YouTube Blocked In Pakistan

kokoko1 submits this snippet from The Telegraph, which reports that Facebook isn't alone — now YouTube, too, is being censored in Pakistan. "The blocking of YouTube comes a day after a Pakistani court blocked Facebook amid a growing row over a competition on the social networking website to design cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad." Update: 05/20 18:58 GMT by T : According to an anonymous reader, Wikipedia and Flickr are out, too.
Update: 05/21 12:11 GMT by KD : And now add Twitter to the blocked list. This post claims that more than 1,000 sites are being blocked in Pakistan.

Comments

smells like dissent

[DeadJesusRodeo]

A handy excuse to cut off portals of dissent. Perhaps they’ll deny access to Twitter because of ascii depictions next. Isn’t suppression fun? I bet it’s even more fun with armed drones in your airspace. Wake me, when it all blows up because it will.

Re:smells like dissent

[Monkeedude1212]

If they managed to do an ascii depiction with the character limit, I'd be impressed.

Re:smells like dissent

[ls671]

Apparently Twitter supports Unicode, which opens a whole range of new possibilities ;-)

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/01/14/how-to-insert-graphics-in-twitter-messages/

Re:smells like dissent

[History's Coming To]

O-
Now if folk's wanted to be offensive they could claim otherwise. I'm not. It's Dave.

Re:smells like dissent

[Dishevel]

If they managed to do an ascii depiction with the character limit, I'd be impressed.

M u h a m m a d S U C K S 8=====D

Re:smells like dissent

[History's Coming To]

Balls. Didn't work. Please mod into oblivion. Worked on Twitter though: http://twitter.com/_The_Geoff_

Re:smells like dissent

[kdemetter]

great , now they will ban slashdot.

Re:smells like dissent

[Miseph]

And nothing of value was lost...

Time to go get 4chan added to the list. I've already cleared a space on my shelf for the "Great Hero of Pakistan" medal.

Re:smells like dissent

[g8oz]

You don't get it. No one on ./ really does. You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say".

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face, stopping only to pompously congratulate themselves on what champions of freedom they are. Don't get mad, you don't have to right to tell people what they can say. Well no, you don't but it certainly is offensive and contemptuous.

It's not an analogy. I'm saying this is what it *feels* like for the average Muslim. Note I say average Muslim, not extremist.
Educated Muslims will typically shrug these provocations off but they don't make up the majority. This taboo runs deep into the realm of regular working everyday people in the Islamic world. For another tortured analogy consider pissing on an altar in 1920's Sicily and see how popular you are.

Americans more than any other Westerners should realize the political potency of culture wars/traditional symbols and values.

This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of. They shot their wad in Iraq with their murderous overreaching and failed to convince the Muslim masses to rise up. But this can very easily breathe new life into Islamist movements that have been discrediting themselves in the eyes of regular folks.

I'm not asking you to care, I'm asking you to understand.

Re:smells like dissent

[Hal_Porter]

Infidel pig! May all your camels suffer from flatulence and halitosis!

Re:smells like dissent

[SanityInAnarchy]

You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say".

Are you telling me that's not what's happening?

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face...

What about this concept is so hard for you to get?

Yes, people have the right to do that in the free world. Freedom of speech is worthless unless it also means freedom to say things you disagree with.

Except, of course, they don't have the right to do it right in your face. Which this isn't. No one is forcing you to go to that particular Facebook page out of thousands -- but you are drawing far more attention to it than it deserves by blocking all of Facebook because of this one bit that's offensive.

In fact, someone did exactly that on Facebook, and the US hasn't blocked Facebook.

Don't get mad, you don't have to right to tell people what they can say.

Those are two separate issues.

First, it's entirely up to you whether or not you take offense. Take the "nigger" situation -- you could get angry, or you could feel sorry for the poor troll who has nothing better to do than harass you, or you could ignore them altogether.

Second, there's nothing wrong with taking offense, or telling people what you think they should say. Where it crosses the line is when you start actually preventing them from saying it at all (by censoring an entire network because of a few offensive posts), or when you respond to someone's mere expression with violence, or threats of violence.

I don't see why that is such a hard concept to get. Hate speech is legal, and the best way to deal with it is to counter with calm, rational discourse, or to ignore it altogether and thus deny its power. Death threats are not legal, nor should they be tolerated, and actions like censorship are in an entirely different category.

It's not an analogy. I'm saying this is what it *feels* like for the average Muslim. Note I say average Muslim, not extremist.

And here's how one Muslim chose to respond.

Moreover, I'm not sure whether it should feel that way at all, if you understand your own religion. Think about it: Why did Mohammed forbid depictions of himself? To prevent just what happens every time you follow his name with "Peace Be Upon Him" -- to prevent himself (or any other prophet) from being deified, from being worshiped over Allah. Merely drawing the prophet should be no more blasphemous to you than it would be to draw Jesus Christ, who, as I understand, is also held to be a prophet.

This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of.

No, they do that themselves. Mere expression cannot make you hate unless you allow it to.

I'm not asking you to care, I'm asking you to understand.

Well, I am asking you to care. Watch the DawahFilms video I linked to. Don't just shrug this off, use this as an opportunity to prove us embarrassingly wrong, and to set an example to your brothers and sisters about how Islam truly can be a religion of peace.

Or you can be silent, allowing your louder extremists to speak for you. Or you can actually defend censorship and barbarism. Your choice.

Re:smells like dissent

[Hal_Porter]

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face, stopping only to pompously congratulate themselves on what champions of freedom they are.

Well a lot of people feel the same way about a bunch of medievalists trying to tell cartoonists in free countries what they can and can't draw.

This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of. They shot their wad in Iraq with their murderous overreaching and failed to convince the Muslim masses to rise up. But this can very easily breathe new life into Islamist movements that have been discrediting themselves in the eyes of regular folks.

Yeah, just like at the end of the middle ages - people challenging the Catholic Church's silly rules on what people could and couldn't say prevented the Enlightenment.

Oh wait, that's not what happened at all - people stood up to them and eventually they backed down.

Religions need to be slapped down when they step out of line. Gradually they are abraded until they are powerless. I've got friends in Iran who - unlike you - actually understand what is at stake and are much more keen for this abrading process to be completed. Because then they can live a normal life. I'm sure 90% of "the Arab Street" feels the same way.

Re:smells like dissent

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most of us get it. Most of us also know that the forefathers felt that the right to offend is more important than the right to not be offended. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have to put up with it and as such the Nation of Islam does too or else it can't play with the rest of us..

Here's another point for YOU to ponder my friend....the U.S isn't exactly the most non-racist country on the planet. What do you suppose will happen to innocent Muslim families here in America and abroad the moment the Nation of Islam is perceived to be nothing but violent in nature?

Or you can simply look at it this way..Muslims are coming into OUR countries...if I go to Pakistan, can I demand they speak English, worship Christ, etc. or I'll start killing them? No!?!? Why does that make their demands worth anything here? Because they'll behead me if I don't change or get more radicals who'll do worse? Yeah, that's working out really well right now since that behavior has never caused a superpower to invade and kill "terr'rists" and innocents alike(I'm not agreeing with this at all, just pointing out that it is a very real pattern). If you want your culture to be like it was in your motherland, GO BACK THERE. Otherwise you're more than welcome here if you can show some tolerance.

Seriously, if you're a nation of peace, show it and stop making threats. Sure, for a while it may be like how the KKK tries to get Blacks, etc. to be violent by taunting them but in showing that you're above them, you prevail and even grow a bit as a culture.

Re:smells like dissent

[carp3_noct3m]

Its not the camels who will suffer...

Re:smells like dissent

[BluBrick]

Infidel pig! May all your camels suffer from flatulence and halitosis!

1. How would you know?
2. Why would you care?

Re:smells like dissent

[Dishevel]

I do not care. Once a bunch of crazy fuckers issue a fatwah cause some guy wrote a book, Or a cartoon or anything like that then I say fuck them.

Because the Muslims as a whole allow this type of behavior in their ranks I will always verbally attack their notion of their pedo prophet at all times. Until the day they grow up, thicken their skins and move on.

Then on the day they stop trying to kill people to shut them up I may give them some respect. Till then FUCK THAT PEDO THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD!

By the way. I do not go to church but I do believe in Jesus. I also would stop with deadly force some fucking right wing Christian wacko attempting to kill some clinic doctor if I could. The reason that Muslims are catching so much shit is that they are not getting rid of the extreme wackos on their side. makes everyone think that they believe that shit.

Re:smells like dissent

[SanityInAnarchy]

I realize that's the Christian interpretation. It's certainly not the Islamic interpretation, as far as I can tell.

Re:smells like dissent

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Chanting 'nigger nigger nigger nigger' to the face of a black guy would be harassment if he tried to leave but you kept following him acting threateningly.

The part that makes it harassment isn't the nigger part, it's the 'acting threateningly in the face of' part. If I make a song called 'A Ballade for Niggerism' that consist of nothing but racial slurs against black guys, there's nothing you can hold against that unless you're one of the PC pricks.

And the 'peaceful moderates' that Islamic people always claim make up the majority of their people really need to step up to the plate here.

Re:smells like dissent

[Iron Condor]

[...]conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" [...]

If there were a group of people who calls black people niggers and another group of people who condones, advocates and commits murder, then I know which of the two I would side with.

I submitted a picture of Mohammed. And somewhere in the future, I will be able to say "When they came for South Park, I did speak up". Will you?

Re:smells like dissent

[woodlander]

The only thing really wrong with your example is this is NOT what is happening. No one is in anyone's face and no one is shouting. No one is pissing an anything. If they were, it would make sense, but they aren't. It certainly appears that the Muslims are diligently searching for a way to be offended.

Re:smells like dissent

[BatGnat]

Quick, dress /. in a bear suit....

Re:smells like dissent

[mysidia]

echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Cursing infidels is one thing, but forkbombing is kind of extreme, don't you think? That sort of jihad really crosses the line.

Re:smells like dissent

[ultranova]

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment: that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face, stopping only to pompously congratulate themselves on what champions of freedom they are. Don't get mad, you don't have to right to tell people what they can say. Well no, you don't but it certainly is offensive and contemptuous.

First, let's see if the blacks reading Slashdot will give you death threats over posting a message with the word "nigger" here. I kinda doubt it.

Second, nobody's "chanting in their face". These Muslims are getting upset because other, non-Muslim people, are refusing to take their precious prophet seriously in conversations with each other. And, comically enough, when those other people express the opinion that Muhammed was a bloodthirsty butcher who wanted all non-Muslims dead, these muslims respond with some variation of "Silence! I kill you!", thus proving the opinion entirely accurate.

