islamic stuff).

So let's have it ... put up or shut up. You claim immoral equivalence, I bring up an immorality issue, now you provide the equivalent. Of course if you fail to point to a biblical story where Jesus directly orders Christians to kidnap women into slavery and rape them, like the paedophile islamic prophet did, you're wrong.

Is this short enough for you ? Guess we'll know soon enough.

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Thank you for the support, however there is a problem (other than the graphics not being very correct).

Practicing islam actually does include raping minors (which is legal in all islamic countries), religious genocide and murdering criticism away. They are obviously not allowed to actually do this, not even by God himself, who will turn any country where this is practiced in a living hell in perhaps a few years.

You correctly point out that these "tolerant" guys both aren't tolerant at all, *and* think totalitarian. You leave out that they like the muslims because they commit violence on their part. They want to make threats and 9/11 was, to them, a beautiful demonstration of what happens "if you don't listen to them". They are no better than the muslims. They co-opt 9/11 and say their political attention-getters, whether poverty or global warming, are the "root cause".

Everybody knows the reality however, including them : a few guys in saudi arabia were fed the hate of islam for years and years and years. They got money and were given the opportunity to throw themselves into their hate, and they comitted 9/11. There are tens of thousands more who'd love nothing more than to do the same.

So what is your opinion on the matter of religious freedom ? You can believe what you want, but you're not allowed to practice any of it ? Do you think any religion would accept those conditions when it doesn't have to ? I mean that position is pushing it, even for Christianity, for islam it's beyond merely unacceptable. They will commit massacres on school children to end that situation. And actions like that will end religious freedom in the blink of an eye.

And to be honest :

You both know, deep in your puny little brains, that you will never, ever live to see that freedom that you so violently hate (and therefore fear) taken away, and that makes you both shriek like spoiled children. And you are both lying when you claim otherwise.

I am quite sure that freedom will disappear. That freedom is dependant on a massive overwhelming Christian presence in the population, a situation the US and every other country is destroying as fast as they possibly can. The result will be a new dark age, and will return us to the situation where the Church is the only real power in the world in less than 50 years.

I do hope you realise that this is so. Unfortunately the same goes for human rights. Only Christian countries even attempt to respect them, if imperfectly. All others, including all islamic countries, refuse to respect them (declaration of cairo). Don't you think that this *maybe* has something to do with their ideology ?

While you're certainly more tolerant than the poster you're attacking, and congratulations for that, you're overconfident. You think your ideology is "the smart one", even if you will not force it on others. The reality of the matter is that you do not realise that your position is the result of your Christian upbringing.

Your position depends on faith in :
-> that all will end well
-> the goodness of the large majority people in general
-> that even if people fail, they will somehow get bailed out

Don't you see that these assumptions that your ideology requires, are the very "good news" that the local catholic priest is talking about every sunday ?

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

Well, you asked for it. Look here: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm Your ignorance is showing....

Re:Profit!

[Grishnakh]

Here's some examples from evilbible.com. The Bible clearly advocates murder and rape; it doesn't just describe them.

1) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings - Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba - died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

2) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

3) David's Punishment - Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God's "Forgiveness" (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

5) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

I think you are as blind as the other one. You simply state one reason after another why your religion is better than the others. However, what I have said is that I believe all religions have had their own share of atrocities in the past. But, I did defend most religious people as being NOT of they barbaric type. You see, I think people who are overly religious are ignorant and close-minded. However, I respect their right to be so. If you want to live in the dark ages, be my guest.

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, I think people who are overly religious are ignorant and close-minded. However, I respect their right to be so.

All religious are equally f*cked up, and all should be banned

One of the above from you is a lie. Pick one. Either way, you're a filthy liar.

Re:Profit!

[stonecypher]

Sorry, but the only pacifist religion I know of is Buddhism.

Then you don't know jack shit about Christianity. Don't confuse the actions of the Catholic Church with what the Bible says; they are fundamentally unrelated.

Christianity and Islam are both violent, warlike religions.

You've just made it clear that your argument holds no basis in knowledge. Conversation terminated.

Re:Profit!

[Grishnakh]

Don't confuse the actions of the Catholic Church with what the Bible says; they are fundamentally unrelated.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible (or at least, compiled it, deciding which books to include and not include). If you believe the Bible is "holy" (unless you're picking and choosing which parts to believe, which almost no Christians do), then you must also believe the Catholic Church (at least the one circa 300-400CE) is also "holy" and sacrosanct. It wasn't that long between when they compiled the Bible and when they started the Crusades.

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You don't get it. The purpose of Christianity is that people imitate Jesus (note that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a physical historical person called Jesus, nor does it matter whether he's the son of God or not. What matters is that people act like the new testament describes).

The purpose of islam is that people act like the paedophile prophet did. This is perhaps not so well known, but every muslim will agree. (note, once again, that it doesn't matter whether or not there is a physical historical person in this prophet or that he was made up by the "caliphs" (which seems infinitely more likely), nor does it matter whether he's a messenger of "allah" or not. What matters is that people act like the quran and hadith describe he acted).

Are we agreed on this ? It is so very trivial that it baffles me to even have to mention it.

Now combine this with the fact that Jesus preferred giving his own life to causing a fight. There probably was a real Jesus Christ, and he probably was at the very least capable of causing a serious civil war. And he did indeed choose not to.

The paedophile islamic prophet caused at least 13 wars (and really 14, except that in that ONE case he did not initiate hostilities), raped a 9 year old girl "within an arranged marriage", kidnapped people into slavery and had his soldiers rape kidnapped women and exterminate men, children and old people. He even left some to die in the sun, killing anyone who tried to feed them.

Can you at the very least admit that either you "see the problem" or tell me what exactly is wrong here ?

I'm not suicidal, I don't want wars. I WANT you to point out the problem here. But I'm not a fool. Unless these premices are changed, war is inevitable. I do not claim that every muslim is a homocidal killer like their prophet was. However what they ARE doing is teaching their children to imitate a genocidal thieving rapist. And to be blunt : that's gotta stop.

Re:Profit!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

And for Judaism you have a point (read the mitzvot). For Christianity, not so much. Look at your reply. How do they compare to the direct order for capture and rape that the quran gives muslims ?

Also your site, which is quite thorough, finds 10 times mention of rape (even though points 3-10 really don't mention rape, merely wars and killings) in historical stories, they're accounts of history, not orders. The quran orders genocide at least 10 times directly to current muslims (read the first chapter (that would be chapter number 2), and you'll see), the hadith contain 140 direct orders for genocide + rape, and that's not even half of the sources muslims use.

The quran is a book filled to the brim with death and violence. Not violence in the past, or stories about violent people, but direct orders to commit violence.

Re:Profit!

[EvilIntelligence]

I think that what is wrong is that you still adamantly stick to your bible as "truth", and refuse to believe that anything it it could be wrong. Ask yourself this question: What did Jesus look like? He was born in the middle east, of middle eastern parents. Why is it that when you see pictures of him, he looks European? Probably because the church changed his image to be more appealing to Europeans. Jesus is supposed to be "the" central figure of Christianity. If the church was bold enough to change their savior's appearance, what would stop them from changing anything else in the bible? The purpose of Christianity is not to follow Jesus, but to assimilate your mind. You are owned by them and you don't even realize it. You preach peace but instill hate and intolerance. You fear hell, but damn others to it. To me, your rant is meaningless, but to you it is your diatribe of "truth". And with that, I sign off....

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You should go into politics ! Despite the fact that I for example refer to Jesus Christ as a fictional figure you accuse me of biblical literalism. You change the words, meaning the same thing, "assimilate your mind", if by that you mean that it's purpose is to change your thinking, then obviously yes. However that is what every ideology does (including yours). Every last human on earth has an ideology and is "assimilated" according to your terms by some ideology. Whether this is christianity, buddhism, islam, egoism or communism, but everyone is "assimilated".

I don't fear hell at all, nor do I damn anyone. As I said you should go into politics. So many words, so twisted and so meaningless. You could write speeches for Putin about how he `innocently` invaded some or other country. Truly you've missed your calling.

After all, Putin saved the inhabitants from `assimilation` into their national ideology, right ?

Re:Profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the support

I'm not supporting you, you cretin.

however there is a problem (other than the graphics not being very correct).

The "graphics" are completely correct. You and that "BAN RELGION CAUSE I REFUSE TO THINK!" idiot are in every single way completely identical. You're both just too stupid and too dishonest with yourselves to recognize it.

Practicing islam actually does include raping minors (which is legal in all islamic countries), religious genocide and murdering criticism away.

I know people who practice Islam. They do none of these things. Prove that they do, or else you're a liar.

You correctly point out that these "tolerant" guys both aren't tolerant at all, *and* think totalitarian. You leave out that they like the muslims because they commit violence on their part. They want to make threats and 9/11 was, to them, a beautiful demonstration of what happens "if you don't listen to them". They are no better than the muslims. They co-opt 9/11 and say their political attention-getters, whether poverty or global warming, are the "root cause".

That is a strawman argument, and all strawman arguments are lies.

Everybody knows the reality however, including them : a few guys in saudi arabia were fed the hate of islam for years and years and years. They got money and were given the opportunity to throw themselves into their hate, and they comitted 9/11. There are tens of thousands more who'd love nothing more than to do the same.

There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS more who would never even consider it. And you know it.

So what is your opinion on the matter of religious freedom ? You can believe what you want, but you're not allowed to practice any of it ?

Where "any of it" means actions that violate the rights of other people, yes. Being a Muslim (or Christian or whatever) does not necessitate taking any such actions.

And to be honest :

You haven't yet.

Do you think any religion would accept those conditions when it doesn't have to ? I mean that position is pushing it, even for Christianity, for islam it's beyond merely unacceptable.

Lie. The several million Muslims in America who DO NOT kill and rape prove that to be a lie merely by existing. Just as Jews and Christians get along fine here without stoning adulterers to death, American Muslims get on with their worship without doing any of the evil shit in the Koran. Any who do are exceptions, not the rule.

They will commit massacres on school children to end that situation.

The "they" you're talking about here is a tiny subset of Muslims as a whole. Hasty generalizations like yours are for the lazy.

I am quite sure that freedom will disappear.

It hasn't shown any signs of doing so yet.

That freedom is dependant on a massive overwhelming Christian presence in the population

Lie. Christians do not have a monopoly on respect for religious freedom.

a situation the US and every other country is destroying as fast as they possibly can

Please. You are not being victimized, and the US does not have it in for you or your religion. And no, removing the Ten Commandments from a courthouse doesn't mean they do. And yes, that IS what you were about to cite as "proof" of your "persecution", as you wannabe martyrs ALWAYS do that.

The result will be a new dark age, and will return us to the situation where the Church is the only real power in the world in less than 50 years.

No support? No surprise.

Dangerous videos

[4D6963]

There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

Re:Dangerous videos

[PunkOfLinux]

I smell totalitarianism... or are those cinnamon buns? Either way, I'm on it, chief! :D

Re:Dangerous videos

[Capsaicin]

There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

If ideas and speech really are this impotent, then is freedom of speech or conscience such a big deal? Tell you what the next time someone brings up some egregious example of censorship, I won't get upset anymore, I'll just relax, take a leaf out of your book and tell myself, "Oh well, it doesn't really matter, after all ideas can't do much can they?"

Re:Dangerous videos

[4D6963]

The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas. Ideas within this context are anti-dangers, i.e. they help destroy dangers. Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.

Which is why in most of the western world there is little censorship, because dangerous (evil) people aren't in charge of us (that's a generalisation) and thus why every idea is freely available to us, without anything bad happening as a result, i.e. our freedom of access to all the so called dangerous ideas/ideologies ever produced have little negative impact on our civilisations. Which proves my point. No idea is to be feared, the only danger is that ideas would be deemed dangerous.

Re:Dangerous videos

[Anonymous Coward]

They removed my video where I burned a qur'an, I had that up there for a fucking year and now my account is suspended.
Fucking muslims!