Third, I for one am getting very tired of worrying what a homicidal bunch of barbarians happens to find offensive. If Pakistan, Iran, or any other islamic hellhole wants to cut communication with the rest of world to stay in Dark Ages, fine: let them. Neither they nor their prophet will be missed. Those of their numbers who insist on living on civilized world, however, better get it through their heads once and for all that their prophet will not be revered, honored or respected by the rest of us, and all of their threats and violence will only get him hated and reviled more and more as the originator of such evil.

Re:smells like dissent

[pkphilip]

You make it seem like the muslims are only intolerant of anything remotely resembling criticism if it comes from the western world - that is patently not true. It doesn't matter if you are black, brown, yellow, blue .. whatever.. if you say anything that looks like it isn't fawning over the muslims and their "sentiments", you can expect to be attacked brutally.

Re:smells like dissent

[lena_10326]

You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say.

They are telling us what we can (and can't) say.

• Theo van Gogh
• Salmon Rushdie
• Taslima Nasreen

The Facebook campaign was indeed a "fuck you" to Muslims. It aimed at those wishing to dominate and control the speech and beliefs of others. If I told you that I forbid you from uttering the word "abcxyz" and that if you didn't comply, I'd issue a fatwa demanding your head. You'd tell me that I was trampling on your freedom and not so kindly tell me to fuck off wouldn't you? I'm curious. Did you plea the same case when groups of Muslims were burning foreign flags and effigies? Those were also "fuck you" statements, but instead issued by Muslims to westerners. I'd wager $100 that you didn't.

Re:smells like dissent

[lena_10326]

I forgot something in my other post.

A person's right to feel indignation ends when they start issuing death threats. These are cartoons, so I don't care who they insult. You are free to draw a cartoon of Jesus being raped by a goat. You will not find Christian church leaders issuing death fatwas over it.

Re:smells like dissent

[Tom]

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective though, conduct the following though experiment:

Good intentions, but vastly misleading.

The caricatures in a danish newspaper were meant for a danish and almost entirely (99% or so) non-muslim audience. They were a far call from shouting in someones face. And they still called for murder.

If you're black, and have a problem with someone on the other end of town talking to his brother in his lawn and using the word "nigger", then yeah, feel offended if you want to. If you go out and kill that person, or ask others to kill him, you're a lunatic, plain and simple.

Finally, let's not forget what this is all about. "Nigger" is something about you (if you're black), so there is a reasonable link between the word and your feelings. A drawing of some long-dead person does not have a reasonable link to murderous hatred, unless you first accept that religion is a permissible way to create entirely irrational causal links. Or in simpler terms: Unless you define insanity as normal first.

Religion is not an acceptable excuse for murderous nonsense. I don't know why we ever thought it would be. It's crazy to kill people because their imaginary friend is different from your imaginary friend. So no matter what you argue about how deep things run in some culture, it is still crazy to kill someone because he made a drawing of your imaginary friend.

Re:smells like dissent

[Maelwryth]

"that you are black and some is chanting "nigger nigger nigger nigger" in your face"

You're at a Rap concert?

Re:smells like dissent

[random string of num]

you mean O-<-<

Re:smells like dissent

[BCGlorfindel]

You don't get it. No one on ./ really does. You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say".

To be fair, that point of view is correct. It's hard to interpret death threats and actual assassinations of people for saying or printing the wrong things in any other light.

I know there is a strong urge to defend the moderates within Islam from the backlash that will result. The whole point though is that anyone issuing death threats or the use of force to control what people say is NOT one of the moderates. Defending them is helping the extremists, which is actively harming the moderates you want to help.

This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of. They shot their wad in Iraq with their murderous overreaching and failed to convince the Muslim masses to rise up. But this can very easily breathe new life into Islamist movements that have been discrediting themselves in the eyes of regular folks.

On this regard, I am with Christopher Hitchens: "Then bring it on!" The less people we have sitting on the fence between moderate and extremist sides, the easier it is to help one and defeat the other.

Also, just so you understand, the Muslim masses in Iraq DID rise up. Unfortunately for Al-Qaeda, the Muslim masses of Iraq are Shia, not Sunni. They didn't particularly care for Al-Qaeda's brand of Sunni Islam that called for their own destruction as infidels.

Al-Qaeda didn't fail in trying to stir up Iraqi Muslims, the Iraqi Muslims rose up and defeated them.

Re:smells like dissent

[ramana8]

Educated Muslims ? Who are they... ? They must be all hiding in the caves of Afghanistan.

Re:smells like dissent

[init100]

This issue has the potential to radicalize more people than Al-Qaeda ever dreamed of.

And their violent reaction has a potential to radicalize more people in the opposite direction than the nationalist and neo-nazi groups could ever dream of. A dozen or so more violent actions, a few murders in the name of "protecting Muhammad", and even reasonable people might start thinking that a Holocaust on all Muslims wouldn't be so bad.

Never forget that not only Muslims can be(come) violent radicals. Nationalist parties that want to stop immigration and deport Muslims are on the rise in Europe, and the Muslim extremists are helping them more than any propaganda speech ever could. Non-extremist Muslims should keep this in mind when defending or supporting the extremists.

Re:smells like dissent

[g8oz]

Now you've gone too far. There's never any good justification for using all caps.

Re:smells like dissent

[g8oz]

Offending people into modernity.....I'm going to put that up there with the domino theory of Communism on the list of "Failed Western theories of societal change".

Here's a hint as to what might actually work: free trade deals linked to universal education coverage, especially for girls.

Re:smells like dissent

[g8oz]

Wow 18 replies, I guess I got a lot of panties into a twist.

Let me clarify my post: the over the top reactions to the drawings are not objectively justified or rational, I'm just seeking to explain the emotional context.
Explanation, not justification.

It won't kill you to understand the average Muslim perspective, and does not require you to change your own.

For the record I personally don't give a shit if the time wasters on Facebook took a 5 minute break from Farmville to engage in douchebaggery.

P.S The dude in the second video you linked to seriously needs an Extreme Makeover.

Re:smells like dissent

[SanityInAnarchy]

You started out with a blatant assumption: That no one on Slashdot understands how offensive it is. That alone renders it difficult to take merely as an "explanation", certainly when you're deliberately slanting it:

You're looking at this from the point of "those Muslims are trying to tell us what we can say".

That is objectively what is happening.

If you seek to understand the average Muslim perspective...

Providing an emotional context for it doesn't really change what is happening, especially when that analogy (or whatever you want to call it) is inaccurate. Since it doesn't really change much, why would you assume that we don't understand what we're doing? I'm sure some don't. I'm also sure many of us know exactly what it feels like, because that's exactly what it felt like when the South Park episode was censored, and then pulled -- and probably not as bad, even, as how Matt Stone and Trey Parker felt when they received a personal death threat.

And notice something else: 18 replies. No death threats, let alone real violence. Just some replies. This is the system working.

Re:smells like dissent

[Hal_Porter]

Here's a hint as to what might actually work: free trade deals linked to universal education coverage, especially for girls.

Good luck with you "free trade deals linked to universal education, especially for girls". The Taliban throw acid at girls that go to school, you know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27713077/

And 'school' even for boys consists of rote learning the Quran.

Re:smells like dissent

[SanityInAnarchy]

Dude, be a real man and break your own taboos for a change, not that of people thousands of miles away.

I do, frequently. Or rather, those of my society.

Really, try it now and do what many cultures find an entirely natural (and harmless) form of freedom of expression: go for a walk in the street, entirely naked.

Personally? No. We have laws against it, for one. But I don't actually have a problem with that, and I have considerably less of a problem when it's not a public street, but a public website. If someone doesn't want to see me naked, or the Prophet Mohammed, it's a lot easier to avoid a website than a street.

It's roughly akin to the difference between, say, drawing Mohammed with spray paint on someone else's property, and drawing Mohammed on a website which no one is even forcing you to view.

The thing is, pretty much every western culture has taboos that run deep, and if you break them, you should expect a counter reaction.

Indeed, but the only taboo I've seen which actually results in censorship is child pornography, and the rationale there is that anyone who purchases child pornography is supporting people who abuse children. At least, that's the more rational rationale -- it seems to be a kneejerk reaction against "perverts", and I see no reason possession should be a crime.

Think boob-gate, which showed nipples for a few seconds. All the major channels introduced a 5 second delay into their live broadcasts to give the operator a chance to censor out any embarrassing scene.

In other words, they didn't want to broadcast nipples. And this is coming from independent organizations -- there are plenty of alternate sources of nipples, including Naked News if you want a serious program.

Note that, while there was a bit of an overreaction, there also wasn't a single word of legislation introduced, nor a single government action taken.

Or think how your politicians would react to a huge Facebook campaign depicting Jesus as having good sex with his wife

You mean, like this? Or maybe like this?

You still don't get it, do you? That would get a lot of people angry, yes. Worst case, Facebook would self-censor and remove it. But no laws would be passed, no government action would be taken, no websites would be blocked, and no one would die. In fact, I think the above comic shows that pretty much any amount of blasphemy is allowed, so long as you do it on your own website.

Of course, the other point you're missing is that the vast majority of Americans would shrug at even this -- sure, it would offend them, but it wouldn't drive them into a mindless rage. They'd just close that page and never come back.

The Islamic world has many taboos as well, one of them is to not depict Mohammed, because his teachings were to not idolize.

Which makes this all the more hilarious. None of these actual drawings were likely to be something anyone would idolize. While I agree with what this guy is doing, he's idolizing that name (in calligraphy) a hell of a lot more than anyone's idolizing the pedobear-in-a-turban illustration. And to be fair, there was clear idolatry, to the point of turning Mohammed into a god, without the need for any drawings whatsoever.

Arguably, from a purely scientific point of view taboos are both silly and are harmful, because they inhibit rational discussion.

I'm glad you agree.

Ignore

Re:smells like dissent

[SanityInAnarchy]

This one.

Re:smells like dissent

[g8oz]

What you say is true, but really neither here or there. You're talking about the Pashtun dominated areas of Afghanistan/Paksitan. I'm talking about the broader Muslim world (50+ countries) where there are plenty of secular school systems that could do with a boost that bypasses venal governments.

As for the Pashtun areas they need security first.

What was your point again?

Re:smells like dissent

[Hal_Porter]

My point is that people like you are cowards. You're scared of the Islamists and you're scared of having to fight them. You try to obfuscate the situation - make it seem more complex than it really is - to avoid having to take a stand and condemn the fact that they are prepared to use intimidation and murder to suppress any criticism of them and to enforce their medieval value system on the world.