Those fucking morons need to learn to take their criticism just like everyone else, should we ban sites that have online qu'rans after that book quite descriptivly vilify and pesecute Jews, Christians and atheists? I think that should be consistant.

Then again, YouTube do have a habbit of violating the 1st ammendment.

Re:Dangerous videos

[X0563511]

Off topic, but your sig is truncated and so makes little sense:

Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a r [mewshi.com]

Re:Dangerous videos

[skeeto]

I guess it goes along with that saying: The only way a book can be dangerous is by throwing it.

Re:Dangerous videos

[Capsaicin]

The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas.

If ideas pose no danger to them, why would they want to do that.

Ideas within this context are anti-dangers

Dangers are dangerous to particular subjects. What is dangerous to liberal democracy (eg. the control of the state by the church) might not be dangerous to a theocracy and vv. The only sense I can make of your "anti-dangers" is that they are dangers to things you happen not to agree with.

Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.

Which particular absolute morality are we assuming, the koranic one? Sorry, assumption declined. If you do this you end up with ridiculous constructs such as anti-dangers.

Ideas can be dangerous and the same idea can be dangerous to different people at different times. Take the idea of Nationalism was originally a liberation ideology. It propsed that rather than the marriage arrangements of various aristocrats determining which political unit an individual belonged to, we should instead look to the nation, as defined by a shared culture and/or language. This idea, together with the idea that people should be able to choose the people who governed them proved to be very dangerous to the crowned heads of Europe, just ask Louis. Later nationalism revealed itself as a chauvanistic ideology, dangerous to people who lived near borders, to ethnic minorities and, when expressed as war, to just about everyone.

You speak of dangerous people as if independent of dangerous ideas, but take the dangerous ideas out of the heads of these dangerous people and what are you left with?

Um...

[Skreems]

Shouldn't that be "prophet", rather than "profit"?

Re:Um...

[QuantumG]

Well, to be fair, Kuwait is more about the profits than the prophet.

Re:Um...

[Valdrax]

Well, to be fair, Kuwait is more about the profits than the prophet.

Thank God we fought so hard to keep like minded people from under the yoke of tyranny!
USA! USA! USA!

Re:Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sorry :)

Killer mistake

Islamic Censorship strikes again

[Zombie Ryushu]

Somehow I'm not shocked by this.

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again

[mr100percent]

It's not islamic. Kuwait is a dictatorship. Other more Islamic countries haven't blocked youtube.

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again

[DrSkwid]

Someone should invade them and introduce democracy. Oh yeah I remember, we already kicked out one invader in return for Kuwait becoming democratic, how that working out? hmm not too well I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjUG99tu24

Play "spot the woman"

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again

[Hyppy]

If I remember correctly, all of Kuwait's Internet access is filtered through WebSense, of all things. All it takes is an entry for "http://*youtube.com/*"

At least they won't poison the BGP tables like Pakistan did.

Re:Islamic Censorship strikes again

[NotBornYesterday]

Spreading democracy? No. We (and everyone else who joined us in Gulf I) kicked out one invader to put the pre-invasion government back in power. We were defending an ally (a very strategic one), NOT nation-building.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is slashdot, but is it *that* hard to read the submissions before accepting them?

"offensive videos to Quran" means nothing, and "profit" vs "prophet"? If the submitter doesn't speak english as their primary language I don't mean this is their fault - our "editors" are supposed to step in.

Re:Seriously?

[jacquesm]

editors... the one thing that /. doesn't have...

hmm

[Digitus1337]

Funny thing is, those videos they refer to have been removed and I can't reach them anymore

Do you by any chance live in Kuwait?

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this is a troll, but here it goes. He wouldn't be able to tell if they were taken down (just if youtube itself was down).

Re:hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I tried to change my location to worldwide and it still doesn't show.Do you guys outside see them?

Why were they removed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Were the videos violent or overtly sexual? Were they hate speech? Or, as is more likely, did they merely refer to His Holiness with less reverence than required?

It seems that every time Islam shows up in the news it's because some group is completely flipping out about something inconsequential. (Of course, this may simply be due to media bias.)

Re:Why were they removed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some times I purposefully write HBUH(Hell Be Unto Him) instead of PBUH(Peace Be Unto Him) after Muhammad(HBUH) in order to find the extremists in internet conversations.

Quran and profit?

[willyhill]

I hope that's not anything like Abercrombie and Fitch...

This just in

[Kagura]

Youtube blocks Kuwait. Kuwait cries.

Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[megamerican]

Joe Lieberman and his staff have been actively censoring youtube under the guise of Senate Bill 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 since May. The bill hasn't passed the Senate yet, but it hasn't stopped Lieberman from pressuring google to delete any video and accounts he wants.

This video describes what is going on pretty well.

This veteran gives Lieberman a piece of his mind on the issue.

MIT has been trying to track down what videos are being taken down and why.
http://youtomb.mit.edu/

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Ethanol-fueled]

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and Democrats are the party of freedom!

Oh, wait...

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Zombie Ryushu]

I never said Christians and other religions didn't censor stuff too. Trust me, all religions are going to censor stuff they don't like.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[baldass_newbie]

I never said Christians and other religions didn't censor stuff too. Trust me, all religions are going to censor stuff they don't like.
Joe Liebermann is Jewish.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Geoffrey.landis]

But Joe Lieberman is a Democrat

This is sarcasm, right? You do know Lieberman isn't a Democrat, right? It's hard to tell.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Ethanol-fueled]

Whooosh.

Respectfully yours,
- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[dunnius]

Almost everyone does censorship in order to look better. Unfortunately, there are some fools who apply for college and work that can't seem to figure out that it is a good idea to keep the bad stuff off of their social networking sites.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[ZosX]

Its not just Liberman. Fox and all the other media outlets have all been purging clips from youtube. Go through the last year of videos on digg from the top down and nearly half of them have been purged. I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[tuxgeek]

I don't think anyone knows what exactly Joe Loserman really is.

He's not a democrat. He says he's independent, but always votes along with the republicans.

This can mean only one thing. He's a Turducken!

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

Somebody spends too much time typing 'svn' at the command line. :)

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox and all the other media outlets have all been purging clips from youtube. Go through the last year of videos on digg from the top down and nearly half of them have been purged. I feel like there are some fairly powerful anti-subversion forces at work.

Funny how a lot of the video takedowns are selective.

NBC jumped right on their most recent Palin sketch where the reporter was asking about incest in the family. Video is no longer available due to copyright reasons.

Whereas the first Palin sketch "I can see Russia from my house" is still available as are a multitude of other SNL clips.

Funny how they're really concerned about copyright when they start taking flak.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[h4rm0ny]

Social networking sites are not an ancillary thing to some, but increasingly a part of people's social lives, by which they share experiences with their friends, keep up to date, arrange events and make new friends.Why should work suppress someones social life outside of working hours, or even before they even apply for the job as you say?

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[plasmacutter]

fascist?

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Geoffrey.landis]

www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/02/70179

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[dunnius]

No, I said the people applying should censor the bad stuff of off their pages since colleges and work are using those pages to decide admittance. I don't agree with that practice, but that is the way it is for now.

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[X0563511]

So... why on earth would you post about it on the very medium subject to censorship? I mean, it's not like it won't get taken down in short order...

Re:Joe Lieberman isn't Muslim!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if the bill hasn't been passed. Youtube can change its terms of service whenever it wants. If it feels people are posting videos that are not in line with its guidelines it has a right to remove them, just like you can remove comments from your blog if you choose.

Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, or bomb making. Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone being physically hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.

- youtube guidelines

If people want to post their own videos on the web they can create their own domain and post them there.

Kuwait Discovers Pat Condell?

[blackholeoverlords]

I wonder if they ran across Pat Condell's channel and couldn't deal with it? Too many free thinkers on YouTube, there's a lot of censorship going on, I wonder how long until the corporations in saner places throw a virtual blanket over free speech lest a nipple sized ray of intelligence shine through?

Re:Kuwait Discovers Pat Condell?

[Zombie Ryushu]

I'm a fan of both Pat Condell and Thunderf00t.

Re:Kuwait Discovers Pat Condell?

[thedrx]

I came in here to post that. Well, at least nobody is trying to assassinate the guy.

Muhammad with a big nose

[Anonymous Coward]

O>
T
A

off-topic... YouTomb

[Animaether]

(nokarmabonus due to off-topicishness)

If that list is even reasonably accurate, then there's a few in there where "terms of service violation" seems questionable given the video titles - but not being able to see the video, who knows, maybe there was porn in the middle.
Then there's the jagex/runescape takedowns that are certainly.. odd. Perhaps it's against -their- ToS to hack and thus they believe posting information about it is a no-no? whatever..
But by far the most takedowns seem to have reasonable cause. WWE SomethingOrOther Night Parts 1 through 16? Yeah, I'm sure -that's- fair use.

I'm honestly surprised to find that by far the removals on that YouTomb list are either likely to be completely valid, or removed 'by the user' (why are those even listed? hrm.)

Doesn't take away the questionable ones, though. Wish there was a little more information than what they've got.. perhaps by automatically sending the video-poster an e-mail asking for clarification.. along with a DMCA counter-notice form if applicable?

Re:off-topic... YouTomb

[meringuoid]

But by far the most takedowns seem to have reasonable cause. WWE SomethingOrOther Night Parts 1 through 16? Yeah, I'm sure -that's- fair use.

See, there it is though. You consider it reasonable to censor a YouTube posting because you believe information can be owned. In Kuwait they consider it reasonable to censor a YouTube posting because they believe the Prophet should not be criticised. Both to me seem rather artificial. But I suppose Americans believe it worth restricting free speech in that way in order to encourage a profitable media industry, and Kuwaitis believe it worth restricting free speech in that way to avoid infuriating God.

Re:off-topic... YouTomb

[CaptPungent]

Holy shit. This here is probably the most insightful post I've ever heard on /.

I'm enlightened now.

Re:off-topic... YouTomb

[smithmc]

But I suppose Americans believe it worth restricting free speech in that way in order to encourage a profitable media industry, and Kuwaitis believe it worth restricting free speech in that way to avoid infuriating God.

One small difference, of course - the media industry (the companies that comprise it, and the people who run and work for those companies) has real, provable existence. You'll forgive me for not placing too much stock in laws that exist to prevent an imaginary fairytale from becoming "infuriated".

Lieberman is Independent now, endorses McCain.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he's an Independent because they denied him the Democratic endorsement, though they didn't kick him out of the caucus.

Then again, Lieberman has endorsed John McCain and the Democrats like to call him "Traitor Joe" these days, so take your pick.

AlhamduliLlah

[mapkinase]

Positive decision.

Re:AlhamduliLlah

[Anonymous Coward]

Le amelt kidda ya welaat?

Good luck...

[isBandGeek()]

... blocking all the proxies and other video sites. Do they realize videos can be cross-posted to different sites, not just YouTube?

Re:If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91

[Jerry Smith]

They would be speaking Iraqi today...

With "we" I assume you're a US-inhabitant?

Just making sure you're not speaking for all Slashdotians.

No such thing

[DesScorp]

There's no such thing as dangerous ideas, only dangerous people.

The descendants of six million dead Jews disagree with you. The descendants of 20-60 million dead Russians and East Europeans disagree with you. So do millions of people in China, Cambodia, and Rwanda.

Some ideas stink to the core, and always end with death. Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?

Re:No such thing

[4D6963]

So it was the Nazi ideology that killed people, and not its creators? Let it be my new motto, "People don't kill people, ideas kill people".

Re:No such thing

[solafide]

Your logic reaches the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons. "Guns don't kill people: evil dictators kill people" - or in your case, ideas don't kill people, evil dictators kill people. Most ideas where one person is believed to be permanently more important result in evil dictators, and death results.

Re:No such thing

[4D6963]

Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.

Re:No such thing

[DrSkwid]

Most "evil" dictators kill nobody by their own hand.

Re:No such thing

[Capsaicin]

Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why people and not ideas are dangerous.

Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all. Really the examples of dictatorial regimes that survive the death of their founder is so great as to make your statments ridiculous.

Goodness wasn't the GreatMan view of history abandoned sometime in the C19th? Must ususally an historical opportunity presents itself and someone (and it could have been any number of someones) fills the place. I will conceed that in the case of Hitler we are perhaps dealing with a leader sui generis since, unlike Mussolini for instance, he did not remain a simple puppet to the interests that allowed him power. Mussolini, however, is far more typical. Facially a "great leader," in reality a captive spokesperson.

NS Germany was never going to end any otherway simply due to the bellicose nature of the regime. Had it not been so warlike, the regime would have eventually ended in economic disaster. Not because it was a state-owned economy, it wasn't, but because the regime had undermined the intellectual infrastructure of the country. You cannot continue to place party hacks into all the educational, administrative and judicial positions based merely on ideological adherence without regard to ability and hope to survive long term.

Re:No such thing

[4D6963]

Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all

No, you're missing the point. When the regime is in place, it's too late, you can take off the originator. Once your disciples are in power it's too late, but before that happens, before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.

The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917. A revolution was bound to happen due to the conditions and the regime in the country (I like to blame it all on Nikolai II's insensitivity, stubbornness and insufficient leadership skills), but without Lenin who's to say how different the outcome would have been? That sort of change takes opportunities, and someone to exploit those opportunities and lead their way to their goal, which depends on what they want, not on their ideals. Ideas don't lead people, leaders do, and ideas are just tools they use to get a following. But communism isn't inherently dangerous, nazism isn't inherently dangerous, people are.

You look at the whole problem too far downhill, when the powers are in already place and executing their plan. You have to look at what happens uphill, when movements are bodies that couldn't survive a decapitation.

The whole point is, it's not the carrot that makes the mule go forth, it's the man who holds the carrot.

Re:No such thing

[Spatial]

Sounds like dangerous people to me, man. Credulousness and stupidity are the most dangerous things of all.

Re:No such thing

[Nutria]

Sounds like dangerous people to me, man.

What ever happened to "the pen is mightier than the sword", and "an idea who's time has come is unstoppable"?

Re:No such thing

[Threni]

> Also : "Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?" Was National Socialism ever going anywhere without Hitler? If Hitler had died anywhere in his early years, despite the
> ideology being out there and all, nothing would have happened. It's not like an idea was out the box that made people want to kill other people. It always takes a leader, a great man, hence why
> people and not ideas are dangerous.

Dunno about `national socialism` but there was an engrained hatred of Jews in Germany, and if it hadn't been Hitler who used them to promote his ideas and turn them into actions then it could have been someone else. Stephen Fry's (fictional) book "Making History" is more or less about this and is well worth reading.

Re:No such thing

[Spatial]

Well I say the fool is mightier than the pen.

What I'm saying is, ignorant and credulous people are prerequisites for the worst ideas to take hold, and that they're the root of the problem, not the ideas themselves. An idea without someone willing to act upon it is nothing but a curiousity, like the whole Nazi thing is now.

Re:No such thing

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually yes, the ideology is certainly not innocent. And those people, the nazi's, are not innocent, first in accepting those principles as an ideology, and later a small part of them in killing to preserve them.

Nazism was a "moderate" socialist/communist ideology (certainly more moderate than Stalin's, though probably not what one would call a "moderately socialist" opinion in an American) which led to Germany not being able to care for it's own people.

Which led to the demand for "lebensraum", ie more land. Also this led to the demand to "tax the rich", and prevent the rich from taking over again, as their power remained. As a populist measure Hitler scratched "rich" from karl marx' script and filled in "rich jewish arms merchants", and continued on. Of course this did not change anything.

So pretty soon (took about 10-15 years) there wasn't much left to steal in Germany, so the ideology of stealing continued on : it attacked it's neighbour states and started stealing from them (talk to any survivor, you'll see how much emphasis the "reich" put on stealing art, money and treasure, and how regulated this stealing was, just like islam regulates stealing (goods stolen from infidels are considered legally acquired and taxed 20% in sharia)).

So they attacked. Obviously many, many prisoners were the result, they weren't like the muslims, who historically started conquests with a massacre, they respected the white flag and took survivers prisoner and cared for them if possible, at least initially. But it went still worse with Germany economically, since they were still following communist/socialist dogma, and still failing even further. So they had a HUGE war prisoners population they couldn't take care off ... conditions worsened. First gradually, but more and more. Eventually they stopped putting brakes on military vehicles, including prisoner transports.

They also had a national healthcare plan, that became utterly unpayable. So rather than admitting defeat, they killed cripples and anyone "not productive" that was a strain on their healthcare resources. Medicines weren't yet as expensive, so most money went to patients needing full-time or part-time help and tools, like cripples or blind people. They did this, again, not because they planned it or out of spite or hate against their victims, they did it to be able to keep saying their national healthcare worked. They killed for the same reason muslims kill : because it's the only way to preserve their ideology. Without constant honor killings, islam would quickly be overwhelmed by human nature itself. The concentration camps, some of them, were actually part of the German national healthcare system, and were meant initially as a cost cutting measure, increasing the number of cripples per nurse/docter by cutting travel.

Initially the racist nature of nazism only demanded that these patients/prisoners/jews/dissidents not have children.

However pretty soon it became, due to the further deterioration of Germany, and due to the pressure caused by the counterattack by Britain and the USSR, impossible to man the "camps", both prisoner camps and "healthcare" camps, with sufficient guards to prevent massive outbreaks or military medical personnel that could be used at the frontline. But those people couldn't be released, and left to care for themselves, that would mean nazism and therefore their brand of socialist/communist law had failed.

And then someone came up with the "final solution" ...

Nazi's didn't kill because they liked it. They did it because they liked it more than the alternative (giving up power, risking revolution, admitting defeat). They did it because otherwise people wouldn't listen to the "obvious concerns for the planet" they had : population had to go down, and the "best bred people, the best genes" had to survive. Eugenics. The fit (=nazi's to a nazi) would no longer rule, but idiots, and the rich would rule again.