Re:smells like dissent

[thej1nx]

You sir, are an idiot.

So-called freedom of speech, doesn't really exists. It has both social and legal limitations attached to it, even in western world and especially in USA. And you readily accept and comply with those limitations. Heck, you allowed those limitations to be voted in.

For example, it is also not allowed to practice freedom of speech where state and military secrets are concerned. it is, like you said, illegal to use your freedom of speech to issue death-threats. Heck, you don't even have the freedom of speech to tell jokes about terrorists and bombs at airports anymore. Just try it, and tell me how it goes. I am sure you will get very far by telling them that any offense or threat they felt was out of their own choice(since you had no actual bomb). Yet, you happily accept those limitations because they make *your* life easier.

But you are eager for the right to intentionally offend and harass someone else, simply out of pure malice, just because you like the idea of being able to do it. GP rightly pointed out that such stuff causes you no benefit whatsoever, and in fact makes things worse by encouraging hatred. But you would rather risk it, and flex your muscles since you think those folks have no business telling you what to say. Typical bully behavior sprinkled with simple mischief-making.

The problem is, that if you are willing to accept censorship where practicality demands it(military secrets), you can hardly claim to be sticking strictly to your ideology in the first place.

You fail to explain of course, what benefit we exactly get out of violating their meaningless taboo. If they want to pratice some harmless meaningless(to us) ritual like adding an honorific to their prophet, what business is it of ours or yours? As long as they don't come telling us how to celebrate Christmas or Easter or how to pray, who cares? If you were protesting against the muslim veil or regards the plight of muslim women, at least there is some benefit to it. Feel free. But I see no reason why you would want to draw mohammed intentionally to provoke them, when there is zero benefit to anyone in doing so. And if you are willing to compromise to your ideology of "freedom of speech" where it is impractical(military secrets), why not here as well, where it gains us no benefit except their hating us more and more?

Basically you are a moron, who would gladly and irresponsibly risk the lives of innocents over a non-issue, which hardly matters to us, and is just pure muscle-flexing. Most sensible folks, when they know there is an angry insane tiger in an area, generally avoid it, and simply go around him. You would rather go and throw stones at him. And it is not like, you are even equipped to handle their lash-back, without compromising your actual freedoms, just to preserve a so-called hypocritical freedom of speech.

Would you rather have your so-called right to offend, or would you rather have the more practical right to privacy(without your own government having an excuse to spy on you), or the right to fly without being humiliated and strip-searched at a whim?

You sir, are an epic fail, a simpleton, and a candidate for the Darwin awards. It is because of meddlesome idiots like you, that we have a terrorism problem to begin with. There are plenty of pretty well-developed countries like Japan, switzerland etc. managing just fine without muslim terrorists howling for their blood, just because they do not go provoking unnecessarily or needlessly. I blame every single death in 9/11 on the heads of idiots like you.

Re:smells like dissent

[thej1nx]

Except that those people challenging the rules were the ones directly being affected. I don't recall any muslims coming and challenging the Catholic church's rules and causing the said "Enlightenment"(and what enlightenment? are you kidding me? You hardly seem very enlightened even now).

Change comes from within, not without. If average muslims do not like their imams dictating what can or cannot be drawn, they will rise up and challenge it. I do not recall anyone inviting Christians or Americans to do the Islam-slapping. If you were protesting against the forced oppression of muslim women, I could at least see some logic in that, since the oppression is done systematically by the authorities and males. But once you start challenging some harmless belief of theirs that matters only to them, you are just imposing your silly beliefs over theirs. They don't want their prophet drawn. Fine. We won't die or suffer some major cataclysm if we failed to draw a religious figure that doesn't even belongs to our religion. If someone does it unintentionally, they can just apologize and soothe their ruffled feathers. Who cares, if the average muslim doesn't wants it changed?

If you don't subscribe to their beliefs, simply ensure they are not allowed and practiced within your borders. You definitely have that right. If you intend to go bitch-slap them and start a war over it, you are an idiot.

"Change all your religious beliefs that don't make sense to us, or we will provoke you and have a war, you bastards!". Yeah right!

You hardly sound any less extremist than they are.

Re:smells like dissent

[SanityInAnarchy]

You sir, are an idiot.

With that beginning, surely you're going to display your intelligence, right?

So-called freedom of speech, doesn't really exists.

That'd be "doesn't really exist." And I'm the idiot?

Sure, there's more to intelligence than being able to string together a grammatically correct sentence, but it's not terribly hard to do so, and you did kind of set yourself up.

It has both social and legal limitations attached to it,

The legal limitations are very, very small. Essentially, the speech itself must cause a clear and present danger -- for example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But it would be fallacious to try to compare that to the wholesale censoring of dissenting opinion, even offensive opinion.

The social limitations, I don't care too much about. You were saying something about how freedom of speech doesn't "exists", but societal pressure is much more easily overcome than laws. Civil disobedience can land you in jail, or, in countries ruled by Sharia Law, beheaded. Rejecting societal norms just means people think you're weird, but guess what? We accept weirdness and diversity as a good thing.

even in western world and especially in USA. And you readily accept and comply with those limitations.

This may surprise you, but partly because of our freedom of speech, we in the Western world are not a single voice. We are many voices, each with our own opinions.

For example, many Christians are trying to turn the USA into a theocracy, and among them are those who would protest things like violent videogames, and even see them banned, if that were possible. I, on the other hand, would much rather child pornography was not outlawed -- the production absolutely should be outlawed, and already is by statutory rape laws. Distribution and possession should not be a crime, certainly when there's no money involved. I would not be surprised to find the majority of the population disagrees with me, at least until they find themselves framed for that crime.

For example, it is also not allowed to practice freedom of speech where state and military secrets are concerned. it is, like you said, illegal to use your freedom of speech to issue death-threats.

Both of these fall under the "clear and present danger" clause I just mentioned.

Heck, you don't even have the freedom of speech to tell jokes about terrorists and bombs at airports anymore.

It's my understanding that airports are private, much like the airlines themselves, but I could be mistaken. Of course, I don't agree with this either, as I can't possibly see it enhancing security, and I'm not sure it would be worth it if it did.

I am sure you will get very far by telling them that any offense or threat they felt was out of their own choice(since you had no actual bomb).

Ah, but they weren't acting on feelings. They were acting on policies and procedures. Psychoanalyzing the individual who grabbed me would accomplish very little -- I'd have to take it up with the TSA, which isn't showing a lot of sanity right now.

Yet, you happily accept those limitations

Again, no I don't. I "accept" them to the extent that I don't joke about bombs in airports. I certainly don't accept them "happily."

But you are eager for the right to intentionally offend and harass someone else, simply out of pure malice,

I stated my intentions explicitly elsewhere on this thread. Even if I hadn't, why would you assume "pure malice"? I suppose it's easier to hate a group than an individual, especially when the individual doesn't fit the stereotypes of the group.

Since you introduced yourself by calling me a moron, I'm likely to respond in kind, but I actually bear you no grudge. I have no malicious in

Re:smells like dissent

[Hal_Porter]

The issue with the cartoonists is happening in our countries, not theirs.

Self-limiting

[Kell Bengal]

This is a self-limiting problem. Once they block enough of the internet, people who have become habituated on it will push for change.

Re:Self-limiting

[cytoman]

In a poor country with only a fraction of the people being affected by blocking the internet, the critical mass for any push for change is absent.

Re:Self-limiting

[v1]

ya, just look a China for example. (and good thing for them they have a lot more people)

Re:Self-limiting

[hguorbray]

and nothing of value was lost...

I'm just sayin'

Re:Self-limiting

[Captain Splendid]

and nothing of value was lost...

I'd love to share your sentiment, but since we're talking about a nuclear power, this is another troubling development.

Re:Self-limiting

[Threni]

Exactly, who gives a shit?

Re:Self-limiting

[Trent Hawkins]

It's a shame that their version of Obama will actually be a Muslim communist that will kill the elderly.

Re:Self-limiting

[Luckyo]

The non-overly religious pakistani that WE - the westerners, should very, very much care about. Because they are the only thing that stands between nukes and religious fanatics.

If that isn't a reason enough for anyone living in the West, I don't know what could possibly be one.

Re:Self-limiting

[matt_gaia]

Pakistan's version or the Tea Party's version?

Re:Self-limiting

[nospam007]

Yeah, when they can no longer see funny cat videos, there will be a revolution.

Re:Self-limiting

[stdarg]

The ban in Pakistan was put forward a lawyer's lobby in Lahore, one of their big cities. This is not about a bunch of illiterate poor people getting offended at the internet and demanding it be banned. It IS a tiny fraction of the people who want it banned, part of the elite society of Pakistan actually, and a tiny fraction of the people who want it unbanned.

The problem is most of the people who want it unbanned are complete hypocrites. They want Facebook to delete the group so that Facebook can be unbanned. They don't understand freedom of speech, just that their western liberal buddies think their country looks completely retarded. They don't even care that blasphemy laws remain in effect in their country (which affects all the poor people you're talking about), as long as their country looks cool to their buddies they'll be happy.

Re:Self-limiting

[stdarg]

Come on. Do you know that the non-overly religious Pakistani still tends to be be rabidly anti-India, which leads them to fanatically support the army and also to support state-sponsored terrorism in places like Kashmir?

What we should care about are people within Pakistan who are not crazy nationalists. They have political parties that favor peace with India and other stuff like that. They are religious, some of them are very religious even... but I think it's much less dangerous than the political parties who support the army, which in turn supports terrorism. The party that has a tenuous government right now, the PPP or Pakistan People's Party, is one such party. But you know what's really funny.. the non-religious "good guys" in Pakistan tend to call the PPP corrupt, Western stooges, a feudal party (because many of the politicians are indeed backwards, religious, landowning, etc), and openly advocate for army rule. Because, you know, the army wouldn't kowtow to the West, and would put India in its place, and their electricity problems would disappear because the army is so cool and noble... etc. They're the problem. Sorry for the ranty tone heh, I'm just in a hurry.

Re:Self-limiting

[init100]

I'm no expert, but I believe it is quite possible to track nukes' origins based on their radioactive signatures. This was done in "The Sum of All Fears". (Yes, I know it's a movie, but Clancy is known for better realism with such details than your average scriptwriter.)

I read the book, and the method seems reasonable, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible. It is highly likely that different plants around the world will generate material with slightly different isotope ratios, thus enabling the tracing of the material if a sample could be obtained from each plant. But even if (as is highly likely) hostile states refuse to give you a sample, a sample from just friendly states would be better than nothing, since then you could rule out those as sources.

Maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for some of these fucking people to stand up to their governments and stop being fucking pussies like the Australians..

Re:Maybe...

[Grishnakh]

It's still your fault. The politicians are ultimately elected by the people, unless the vote is completely rigged (which there's no evidence of in any western country). If the people are too stupid to vote for better politicians, and keep electing the crappy ones, it's their own fault. Sure, a minority of the people (like you in Aus and me in the USA) might complain, but we're not enough to overcome the hordes of morons who vote. So while it may not be "your" fault individually, it IS "your" fault collectively that your country's government is fucked up. (This is one of the many cases where I wish English had different words for singular and plural "you".)

As for government forces shooting at civilians, we don't have that problem in the USA. If they start doing that outside liberal anti-gun cities like NYC, Chicago and Boston, the civilians will be shooting back. The amount of firepower owned by the citizens in this country is staggering. Unlike in Australia, we never allowed our government to take away our guns, so if things ever get too bad, we can always fall back to the ammo box.

Re:Maybe...

[Grishnakh]

Unfortunately, that was a case of the government acting against a minority, who didn't have the power to fight back very effectively. Southern blacks at that time weren't exactly big gun owners.

What we're discussing here seems to be a little different, a case of the government acting against a large sector of the population, especially one that is well-armed. I don't think it's ever going to happen.

Re:Maybe...

[Cimexus]

I agree with your post, but I just wanted to point out that Australian never really had a gun culture in the first place. Noone 'took away' our guns because very few people ever even had guns. I've never even touched a gun. Actually for that matter, I have never even ~seen one~ except for those holstered on cops' belts. And you can still own a firearm in Australia if you really want to and are properly licensed. They just make you jump through some fairly strict legislative requirements. But really, noone* wants a gun. The culture is just completely different over here. I never truly understood that until I became a dual US/Australian citizen (a few years ago now - I married an American).

* OK so obviously not literally 'noone'. But a fraction of a tiny proportion of the population.

Besides, Australia really isn't the example that should be being used here. There is VERY significant opposition to the proposed net filter. So much so that realistically, it isn't going to happen. People stood up, and the Government is taking notice. The Government saw it was wildly unpopular and so it's on the backburner for now. It hasn't even been introduced as a Bill in Parliament, because they know that the Greens (and possibly Libs) will block it in the Senate. Democracy at work. Slashdot just tends to hype 'OMG Australia is doing crazy thing x' all the time, based on attention-grabbing headlines in the media, without mentioning fairly important stuff like "yeah this is just a proposal and has about 2% chance of occurring" or "this is just one random politicians opinion" etc.

Re:Maybe...

[Grishnakh]

I agree with your post, but I just wanted to point out that Australian never really had a gun culture in the first place.

That's interesting, and a little surprising too, considering Australia's geography. Unlike Europe, where basically there's no wide-open spaces left at all and everyone lives in a town or large city, Australia is mostly unpopulated, and has enormous areas with low population density. It's a little bit like the American West that way. So while I can understand that people in Sydney and Melbourne aren't into guns, I'm surprised all the people in the more rural regions don't have them more, especially to handle wildlife issues and such.

Slashdot just tends to hype 'OMG Australia is doing crazy thing x' all the time, based on attention-grabbing headlines in the media, without mentioning fairly important stuff like "yeah this is just a proposal and has about 2% chance of occurring" or "this is just one random politicians opinion" etc.

That's good to hear. Based on Slashdot headlines, you'd think Australia's one step away from a totalitarian police state.

Re:Maybe...

[Cimexus]

Well yeah, obviously every farmer has a gun or two. But Australia these days is incredibly urbanised. Over 90% of the population live in the five largest cities. We simply don't have many people in rural parts (as a percentage, far less than in the US).

Australia used to have that pioneering culture in the 19th century. But pick a random Australian today and they are likely to be a politically moderate, cappuccino-sipping urban dweller. Like abortion, guns are an issue that we are vaguely aware is Big In America, but which don't even register on the radar here, really. OTOH, things like workers' conditions and rights, education reform etc. pop up almost every election here, but seem less discussed in the US.

Re:Maybe...

[Grishnakh]

Like abortion, guns are an issue that we are vaguely aware is Big In America, but which don't even register on the radar here, really. OTOH, things like workers' conditions and rights, education reform etc. pop up almost every election here, but seem less discussed in the US.

You have to remember that a lot of those issues are considered the domain of States here, not the Federal government. Workers' rights, for instance, are very different state-to-state. Some states (like Arizona, where I live) are called "right-to-work" states, which means you can't be required to be part of a union to get a job, but also means that employers can let you go at any time they want (of course this also means you can quit any time). The eastern states are very different: labor positions are usually unionized, and you're required to be part of a union to have those jobs.

Education, similarly, is usually a State issue, and frequently a local issue, as it's local school boards that actually run the schools, and schools are mostly funded at the local level (which is why schools in rich places are so much better funded than schools in ghettos or small towns).

Some people believe abortion should be a State issue as well, not Federal. So even if Roe v Wade were overturned, it wouldn't turn back to being illegal, it'd just be illegal in some states. Others (like California) would certainly keep it legal.

States vs. Federal is an issue that goes all the way back to the beginning of the country; back then, the States (formerly colonies) were completely separate, and only answered to England, so they were really just like separate countries. With so many different attitudes and beliefs here (and I mean more than just Republican vs. Democrat), getting any agreement across the entire continent of 300 million people just doesn't work out that well in practice, so many people believe that more power should be kept with the States so that they can do things differently if they wish, instead of trying to come up with one-size-fits-all solutions at the national level.

Re:Maybe...

[Cimexus]

Very good point. Of course Australia has Federal and State governments as well. But the division of power is quite different - it's like a blacklist rather than a whitelist.

That is, in the US, the US Consitution explicitly grants certain powers to the Federal govt. and leaves the rest in the hands of States. In Australia, the Constitution essentially says that, upon formation of the Federation, all power is vested in the Federal Government, but that then specific powers are given back to the States (mostly: health, education, infrastructure). The net result is that States have relatively more heads of power in the US than in Australia. Taxation is a good example - US States can impose different local (e.g. sales) taxes. In Australia taxation is SOLELY the reserve of the Federal Govt.

Indeed, from time to time in Australia, a proposal to completely abolish the States comes up. The argument being that State governments have various levels of incompetency, and that having 9 separate legislative bodies (Federal, 6 States, 2 Territories) for a population of only 23 million is redundant/overkill. The idea has a lot of of support in urban areas but it's really those living in remote areas that don't like the idea - their concerns wouldn't be heard at a Federal level as much as they would be heard at a local/State level.

Re:Maybe...

[Grishnakh]

That is, in the US, the US Consitution explicitly grants certain powers to the Federal govt. and leaves the rest in the hands of States. In Australia, the Constitution essentially says that, upon formation of the Federation, all power is vested in the Federal Government, but that then specific powers are given back to the States (mostly: health, education, infrastructure).

Unfortunately (IMO), while the US Constitution may say that, in reality, the USA acts more like the latter these days as the Federal government has basically seized all kinds of powers for itself.

Indeed, from time to time in Australia, a proposal to completely abolish the States comes up. The argument being that State governments have various levels of incompetency, and that having 9 separate legislative bodies (Federal, 6 States, 2 Territories) for a population of only 23 million is redundant/overkill. The idea has a lot of of support in urban areas but it's really those living in remote areas that don't like the idea - their concerns wouldn't be heard at a Federal level as much as they would be heard at a local/State level.

It's a bad idea IMO. It's better to have more power concentrated at lower levels, instead of at the top of any organization. The people at the top only have so much visibility, and end up making one-size-fits-all decisions that don't work that well in practice. We see it not just in governments, but in corporations too.

Muhammad

[Anonymous Coward]

>-|-O

Re:Muhammad

[virtualonliner]

>-|-O

Now Great!! Way to get slashdot banned too!! *fumes*

The problem

[TheSpoom]

This is great that people are pushing to force governments to drop their censorship. But it's not going to work, at least, not in the short term. The reason? Pakistan will be able to find at least a few people or companies that will build local versions of social networking sites, search engines, etc. that comply with their censorship requests. It's how capitalism works, only the government is saying "we've made you a captive market if you only play by our rules".

Ultimately censorship will be killed by end to end encryption and onion routing.

Re:The problem

[Feyshtey]

Ultimately censorship will be killed by end to end encryption and onion routing.

If they can censor the type of information that passes within their borders, what makes you think they cant control the method by which it is transfered?

Re:The problem

[Opportunist]

How? Disallow every kind of encrypted traffic and deep inspect everything else? How much of your GDP are you willing to throw at a futile attempt to hold back the ocean with a broom?

Re:The problem

[Shakrai]

How much of your GDP are you willing to throw at a futile attempt to hold back the ocean with a broom?

Have you looked at North Korea lately?

Re:The problem

[Feyshtey]

The technology isnt exactly rocket science. It's very basic network administration.

Do I recognize this packet? Yes? Allowed.
Do I recognize this packet? No? Dropped.

Re:The problem

[krkhan]

I am in Pakistan right now and find the whole situation amusing. Perhaps they should block queries to root name servers as well since ICANN are not blocking the queries to zones that can resolve blasphemous domains. Yeah. That would service the Internet *right*!

Re:The problem

[bsDaemon]

But can they do it without resorting to outsourcing to India? Maybe they can trade Kashmir for a domestic pressure-release valve?

Re:The problem

[Thomasje]

Ultimately censorship will be killed by end to end encryption and onion routing.

I'm sure any government that is serious about censorship will eventually also ban encryption, or at least restrict it to only algorithms that they have a back door to. Such a ban is easy to enforce by forcing ISPs to pass only government-whitelisted protocols and nothing else.

Re:The problem

[bill_mcgonigle]

Have you looked at North Korea lately?

Better get those looks in soon.

Re:The problem

[bill_mcgonigle]

Pakistan will be able to find at least a few people or companies that will build local versions of social networking sites, search engines, etc. that comply with their censorship requests

The efficacy of this approach is proportional to the locality of the social graphs of Facebook's users in Pakistan. The Pakistani diaspora uses Facebook to keep in touch with their family and friends 'back home'. Conversely, Pakistani residents use Facebook to keep in touch with their family and friends abroad. Which their government has just cut off to placate a narrow religious sect.

It's not as big as cutting off the telephones, but don't underestimate the animus of a woman who just lost access to her grandkids' photos.

Re:The problem

[TheSpoom]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I never said it wasn't horrible what they're doing.

Re:The problem

[Hognoxious]

It's not as big as cutting off the telephones

That's not all they cut off in Islamic countries.

Re:The problem

[Opportunist]

Sure, you can always cut the cable.

And nothing of value was lost...

Re:The problem

[oiron]

Their broom is pretty much the only thing of value they have left...

Mohammed

[Vinegar Joe]

(((:~(>

Filter error: Your comment looks too much like ascii art.

Well duh!

Re:Mohammed

[Rallias Ubernerd]

hmm (((:~>>>>>> i fixed it for you

Re:Mohammed

[tekrat]

Pretty good. I think I'll change my sig right now....

Re:Mohammed

[Jeng]

There are many people named Mohammed. It is an extremely common name, if its not labeled as the Prophet Mohamed I don't see how they can complain.
 

Re:Mohammed

[chooks]

I'm waiting for the religious restaurant angle:

• Jesus Crisps: If they had these 2000 years ago, someone might not have been betrayed!
• The Mo-hammed: delicious sandwich with extra lean and tasty ham! Try it with a side of Jesus Crisps!

etc...etc...

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

You do know that followers of Islam are not supposed to eat any port products right?

Woosh, that was part of the joke. Jews aren't supposed to eat pork either, but go to any buffet in Vegas and try counting all the people eating bacon and wearing yamakas. And Muslims are allowed to eat pork if no other food is available anyway (cite: The Quran 2:173). Technically, Christians are not supposed to eat pork either:

The pig also because it is a splitter of the hoof but there is no cud. It is unclean for you. None of their flesh must you eat and carcass you must not touch. " Deuteronomy 14:8

Fortunately, I'm a Pastafarian, so I can eat wtf I want. And while I won't get 72 virgins, there is a beer volcano and a stripper factory in our heaven.

Re:Mohammed

[el3mentary]

Whooosh!

You must be new here...

CO+

Re:Mohammed

[balbus000]

not supposed to eat any port products

What if the ham came from the starboard side of the ship?

Re:Mohammed

[chooks]

yes - I know ham is not halal. That would make the sandwich even more sacrilicious (to quote Homer).

Re:Mohammed

[GooberToo]

And while I won't get 72 virgins

Correction - while its popular to believe and in fact widely taught, the correct translation is actually 72 grapes - not virgins. Grapes have both cultural, local, and religious historical significance. So yes, they really are blowing themselves up for 72 grapes. Not hard to see why virgins make for stronger appeal in modern times.

Also, contrary to the western apple eaten by Adam and Eve, its actually documented to be a grape or grape like fruit. Regardless of which fruit you believe it to be (pomegranate are also popularized guesses), rest assured it is not an apple.

Re:Mohammed

[bheer]

Sort of off topic, but I've always wondered: Can I be on an Atkins diet and still be a pastafarian?

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

Sure! You can be vegan, vegetarian, Atkintarian, or even a bear that catches live salmon swimming upstream in your bare mouth. Eating spaghetti (preferably with a nice red wine) is a common way to show deference to the FSM, but it isn't required. And by the way, Atkins makes a decent low carb pasta, although the sauce will still set you back some sugar carbs unless you get low sugar sauce. Even on Atkins, you have to splurge a *little*, and if my memory serves me right, wine in moderation is also considered ok, at least every now and then. All are welcome.

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

Correction - while its popular to believe and in fact widely taught, the correct translation is actually 72 grapes - not virgins.

Thats probably a good thing, as likely the 72 virgins would have been /. readers anyway ;)

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

Sad you got mod'ed down. While I'm not a fan of the idea of killing off Christians (the Romans tried that, and the Christians eventually took over, so you can't "kill" a religion), I do agree there are some issues with "modern" religion. I strongly believe in freedom of religion, but I can't help but think that some time in the future (50 years/500 years/who knows) that mankind is going to say "wtf were we thinking?", and just as we have cast aside Roman and Greek mythology as a religion, I believe the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) will also be set aside.

And to anyone else reading who is Muslim, Christian or Jewish, don't bother replying to debate this. I fully support your right to worship as you please, I simply think you are mistaken, just as you think I am mistaken. It isn't personal, and I'm not an atheist (more of a pan-deist). That's whats great about being Free (as in speech). We can just agree to disagree.

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

It is called "context" and "familiarity". If I tell you I like to listen to "Elvis", you can safely assume I mean "Elvis Presley", not "Elvis Costello". If I say "I admire the Madonna", or if I say "I like that new tune from Madonna", you can likely tell which Madonna I am referring to.

And last but not least, if you are at a construction site and hear someone yell "Hey Jesus! Where have you been??", it is likely NOT the second coming of the Christian Christ.

Re:Mohammed

[ultranova]

I strongly believe in freedom of religion, but I can't help but think that some time in the future (50 years/500 years/who knows) that mankind is going to say "wtf were we thinking?", and just as we have cast aside Roman and Greek mythology as a religion, I believe the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) will also be set aside.

Perhaps, but only because another religion outcompetes them. By then Scientology, if it still exists, should have shed its more psychotic aspects, New Age stuff has matured and got more depth to its mythology, and if we have colonies in other planets, neo-Wicca might offer a way to "spiritually connect with your new home" or something like that.

Then again, sheer cultural inertia likely keeps Abrahamic religions from disappearing, unless China gets to space first.

I fully support your right to worship as you please, I simply think you are mistaken, just as you think I am mistaken.

You are mistaken. Perhaps not in your religious beliefs - I have no idea what they might be, so I couldn't comment on them - but in thinking that being right or wrong has anything to do with what people believe. Religions don't disappear because they are wrong, they disappear because they are outcompeted by another wordview; and Abrahamic religions have proven themselves to be extremely adaptable and, for a lack of a better word, contagious.

We can just agree to disagree.

No. This is the Internet. We can't allow people being wrong here slide. What would generate the entertainment here if we behaved like mature, reasonable adults?

Re:Mohammed

[GooberToo]

LOL. You made my morning.

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

Actually, Christians are just fine eating pork. See Acts 10, Colossians 2:20-22, Mark 7:19 (among others).

Whoa, whoa, whoa....Are you trying to say the bible CONTRADICTS itself?!? Surely not!

Re:Mohammed

[Pharmboy]

No. This is the Internet. We can't allow people being wrong here slide. What would generate the entertainment here if we behaved like mature, reasonable adults?

You forgot to invoke Godwin Law, or at the very least, compare me to the godless Communists in Soviet Russia. ;)

My observations (ie: opinions based on anecdotal observation) is that:

1. The higher the education, the less likely someone is to be a practicing Christian or Jew (Muslims seem to buck this trend)
2. Atheists/deists/pantheists/etc tend to have an average education level higher than the general public. Perhaps this is because the more educated you become, the more likely you are to question the status quo. It does NOT mean that religious people are dumb, however.
3. The world is getting more and more educated, and this trend is likely to continue, on average, into the future.

This would tell me that that some form of deism, pantheism/panentheism or atheism would be more common, although not necessarily the majority. (Buddhism and Taoism would be constant with this as well). Personally, I lean deist. I think an architect makes sense from a scientific point of view (although there is no direct evidence as of yet), and I can't see a 'god' that gets involved with day to day matters. Pray for a miracle? Does that mean that god saved little Mary from leukemia with a miracle, but not Sally because Sally's parents are Buddhists and they didn't pray to the right god? That would be a deity that picks winners and losers, or to put it another way, malevolent.

THAT is the big problem I have with the Abrahamic religions in general, and I have read the bible many times (raised Catholic) and read the koran a few times as well (know thy enemy): The Abrahamic religions make god sound like a vengeful asshole. That just makes no sense if "god" is all knowing, all powerful and all merciful, which they all claim he is. Anyway, if I'm wrong, oh well, I guess I will be smoking a turd in purgatory for half a forever. ;)

Muslims in Saudi and other places

[CSHARP123]

Facebook is only banned in Pakistan, not in Saudi Arabia or India (I think second largest muslim population) or Indonesia. Some muslim countries may not care I guess.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[Vinegar Joe]

They have no problem with Goatse.cx either.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[phantomfive]

Pakistan has a problem in that they are more of a democracy, and more liberal politically, thus they allow the radicals who are too radical for other countries. For example, if someone named (randomly) "Osama Bin Ladin" called for vast changes in the Saudi Arabian government based on muslim principles, he might find it needful to flee the country. However, in Pakistan that sort of thing is allowed. They've thus become a magnet for radical types.

Saudi Arabia in many ways has a more secular government, but it is a dictatorship. They don't care so much about Mohammad drawings, but do care about criticisms of the state.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[Grishnakh]

Saudi Arabia in many ways has a more secular government, but it is a dictatorship. They don't care so much about Mohammad drawings, but do care about criticisms of the state.

Yes, this is exactly why Saudi Arabia probably has the best kind of government it can have. If they had a democracy, it'd be much worse, because the people are so backwards. The rulers there are much more forward-thinking than the people, so they keep the silliness from going too far.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[shutdown -p now]

they keep the silliness from going too far.

How far beyond a full-scale implementation of Shari'a law according to the interpretation of the strictest Islamic school (Salafi) can you get? I mean, we're speaking of public beheadings, stonings and amputations here.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[Grishnakh]

It's not that bad in Saudi Arabia. Yes, it sucks, but if you want to see really horrible, take a look at Taliban-era Afghanistan. That's where they had the public stonings for women showing their arm accidentally and all that crap. It really wasn't much different from mob rule there.

At least in SA, they actually have a justice system of sorts, and you have to actually commit a real crime there to be beheaded or whatever. While they're bad, they don't stone women to death for accidentally showing their arms or ankles in public. There's not even a requirement for women to be veiled there, to my knowledge: there's tons of Westerners living there who don't dress like that. The ruling class (monarchy) is very interested in modernizing the country and making it appealing for Westerners and others to do business there. It's the stupid common people who support the religious police and their dumb rules. Remember, before women were allowed to drive in SA, the King's own wife would drive herself when she was traveling in Europe! So the ruling class doesn't even believe in the dumb laws; they only allow it because if they tried to modernize the place too quickly, the stupid common people would revolt and overthrow them.

To my knowledge, beheadings and amputations only happen to real criminals in SA: murderers get beheaded, thieves get their hands cut off, etc. I don't see the problem there. A little harsh on the thieves perhaps, but beheading is a nicer form of punishment than being stuck in a cage for the rest of your life. I'll bet they don't have many repeat offenders there, unlike here in the USA where the recidivism rate is ridiculous.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[shutdown -p now]

It's not that bad in Saudi Arabia. Yes, it sucks, but if you want to see really horrible, take a look at Taliban-era Afghanistan. That's where they had the public stonings for women showing their arm accidentally and all that crap. It really wasn't much different from mob rule there.