I mean sure, you're right. Individuals choose

Re:No such thing

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Indeed, it's their ideology that's danguerous, because it induces others to kill, not the person himself/herself. Alone they're mere little crybabies, trying to weasel out of everything. It's not the ideology that makes them evil, but it's the ideology that empowers them to induce others to do their evil for them on a huge scale.

Of course some ideologies are much more potent enablers of evil than others. Democracy, for instance, isn't very useable for a dictator. Stuff like communism or islam on the other hand ... (unless you enjoy genocide you're not going to like the history of either communism or islam very much).

Does that make these ideologies evil in themselves ? Yes.

Does it absolve people who accept those ideologies from responsability ? Of course not. In fact it makes them at least partially guilty from the moment they accept that ideology.

Re:No such thing

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !

Re:No such thing

[4D6963]

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.

By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !

Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.

Re:No such thing

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Just to make your thoughts more clear :

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.

Aren't Obama and McCain leaders ? Okay maybe Obama is a puppet, so perhaps it'd be better to kill Joe Biden on the democrat side, but other than the names of the current "leaders", the principle is correct ?

By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !

Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.

So we should not only shoot Obama and McCain, but both Clintons, both Bushes, Joe Lieberman, and all ex-presidential candidates ?

I think by 44th iteration of leaders you're saying we should kill them, and all their predecessors in the 44 previous campaigns ?

Re:No such thing

[Pig Hogger]

Was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did?

It could have ended up like Stalin, who died in his bed, dubbed "the little father of peoples", and "benefactor of humanity", despite the 16 million people he killed in his concentration camps, which makes the nazis look like amateurs, especially that the nazis were more systematically organized to exterminate people they didn't like (not just jews, by the way).

Re:No such thing

[StarWreck]

let me correct you "Ideas don't kill people, DRM makes me kill people"

Re:No such thing

[Beezlebub33]

So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.

No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.

Baloney.

'Shoot the dictator and prevent the war? But the dictator is merely the tip of the whole festering boil of social pus from which dictators emerge; shoot one, and there'll be another one along in a minute. Shoot him too? Why not shoot everyone and invade Poland? In fifty years', thirty years', ten years' time, the world will be very nearly back on it's old course. History always has a great weight of inertia.'

- Terry Pratchett, 'Lords and Ladies'

You have to get to the reason for the communism / fascism / fanaticism or someone else will pop up.

Re:No such thing

[DrSkwid]

The democratic British Empire managed to kill about 50 million people in under 100 years.

Re:No such thing

[Mr. Slippery]

Nazism was a "moderate" socialist/communist ideology

The Nazis were fanatically anti-communist. The "socialist" in their name made them socialist in the same way that the "republic" in "People's Republic of China" makes them (small-r) republican - i.e., not at all.

Henry Ford and Adolph Hitler were great admirers of each other for good reason.

Interesting how the American conservative movement - a "moderate" fascist ideology - has managed to create so much ignorance and confusion about socialism and communism in the U.S. that rational discussion of it is nearly impossible.

Re:No such thing

[stonecypher]

The descendants of six million dead Jews disagree with you. The descendants of 20-60 million dead Russians and East Europeans disagree with you.

There are hundreds of millions of Christians who disagree with us about natural selection, too. What's your point?

Incidentally, neither the pogroms nor the holocaust would have happened without people. There are no dangerous ideas.

Re:No such thing

[4D6963]

lol, I'm so not reading all of that..

Re:No such thing

[Capsaicin]

Let me start by stressing that in illustrating to you the fallacy of the GreatMan view of History (which enjoyed some historiographical credibility in the wake of Napoleon, but went out of serious History with gas lights), I do not mean to argue for an idealist notion of historical motion. Instead I think of History in terms of the reciprocal relationship between complex material conditions and ideology. Nor am I trying to write human actors out of History, that would be a position even more ridiculous than the view I'm refuting. It is people who are subject to material conditions, people who create and are swayed by ideas, and people who ultimately make history

No, you're missing the point.

Yup, I did. When you wrote"[i]f Hitler had died anywhere in his early years" this could have been taken a) literally (eg. at age 3), b) in the early years after his takeover of the NSDAP, c) in his early years in power. In the context of the question, was National Socialism ever going to end any other way than it did, I took c) to be the most natural reading. You meant a) or b). Sorry.

While I've already conceded that Hitler is a good, if isolated, example of an individual will as the motive force of History (the GreatMan view), the problem of giving undue attention his personal psychology (and indeed his personal culpability) is that you miss the material conditions (inter alia the German economy and political system), which gave him the opportunity to prosper. It also fails to explain why governments of similar complexion (which for convenience we call 'fascist') rose to power across a swathe of Europe from Spain to Hungary at this time, and at no other.

... before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.

You are not seriously suggesting that if Emily Pankhurst had died at the turn of the C20th women would still not have the vote?!

Forget for a moment the aberrations of communism and fascism and consider that great historical change which practically defines modernity, the emergence of the liberal-democratic state, indeed of the idea of the liberal-democratic state (ie. electoral representative democracy with a market based economy). Do you really want to write the Montesquies and Tom Paines out of History? Who was the leader responsible? Washington? Danton? Robespierre? The numerous liberal lawyers who headed the 1848 revolutions? No! This was an idea whose time had come, and try as the old powers might, the assassination of individual leaders, was not going to halt it. It could be stalled, as Metternich so cusccessfully did, but ultimately the idea would survive him and his ilk, and come to fruition.

The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917....

The "originators" of which were dead, but do go on.

... A revolution was bound to happen due to the conditions and the regime in the country ...

Be very careful here, you are verging on writing something sensible ;)

... I like to blame it all on Nikolai II's insensitivity, stubbornness and insufficient leadership skills ...

LOL Of course you do! Admit it, you saw the danger of what you were writing and inserted that to avoid contradicting yourself. Cute. You don't really believe that if any other Romanov had been Czar the outcome would have been different, do you?

... but without Lenin who's to say how different the outcome would have been?

Indeed, who is? Would the Soviet Union have been significantly different with Bukharin as leader? Who's to say? What we can say is that it was Lenin's idea, that Marx was wrong, and that rather than Communism emerging in the world's most advanced economies (Marx had favoured the USA and the UK as being able to ach

Re:No such thing

[4D6963]

God, learn to fucking read.

Ministry of Communications????

[BinBoy]

> Kuwait Ministry of Communications have issued orders to all ISPs to block YouTube

Anyone disobeying this order will be imprisoned by the Ministry of Freedom.

That what you get in a theocracy

[ErrorBase]

Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Segan and many others have been trying to tell everybody. Keep this in mind when going to the poll next November.

Re:That what you get in a theocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Kuwait is not a theocracy, it is a dictatorship ruled by a hereditary monarch. If the head clergy of Kuwait denounces the monarch and calls him an apostate, it is the head clergy who will find himself in jail. Same thing in Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, Iran is a theocracy. If the head clergy of Iran denonces Ahmadinejad and calls him an apostate, it is Ahmadinejad who will be thrown in jail.

You need to learn more about the many variants of Islam-o-nuts.

Re:That what you get in a theocracy

[nickos]

Palin's already tried to ban books from the library in the small town where she was mayor. Imagine what she might get up to if she became president...

Re:That what you get in a theocracy

[Mesa MIke]

But Barack Obama's a Muslim, and he'll probably want to impose Sharia on all of us.

Re:That what you get in a theocracy

[ErrorBase]

You are absolutely right. I'll try to get more informed before I shoot from the hip next time :)

Re:That what you get in a theocracy

[ErrorBase]

That was exactly what scared me to bits. They are currently claiming that it was some kind of test, but I find that a bit hard to swallow. The chances that she will become president (if, if ,if) are scaringly high.

Re:That what you get in a theocracy

[ErrorBase]

and for people who actually believe this, it would be a good thing, assuming they are recognized as non believers.. Qu'ran 009.005, 009.030, 009.034. Hoping the bigots also remember 009.006. - the reason it is claimed to be a faith of peace :)

America loves them!

[WiiVault]

It's pretty sad that we will do anything for oil while claiming service, yet we will snuggle in and suck teet of these bastards. If we want be isolationist fine, if we want to be the world's police fine, but make up your fucking mind politicos!!

Re:America loves them!

[pm_rat_poison]

I agree. It seems the US did a really peachy job about liberating the innocent free and democratic Kuwait government from "dem eeeevil Iraqis" back in the first Gulf war. The sad thing is that while the rest of the world doesn't buy the "We liberate nations" propaganda, there is a large number of Americans who do.

Read up on history moron

[SmallFurryCreature]

It was an international force in that war, troops from all over the world took part.

Re:Read up on history moron

[Anonymous Coward]

yes ... like international troops are in iraq and afghanistan ...

Re:Read up on history moron

[religious freak]

No... like an honest to God international force. Yeah, the US made up most of the force, but certainly a lower percentage than we do in Iraq today.

Remember, that was the end of the cold war - even the Europeans were itchy to drop those unused cold war bombs.

Sucks

[isorox]

Muhammad sucks, Christ Sucks, Richard Dawkins Sucks, Flying Spaghetti Monster sucks

Anyone else?

Re:Sucks

[renegadesx]

Man that's COLD!!
Please leave His holyness the Flying Spaghetti Moster out of this!!!!!

Re:Sucks

[McGiraf]

isorox sucks?

Re:Sucks

[Pig Hogger]

Muhammad sucks, Christ Sucks, Richard Dawkins Sucks, Flying Spaghetti Monster sucks

Anyone else?

Raël???

Re:Sucks

[Cro Magnon]

Blasphomy! May you be buried in week-old meatballs for your words against the FSM!

Re:Sucks

[VoltCurve]

Yankees suck. Krypton sucks.

Re:Sucks

[mangu]

Muhammad sucks, Christ Sucks, Richard Dawkins Sucks, Flying Spaghetti Monster sucks
Anyone else?

Monica Lewinsky?

Re:If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91

[Anonymous Coward]

Kuwait and Iraq both speak Arabic.

this is

[jipn4]

This is why the US liberated them! We wanted them to be free!

no way!

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean Bush repealed the twenty-second amendment and is going to be on the ballot again?

Re:no way!

[ErrorBase]

It certainly looks a bit like reincarnation to me :) This time a woman though, I expected something smaller.

what ignorance you demonstrate

[Shivetya]

there is no threat of a theocracy in the US from the current candidates. Considering the church that the one candidate went to I would think the biggest threat would be on the left this year. Go figure, it is also the group desperately trying to prove their religious enough for the moderates. The only times I hear about the candidates on the right's religious views is when people mock them on message boards on from the press.

Re:what ignorance you demonstrate

[Anonymous Coward]

From the perspective of a non-American, the US is already a theocracy. The US is not the most oppressive theocracy in the world... but the fact that it is impossible (in practice) for a non-Christian to attain a position in high-levels of government makes it something of a theocracy. (There are other things, like having "In God We Trust" on the currency, or the 10 commandments on courthouses, that are also indicators. One could explain them as mere cultural traditions... were it not for the fact that the populace seems to resist their change/removal on purely religious grounds.)

I guess I may offend some Americans with this comment (that is not my intention, I assure you)... And admittedly I'm not an American, so I could be wrong (but I have lived in the States). However, from an external perspective, the US seems to be rather more theocratic in practice than it claims to be on paper.

Re:what ignorance you demonstrate

[ErrorBase]

And Christoper was equally clear as you about that. That is why he has become American I think. The trouble you (I'm not American) currently have it that there is erosion from all sides. It is true that you hear about their views from others, but i also have seen some interesting video's where they say it themselves. And that they are Âdesperately trying to look religious is because there is no other way to get elected currently.

Re:what ignorance you demonstrate

[ErrorBase]

You see it from the same perspective as I see it. we probably look at the same Âbiased Press. As I responded above; There is a good law preventing a real theocracy. Now we have to wait for Americans to recognize why this is again, and live up to it.

Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sound

[Anonymous Coward]

on Earth. The only thing worse than living in a hot, dusty hellhole would be living in said hellhole and being awakened every morning by those evil chants to come and worship a god who is so small that he must enlist his human minions to subjugate or kill all non-believers.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Sssshhhh this is slashdot. The position is that muslims, having killed millions upon millions of people in religious massacres, have recently come to the discovery that they really want to live peacefully from now on, ending a killing spree of over 1300 years.

All these muslims today, you see, are totally different from all their predecessors, and share nothing with them. Except a book commanding them to commit religious massacres, rape children (google "aisha age"), murder in order to stifle dissent (google "asma bint marwan"), and worse.

And the result will not be a dead hellhole where nothing survives. The result of not defending against these massacrers will be the final utopia, where everyone will live happily ever after.

Re:If we hadn't saved their butt back in 91

[NotBornYesterday]

There was a truly multinational force in Gulf I, unlike the token participation from a small number of countries in Gulf II. It should be noted that even Afghanistan sent 300 troops. IIRC, however, the country of Slashdot was not involved at all.

Yet another useless post

[hesaigo999ca]

We all know the middle east blocks everything, because they want to control what their people think. They wont allow msn chatting either because communicating to the outside world without paying for it is illegal, as in Syria...so whats new....let me hear about something important please...no more useless nilly willy.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou

[Anonymous Coward]

Sssshhhh this is slashdot. The position is that muslims, having killed millions upon millions of people in religious massacres, have recently come to the discovery that they really want to live peacefully from now on, ending a killing spree of over 1300 years.

Well you just need to replace muslims with christians and the phrase still makes sense. What is your point?.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Mind if I tell you something about the world ? It's going to sound trivial. It's going to sound insultingly simple.

That's because it IS insultingly simple :

Different ideologies are ... ... different.

So unfortunately you're wrong. If you replace those words, it doesn't make sense anymore. Not from a historical perspective.

It only makes a good soundbyte. The problem ?

Christians killed a few tens of thousand questionable characters for religion. Many of these were murderers and otherwise criminals. Yes there are innocents amongst them, I don't deny that. Most, however, were not innocent.

Muslims killed a BILLION people in spreading islam. They killed several hundred million of their own in the process too.

If you actually believed 10% of the things muslims claim about the Jews then you could also fill in Judaism in that sentence, and it wouldn't make sense either.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou

[EvilIntelligence]

Amen.

not very funny

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Funny thing is...

There's absolutely nothing funny about religious fundamentalism. Or logical.

Screw them.

[Pig Hogger]

Screw them.

They want to live in the middle-ages? Fine, it's their choice. They're the ones who are cutting themselves from the world. They're the ones who cling to their stupid religion. They're the ones who want to put their heads in the sand.

Let's all put "mohammed was a pedophile" on our websites and in our .sigs, and let them all blow themseleves up in the ensuing war against the rest of the world.

Darwin allways wins at the end.

You have no concept of history.

[Anonymous Coward]

While it is true that Christianity's history is stained with instances of people doing terrible things in the name of Jesus (though not nearly on the scale of Muslims slaughtering fellow Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of the Pedophile Mohammed), mainstream Christian doctrine no longer relies on the threat of physical force to advance their cause. Sure, they may complain loudly, but you'll never hear a prominent Christian leader call for anyone's assassination without that leader sustaining a verbal beating and being forced to apologize. Unfortunately, Islam has not matured idealogically beyond the Middle Ages, and threats and actual instances of murder against all who oppose the idea of Muslim superiority are fairly commonplace. There is no outrage within the Muslim community over such ideas as violence against women and ethnic/idealogical superiority.

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou

[Beezlebub33]

Boy, talk about over-generalization.

There isn't a unified position about muslims on Slashdot. You can post whatever you want, and people read it.

There isn't a unified position by muslims either. There isn't a single central governing person or body, a la Catholicism. So, you have lots of local leaders, a number of which are nuts. You can't legitimately lump all the followers of a religion with the nuts, especially if the majority of them don't agree with the nuts.

Which is why...

[ChePibe]

I won't vote for a ticket that uses Catholic Social Doctrine to justify its tax policies and who proclaims himself to be in "totally consistent" on this point. I'm not Catholic - I don't want a Catholic doctrine to be used to go after my checkbook.

Just say no to Biden/Obama and their theocratic tax scheme!

Sorry, was that not what you were expecting?

Re:Which is why...

[ErrorBase]

I do not understand how the writer of that piece comes from ÂCSDÂ to the Church tax and then back to the higher taxes for the top 1% earners in America. You might read http://www.issues2000.org/Background_Tax_Reform.htm or http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/obama_wealthy_taxes/index.htm but keep track of the changes, there can be changes, and the new president (whoever) is not yet there, normally stuff changes after inauguration :)

SICK OF THIS

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I am so sick of these religious freaks. You wonder why the west looks down on Islam? It's because we hear stories about non-secular governments doing things like this that totally violate our own morals and government standards. I am not saying most Muslims would agree that youtube needs to be blocked (they can just navigate around the content), but anyone that does is one of people standing in the way of our true freedoms to decide what we want for ourselves.

Pig Fucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Germany? Nazis and Death Camps never happened there?

No.

The German people willfully kept themselves ignorant of the atrocities because

a) they were afraid
b) they were winning

after having had their noses rubbed in what they had allowed to happen, they could not ignore it any more and now they weren't afraid and weren't winning.

So to stop the people being deluded by the trains running on time being because of the atrocious acts of those in power, they themselves have agreed to ensure that the ideas that led to those unhuman acts be made illegal and the denial that they ever happened (now that they have been cleared up, conveniently getting rid of the evidence and ensuring that the next lot of shitheads who want the same thing can avoid recognising their inhumanity) is likewise made illegal.

They will not forget.

update

[koutbo6]

ban lifted on youtube in kuwait
At least according to bloggers there

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/09/23/kuwait-youtube-ban-lifted/

Re:Muslim call to prayer is the most atrocious sou

[WNight]

I think you can pretty safely lump someone with the nuts if they believe in a space ghost. The only question is if they're the violent group-W type.