Actually, no, Afghanistan under Taliban wasn't like mob rule at all (based on what a refugee from there has told me about his own exprerience). While talibs have their own, extremely strict interpretation, of Islamic law, it is, indeed, a real law. And, yes, "showing arm accidentally" is a crime under it, but they make it known in advance.

That's, by the way, in contrast with the warlord rule of today, where they don't stone women because they flashed their ankle. Rather, they rape and behead women just because they're bored and want to have some fun. That is mob rule (and it is very unfortunate that our armed forces are effectively supporting it).

The ruling class (monarchy) is very interested in modernizing the country and making it appealing for Westerners and others to do business there. It's the stupid common people who support the religious police and their dumb rules.

I don't know about today - asking them would be tricky - but they certainly didn't mind honor killings not that long ago.

To my knowledge, beheadings and amputations only happen to real criminals in SA: murderers get beheaded, thieves get their hands cut off, etc.

Uhuh. You forgot to mention that beheading is a punishment for apostasy as well; and stoning is a punishment for adultery. I certainly would have a problem with calling that "real criminals" (yes, it's technically correct, but then people in North Korean gulags are "real criminals" too)!

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, the whole place sounds pretty fucked. I didn't realize they beheaded people for apostasy or stoned people for adultery.

But for the honor killing thing, remember that was in 1977, and involved the royal family; allegedly, the King's older brother executed the girl, and it doesn't appear to even have been legal. According to Wikipedia, that was two Kings ago. Their current King (whose wife I mentioned before) only took over in 2005, and his predecessor in 1982. So things have likely changed a little since then.

At any rate, I wouldn't travel there, or to any country in the region. Those people are just too screwed up. Maybe in 500-1000 years they'll have advanced enough.

Re:Muslims in Saudi and other places

[Warlord88]

India is a secular country. Pakistan is theocratic. I don't know about Indonesia.

Ban /.

[Archangel Michael]

O
  / ^ \
  * | -- Mohammad Carrying a bomb
      ^
    / \

Perhaps now, Pakistan will ban /. and we can stop hearing about stupid Pakistani Muslims who get offended of stick drawings.

Re:Ban /.

[Archangel Michael]

aww crap, stripping characters fubard my drawing .Oh well, you get the point

Re:Ban /.

[blind biker]

      O
    / ^ \
    * | -- Mohammad Carrying a bomb
      ^
    _/ \_

FTFY.
And if someone is more talented than me and the OP, please add a beard ---> #

Re:Ban /.

[Archangel Michael]

Well, when people are willing to load themselves up with explosives and kill people for being anything other than ... you know ... INFIDELS ... then yeah, if the worst we do back is a tad assholish then ... so be it.

Re:Ban /.

[Dr. Manhattan]

And we can't have that, people getting along understanding each other's views and disagreeing in a civil manner.

Um, issuing - and carrying out - death threats is not "disagreeing in a civil manner". If they aren't going to play by the rules of civilized discourse, why should we? At least we won't kill anybody. We'll just mock them.

Re:Ban /.

[Naturalis Philosopho]

And we can't have that, people getting along understanding each other's views and disagreeing in a civil manner. Nah we gotta fist-fuck you with assholish behavior to show you how wrong you are.

And let me tell you how glad I am that we can keep our conversation on such a civil level when disagreeing.

Re:Ban /.

[e2d2]

I do swear too much and I'm working on that. I find it distracts people from my argument, as it did here.

Re:Ban /.

[pandrijeczko]

They are radical religious zealots, they're going to try to blow you up anyway, you scribbling silly cartoons of their prophets just gives them the justification they need to do it and probably rallies less radical zealots to their cause.

Re:Ban /.

[e2d2]

Yes but is that really a justification? That's the same argument a child uses - "Well he did so and so". I'm guilty of this myself so I'm not above it. But it's not a sound argument.

Besides, this is not targeted at fanatics; This insult targets most of Islam. Only the most tolerant will accept this, but it doesn't really seem to be a vocal minority crying insult. I could be wrong but it seems like this insults most Muslims.

My personal beliefs are Christian-aligned, so If I gave them one on one advice I'd tell them to grow thicker skin. If you can't take a tiny bit of "persecution", and that's stretching it calling this persecution, then you need more faith in your deity and yourself. Sticks and stones and all that. Especially as we grow closer globally. We're going to see more culture clashes like this.

But all that said, is insulting for the sake of freedom worth the results? If the results are a culture rift then I say no. If the results are a better world, then yeah go for it.

Re:Ban /.

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Looks like Mohammad threw his back out trying to throw the bomb. :-)

Re:Ban /.

[linzeal]

There are over 10k images of Mohamed on that single Facebook page that started this. I somehow don't think the Islamic world has the ability to locate and kill that many of us.

Re:Ban /.

[stdarg]

Yes but is that really a justification? That's the same argument a child uses - "Well he did so and so". I'm guilty of this myself so I'm not above it. But it's not a sound argument.

Have you ever tried arguing like an adult with a two year old?

You can't. All you can do is BE an adult and ignore him. But guess what -- we can't do that with grown ups who are organized enough to sponsor terrorist organizations, armies, nuclear bombs, etc.

But all that said, is insulting for the sake of freedom worth the results? If the results are a culture rift then I say no. If the results are a better world, then yeah go for it.

That part is debatable, but at the same time, does it matter? Since we can't know in advance what the results are, you have to pick a principle and stand by it. Are you going to err on the side of promoting free speech and anti-religion, or err on the side of restricted speech and kowtowing to religion? For me the choice is simple. If the end result has a chance at becoming slaves to religion, let the rift commence.

Re:Ban /.

[stdarg]

These causes also serve to wake up the general population that isn't normally exposed to these kinds of religious reactions. That alone is worth it.

Re:Ban /.

[pandrijeczko]

Oh, right. So you mean all the increased security at airports and millions of extra pounds/dollars/Euros spent on homeland security hasn't already woken up the general populace that we're under constant terrorist threat from radical extremists?

You're actually all cowards. Rather than just getting on with your normal life and not letting something pathetically trivial getting to you, you sit there behind your cloaks of anonymity drawing your silly cartoons knowing that it's unlikely anyone will ever *REALLY* find out who you are anyway.

I'll tell you what will impress me and make me believe you're fighting for Free Speech and not just creating a channel to justify your own racism - go sit outside a mosque and hand out your cartoons, or even better, go spraypaint a cartoon on its walls. Then I'll actually start believing your conviction in Free Speech.

Re:Ban /.

[ultranova]

You're actually all cowards. Rather than just getting on with your normal life and not letting something pathetically trivial getting to you, you sit there behind your cloaks of anonymity drawing your silly cartoons knowing that it's unlikely anyone will ever *REALLY* find out who you are anyway.

Well, pandrijeczko, it's good that you're so much braver. It really gives your words some weight that you're complaining that we're not giving our names and addresses to homicidal religious maniacs while keeping yours hidden too. Really, it does.

I'll tell you what will impress me and make me believe you're fighting for Free Speech and not just creating a channel to justify your own racism - go sit outside a mosque and hand out your cartoons, or even better, go spraypaint a cartoon on its walls. Then I'll actually start believing your conviction in Free Speech.

Oh dear. You are not impressed? That's just terrible! Clearly, we should commit suicidial stupidity just to convince you.

And we're not being racist, we're culturist - we believe our culture is far superior to Pakistan, or any other Islamic hellhole. Then again, I suppose that's not really saying much.

Re:Ban /.

[stdarg]

Oh, right. So you mean all the increased security at airports and millions of extra pounds/dollars/Euros spent on homeland security hasn't already woken up the general populace that we're under constant terrorist threat from radical extremists?

Ah, see, you're talking about radical extremists. I was referring to Muslims who self-identify as moderate but still have very strong reactions to blasphemous speech, even going so far as to ban websites, boycott countries, or even just protest loudly about how offended they are.

I'll tell you what will impress me and make me believe you're fighting for Free Speech and not just creating a channel to justify your own racism - go sit outside a mosque and hand out your cartoons, or even better, go spraypaint a cartoon on its walls. Then I'll actually start believing your conviction in Free Speech.

I wouldn't want to vandalize their property, but I would love to be part of a group that did the other stuff. I did in fact look for a group that was publicly engaging in Draw Mohammed Day around where I live. I could have gone out by myself, sure, but I didn't. I don't think it was necessary.

Why? Like I said, people are waking up. As this stuff continues, there will be groups doing that in public, and then I will join them.

Re:Ban /.

[stdarg]

Hey check this out. http://wiscatheists.blogspot.com/

There's just one instance of the everybody draw mohammed day helping promote exactly what you were talking about -- people actually going out and confronting muslims about free speech (though without your strange suggestion of vandalism).

I'm not affiliated with that group but it's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping would happen around where I live!

Re:Ban /.

[pandrijeczko]

And we're not being racist, we're culturist - we believe our culture is far superior to Pakistan, or any other Islamic hellhole. Then again, I suppose that's not really saying much.

You've actually contradicted yourself in the same sentence - surely if you believe your culture is *superior* to anyone else, that makes you a racist.

Re:Ban /.

[ultranova]

You've actually contradicted yourself in the same sentence - surely if you believe your culture is *superior* to anyone else, that makes you a racist.

No. Racism is a belief that your - or more generally, any - race is inherently superior to another race. Culturalism is the belief that a culture is inherently superior to another culture. The difference is that a racist would believe that members of inferior race would still be inferior than members of superior race even if both grew and lived in similar conditions, while a culturalist would not.

Basically, it's the difference between "you're stupid" and "you've been taught stupid things".

Finally someone gets the idea

[Rallias Ubernerd]

Now all they have left is addictinggames.com and interactive buddy

In related news...

[cytoman]

[snark]...blocking the internet ultimately resulted in such an increase in work productivity that Pakistan shot to the top of the list of developed countries in record time! [/snark]

Re:In related news...

[Hulleye]

ISPAK announced they noticed a decrease in internet traffic by approximately 20-25% after the ban

Re:In related news...

[E IS mC(Square)]

Seems a lot of farms are drying up on facebook.

They don't even understand the history

[Lucas123]

These radicals think depictions of Muhammad are disallowed out of respect, but in actuality it has to do with the same principles found in Christianity: Do not make idols for worship. Ergo, none of the profits are supposed to be immortalized through depictions. And, wouldn't you think the prophets themselves would care more about human life than a stupid image of themselves -- especially when people are completely misunderstanding the scriptural context.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[toriver]

The funny thing is that "old-timer" Protestants often destroyed or vandalized Catholic paintings and statues precisely for the same reason: They were considered examples of idolatry. Just go to e.g. Malta and see the faceless statues in some of the old churches there.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[Bing Tsher E]

That happened right in the UK. You don't have to go off in any distance to find it.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[TheKidWho]

The UK is pretty far from the USA.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[Monkeedude1212]

Except that this isn't a principle that started when the religion was founded, the whole anti-depiction thing only started about 2 or 3 hundred years ago. The religion itself is older, and has depictions of Muhammed.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[Gordonjcp]

That happens in Christian churches *now*, never mind "old-timer" Protestants. Look at the Free Presbyterians - wearing a crucifix necklace would be considered idolatry. Do bear in mind that they make Wahabbi Muslims look like the very picture of tolerance and acceptance, though.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[TangoMargarine]

none of the profits are supposed to be immortalized

No no, you're getting your hemispheres mixed up---we immortalize profits in the West. They immortalize prophets in the East.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[TangoMargarine]

Exactly...?

Re:They don't even understand the history

[Grishnakh]

That's a pretty far distance from me here in Arizona. Malta isn't that much farther for me to travel to than the UK, and Malta is probably much more interesting to visit too. The weather's better too.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[idontgno]

Yeah, religious iconoclasm was mostly a thing of the past (a couple of generations) by the time of the initial British colonization. Political iconoclasm, not so much: you see it every time you have a violent regime change. US patriots pulled down a lot of public representations of the British monarch and government at the time of the Revolution. And, in our time, the gigantic statue of Saddam being pulled down represents the same political impulse.

Re:They don't even understand the history

[Anonymous Coward]

http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

Re:Refreshing

[fusiongyro]

Hey, at least we can still speak our minds.

Shades of the Streisand effect

[J'raxis]

Well, that's sure to make what started as a silly Facebook joke become international news, isn't it.

Why, oh why...

[Jawnn]

... do religious fanatics get so wound up over the behavior of people who do no share their beliefs? Yes, I know that there are some who genuinely believe that they are "called" to convert the infidel or, as the Christians put it, "save" the unbeliever, but where do they get the idea that it makes sense, any kind of sense, to try and force this on others? If you want to believe that the old man in the sky favors Islam, fine. If you believe he smiles on you when you deny yourself meat on Friday (yes, dating myself), fine. Just get on with your superstition and leave the rest of us alone. M'kay? If want to draw a picture of one of your religious figures, it does not affect you at all, unless you look at it, and that act would be your choice, and thus, not my concern. Deal with it.

Re:Why, oh why...

[Opportunist]

Because it's got nothing to do with religion anymore. Sure, some may follow the whole crap out of religious hysteria, but the core uses it for what it basically is: Bullying. They noticed that they get attention if they start throwing a tantrum when someone does something they deem "immoral". It's not far from the Christian right in the US. Do you think they really care about Jesus? Bull. They care about the power that comes with bullying. Especially if the other side only wants to live in peace, so they cave in and give them what they want.

It's like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum because he can't have a lolly. So what do the parents do? Well, a 3 year old throwing a tantrum is certainly nothing you enjoy, and that lolly is maybe 50 cents or a buck, that's the price to have your peace, so you go and buy that lolly and your 3 year old is happy and quiet. It does send the wrong message, though...

Re:Refreshing

[Monkeedude1212]

I find that a lot of these foreign developing countries that seem to be oppressive and support censorship are usually pretty much just as bad as any developed nation.

I mean, what with Australia airports checking for porn, US Military blocking the Press with the Wikileaks video, Germany and its whole Anti-Nazi thing. Each country has its quirks, we seem so quick to condemn Pakistan for blocking a web site when we don't even have our own house in order.

flcikr out, wikipedia still working

[Hulleye]

Just confirming that Flickr is indeed blocked. Trying to access the site gives a "This Site is Restricted" msg. Wikipedia on the other hand seems to be working just fine.

Re:flcikr out, wikipedia still working

[Anonymous Coward]

Just confirming that Flickr is indeed blocked. Trying to access the site gives a "This Site is Restricted" msg. Wikipedia on the other hand seems to be working just fine.

Gosh, Its opening just fine for me in Pakistan. What ISP are you using. Says something like this on the colorful page. * 5,557 uploads in the last minute * 6,292 things tagged with fresco * 2.6 million things geotagged this month * Take the tour Explore Flickr Blog, the World Map, Camera Finder or interesting uploads from the last 7 days.

They should block electricity while they're at it

[DeafDumbBlind]

Skip the middle man.

Re:Refreshing

[Un pobre guey]

Gradually being eroded. Try going to Texas and badmouthing beef in public.

Umm... and where will it end?

[Opportunist]

So they want to block every page that could remotely even as much as talk about this? Good effing luck! Cut the international lines, anything short of that won't do it.

religion FAIL

[corbettw]

How is killing people or even just protesting over a drawing not equating the subject of the drawing to godhood? In other words, these idiots have turned Mohammad into an idol by their actions and words, and so are violating the very law they seek to enforce on others.

That counts as one big FAIL in my book.

Re:religion FAIL

[Shakrai]

In other words, these idiots have turned Mohammad into an idol by their actions and words, and so are violating the very law they seek to enforce on others.

I am not an expert on the Islamic faith, but I rather suspect they turned their backs on Mohammad when they started blowing up women and children.

Re:religion FAIL

[E IS mC(Square)]

Correction. you forgot "=" sign.

Religion = FAIL

Re:religion FAIL

[H0p313ss]

I rather suspect they turned their backs on Mohammad when they started blowing up women and children.

I suspect that those who blow up women and children in the name of God will argue that it depends entirely on WHICH women and children you blow up.

Meanwhile the angular velocity of Mohammad spinning in his grave represents enough potential energy to provide the whole planet with electricity.

Re:religion FAIL

[paulgrant]

Stop sending your women and children to war ;) Might help.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_women_first_legally_allowed_to_join_the_military

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/children.html

Re:religion FAIL

[Mashiki]

Post is correct. Unless you're a die hard atheist who doesn't believe that religions give a purpose. In which case you're just a fools, fool.

Re:religion FAIL

[syousef]

In other words, these idiots have turned Mohammad into an idol by their actions and words, and so are violating the very law they seek to enforce on others.

I am not an expert on the Islamic faith, but I rather suspect they turned their backs on Mohammad when they started blowing up women and children.

It all depends on how you interpret the religion, or rather how your religious leaders interpret it, since ordinary people are always asked by religious leaders to take things on "faith". (The degree to which you are asked to take things on faith differs, but this underlies every major religion as far as I can tell).

Faith is code for disconnecting your mind and "believing" what you are told without quesiton. This is why religion - even "moderate" religion - can be so damaging. You surrender your ability to reason about things to people that have their own agendas. Whether you're asked to believe in the son of God saving us from sin, the great prophet Mohammed showing us the way, the wise Buddha teaching us how to be at spiritual peace, or the Xenu and space aliens hardly matters. With it comes instruction on how you must live your life, and what you should do, and the faithful may not question the "true word" of whomever.

Re:religion FAIL

[E IS mC(Square)]

You are wrong on multiple levels.

I never said religions have no purpose. The problem is that religions serve all the WRONG purposes. And that's good enough reason for me to be atheist - I would prefer not believing in anything than believing in wrong.

As for your insult - I prefer being a fool than a sheep.

Re:religion FAIL

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> women and children.

Men, however, are not proscribed.

Re:religion FAIL

[carp3_noct3m]

When are people going to learn that, though often the rhetoric we pay close attention to calls for action against the west because it is the "Great Satan", and all that goes with that, that the line many westerners have been fed in the lead up to the wars about Muslims hating the west because of its democracy, freedom of speech, and general ideals is a crock of shit. This is a line fed to the masses that has unfortunately become almost universally accepted by those with only cursory knowledge of Islam. Muslims hate the west for our international policy regarding them. A very good book I just recently finished explains this quite well (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq ; Micheal Sheuer) even states that although our president and others starting talking about the importance that we bring democracy to the middle east, even bin Ladens early warning clearly stated the grievances muslims had with America in particular. Schueur says "the Islamists' indictment sheet against the united States has been precise...for more than a decade.
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula and other parts of the Islamic world
2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel
3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia, and the Arab police states.
4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price

All of these things are facts of our policy, and our neglect or unwillingness to recognize these as some of the core issues feeding not only radical Islam, but even moderate Islam. (Really, be objective and put yourselves in their shoes, would you not feel the same way?) In fact, Bin Laden and his ilk were around during Ayatollah Khomeini's utter failure to get Muslims to kill themselves by attacking America because they drank beer, voted in elections, and attempted to ensure that women and men are treated equally. "Even the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who killed themselves in attacks against the U.S. and French targets in Beirut in 82-83 did so under the umbrella of the ayatolla's rhetoric, but they were in fact executing nationalist operations aimed at driving what they perceived as occupying Westerners out of Lebanon."
For anyone to believe otherwise, that "The Islamists and their supporters are warring against the United States because they hate Americans as Americans, as well as everything they stand for in the politcal and social spheres, and in the end intend to eradicate our society from the planet. ...If true... our choice is black and white simple: we can completely abandon our beliefs, our lifestyles, and how we behave in the domestic, political, and social arenas to appease our enemies, or we can undertake the task of killing every last Muslim because that is what they intend to do to us."

If we truly were on a campaign for hearts and minds, it would require an out of the ordinary grasp of reality and common sense from the elite, and would also require that the last 3 presidents "recant most of what they have sworn to be true about our enemies motivations, to take on the Saudi and Israeli lobbies, and to begin to destroy the energy-policy status quo..."

"This is the reason why Americans hear so few "moderate Muslim voices" opposing bin Laden and the Islamists; the moderates are out there and often do not approve of the Islamists' military actions, but they hate U.S. policies with just as much venom and passion as the Islamists, per the polls by Pew, Gallup, BBC, and Zogby."

Most of this is the result of an western population, political elite and else, who have studied little of the widely varying cultures, nations, and peoples that make up the "Muslim nation". By increasing deamnation of the entire Muslim religion, we enrage and "contribute to their silent acquescence in the face of the Islamists' arguments and military actions."

Also, often the fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni Islam is often overlooked and misunderstood. If you look at the history of what we in the west consider o

Re:religion FAIL

[Mashiki]

There's no difference in your post. Being atheist is the same as being religious, you simply don't realize that your belief is mirrored.

Sheep get eaten by wolves for not paying attention.

Re:religion FAIL

[syousef]

Spoken like a true outsider to any religious view.

Why thank you! That was meant to be a compliment, right?

I grew up in a religious household. Thankfully I've been cured of that disease. I use my brain and weigh things up when formulating my beliefs and my moral code.

The tiresome argument of equating faith to lack of rationalization demonstrates ignorance.

No it doesn't. I cannot use my mind and have any "faith" that the son of god born of a virgin manifests bread and wine, or that the creator of the universe speaks to chosen people using magic burning bushes. It's mindless and irrational.

Re:religion FAIL

[soppsa]

I think you totally missed the parents point... Now lets all get back to Apple articles so we can argue about Steve Jobs (Peace Be Upon Him)

Re:religion FAIL

[corbettw]

Being atheist is the same as being religious, you simply don't realize that your belief is mirrored.

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Re:Refreshing

[Shakrai]

Try making a valid comparison. Has the State of Texas shuttered any websites condemning beef?

Re:Refreshing

[Un pobre guey]

Such websites would be illegal in Texas, I don't know whether they have or even can shut them down. I see you are claiming that Pakistan's actions are far worse, and I agree that they are. I make the additional point that similar forces are eroding our rights here at home. Our only consolation is that it is much more difficult for them here, but they are gradually changing our laws to treat us just like any other Third World vassals.

Good

[elrous0]

I wish we could ban backwards countries from the ENTIRE internet. We could use a few less Nigerian scams and terrorist recruitment websites. We should establish a rule that if it's legal in your country to kill a woman for showing her face in public, you're not ready for the internet (or television or radio for that matter). You can give your people the internet when you get them sewers and a secular government first.

Re:Good

[CoryD]

Yes, because isolating a country due to their negative aspects breeds tolerance in their youth.
Or perhaps the internet, with its ability to expose people to other cultures and view points; allows for people to broaden their thought process beyond the otherwise dictate thought process imposed on them.
Take Iran's huge success lately in broadcasting their opposition against the government. Or the use of BBS and other internet based sites to communicate with each other to plan rallies/protests.
Yes, let's do away with the one universal asset that can be shared with the world to assist, even indirectly; in introducing new thoughts and enlightenment.

Re:Good

[ciggieposeur]

You can give your people the internet when you get them sewers and a secular government first.

We'd have to ban the Internet in the United States if those were the rules.

Re:Good

[elrous0]

There are reasonable limits to how far you go with that, though. The harsh reality is that some people, and some groups of people, just aren't ready for the internet. And if you're the kind of person who thinks that the proper response to seeing a pornographic picture is to kill the person(s) who posted and host it--you should not be welcome on the internet of the civilized world. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Re:Good

[elrous0]

Actually, even the most backwards U.S. states are starting to look downright liberal compared to Australia these days. Not sure what's going on down under, but they seem to be dipping fast.

Re:Good

[TangoMargarine]

Yeah, as if the ME didn't have enough reasons to hate us already.

(yes Slashdot is predominantly U.S. blah blah other viewpoints blah blah angry people blah blah blow it out your ear)

Re:Good

[pandrijeczko]

I hope you're not an American because by all accounts very few of you actually know where these countries are in the world...

Re:Good

[BCGlorfindel]

I wish we could ban backwards countries from the ENTIRE internet. We could use a few less Nigerian scams and terrorist recruitment websites. We should establish a rule that if it's legal in your country to kill a woman for showing her face in public, you're not ready for the internet (or television or radio for that matter). You can give your people the internet when you get them sewers and a secular government first.

I think your ignorance is leading you to propose bad ideas. You do realize that Pakistan's current ruling party IS a secular party. They were actually led by a women, Benazir Bhutto, until she was killed just recently, you may have heard of her.

You might also want to know although the former dictator didn't care to extend the nations infrastructure to all ends of the country, he did manage to give the people Nuclear weapons.

Finally, and most importantly, you should know that social networking sites like Facebook are one of the strongest tools available to the secular parties of the country that are struggling against both the military and religious fanatics. Don't think that the religious elements pushing for the ban are ignorant of how much their cause would be helped by depriving the secular and moderate elements the use of Facebook. But don't let any of that stop you from making like Bush and bull dogging your way straight into aiding the people you so rightly want to marginalize.

Re:Good

[elrous0]

We don't need to be able to point Pakistan out on a map to know that over 300 women are killed there every year by their own family for having premarital sex or actually wanting to marry someone for love and not by arrangement, or that rape wasn't even recognized as a prosecutable offense there until 2006. But yeah, we're all equal. We in the west are no better just because we have a legal system that doesn't imprison women for adultery or disobeying their husbands.

Obligatory

[Dunbal]

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Obligatory

[Dunbal]

Why not just leave them alone and let them do what they think is best for them and not judge them based on your standards, if any.

      So what you're basically saying is you think I should do what you say. I have an answer for you: go fuck yourself. I will judge whomever I wish. That's why I have a brain. It's what brains do.

Re:Obligatory

[soppsa]

Lol what? I'm not sure the later half of your comment makes sense. Nor was the GP trying to scare you by telling you to go fuck yourself. My response to this and your other comments on this article is to also, go fuck yourself. (Are muslims allowed to fuck themselves? You tell me...)

Re:Obligatory

[Dunbal]

The difference is that my "getting annoyed" (right, like an internet post is going to change my life) in no way stops you from living your life, or doing whatever you wish. Telling you to fuck off basically means I want nothing to do with you. Unless of course you thought that I meant it literally.

You, on the other hand, are not telling me to leave you alone. You are trying to tell me what to do. You are trying to put limits on me, by saying that I cannot judge by my standards (whose standards am I to judge by, then?). You are saying that you are right, and I am wrong. Well, buddy, you're going to have to prove that in order to convince me. I don't respond well to being told what to do. See, I'm not 4 years old.

Unfortunately the one with the overactive emotions here seems to be yourself. So I do recommend a bit of masturbation - or at least masturbation without guilt. It's quite healthy and lets out all the tension. Oh and a couple roast pork sandwiches are sheer heaven, too. You can munch on them while browsing some of facebook's funnier groups. However I'm not telling you what to do or how to think - it's merely a suggestion.

Re:Refreshing

[Shakrai]

Such websites would be illegal in Texas

Citation needed.

Re:Refreshing

[couchslug]

The more religion/superstition is questioned via the internet, the more provocative negative responses from superstitionists will result.

This is good. Every opportunity to expose foolish nonsense is to be exploited.

The 21st Century blocked in Pakistan

[dskoll]

Also the 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th and 15th.

They grudgingly permit the 14th.

Re:Muhammad's asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

In the words of Achmed the dead terrorist, I WILL KILL YOU.

How about Google?

[Thraxy]

Shouldn't they be blocking Google as well? I mean... 1.990.000 results on Google Images. Isn't that like mass blasphemy or something?

Re:How about Google?

[nattt]

That's not blasphemy, that's massphemy!

Of course, there's no real offence going on - not like the kind of offence we feel when people are killed, buildings burned, or little girl's are genital mutilated, or raped then beaten for being raped or stoned, or any of the other atrocities commited by the "religion of peace". It's feigned offence for the political reason of giving their population something to hate because they're so oppressed that they need something to keep their mind off their poor miserable lives.

Re:Its Him

[Thraxy]

I read "Slashdot doesn't support UNICORN" the first time. I was outraged and almost blocked Slashdot!

At least they're not hijacking this time.

[Leto-II]

Last time the Pakistani government told Pakistani ISPs to block YouTube they ended up hijacking their IP prefix for pretty much the entire Internet.

Just turn it off...

[DarthVain]

Considering it is an Islamic state I will assume porn is also banned as well.

Whats left on there? Just this: http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/ ?

Time to just turn the internet off and run a Pakistan LAN.

Re:Just turn it off...

[pandrijeczko]

I don't know about Pakistan but in the UAE (Dubai, Abu-Dhabi, etc.) the Internet is completely proxied such that any "suspect" web sites are blocked.

Dammit, do it quietly!

[Target Practice]

I wish they could have been quieter about this. My state senators (Utah) are probably already phoning them to ask how they can get a piece of that sanitized Internet pie.

Re:New Internet Meme !!!

[mcgrew]

Did Mohammed wear a turbin? A simple smiley face could be Muhammed. And since Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, don't they consider a Christian cross to be blasphemy?

Of course, there are seven billion people on this planet, more than a few of them are short a few marbles.

Re:New Internet Meme !!!

[TangoMargarine]

Did Mohammed wear a turbin?

Generating electricity from Middle Easterners? Now that's an idea!

Re:Refreshing

[BCGlorfindel]

Each country has its quirks, we seem so quick to condemn Pakistan for blocking a web site when we don't even have our own house in order.

Your relativism only shows that you are either malicious or ignorant. You do realize that the same powers in Pakistan pushing for this religious ban are also the ones failing to pursue the assassins of Benazir Bhutto. Not coincidentally, the first female head of state of any Islamic nation. In fact, in many papers the same crowd of leaders calling for permanent bans of facebook and youtube for religious reasons, are also remarking on Benazir's own guilt in her assassination for placing herself in harms way.

Sorry, but Pakistan's ban of media that offends the religious is a very minor symptom of much deeper, malicious and vile religious intolerance. Actually, you may have heard something of it on the news a few years ago, some of them went by the name of Tali-something or other. But who can be bothered to remember that sort of thing, we've got our own house to worry about and this couldn't possibly effect us.

Re:Refreshing

[pandrijeczko]

That will fill up about two lines of text then - what are you going to do with the rest of the space?

Pakistan News

[BCGlorfindel]

If only fluff pieces like this could bring attention to the more real issues in Pakistan. Like the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the first and only head of a muslim state. It's unfortunate in the extreme that the country's court has now been more effective and interested in this youtube and facebook ban than it's pursuit of Benazir's killers.

This ban is not the only thing that has been more important to many of Pakistan's leadership either. Since Benazir's widow became president, the entirety of the country's opposition parties, courts and media have given more attention to corruption charges against Benazir's widow than to the pursuit of her killers.

Former dictator Musharraf is a leading suspect as a co-conspirator in her assassination. The latest news from him is his intent to return to Pakistan, at the head of a new political party that will include the PML-Q. The PML-Q is one Pakistan's strongest conservative Islamic parties, and one the ones advocating the strongest for this ban, for charges of corruption against Benazir's widow, and one of the quietest about her assassins still running free.

Well, I guess that's my small part in trying to draw attention from the 'fluff' over this ban to the real problems it is a symptom of.

Re:Pakistan News

[chattr]

You really do know current affairs in Pakistan well ;) Yea, things improve but slowly and maybe for the sake of closure, we do find the killers of Benazir. I am a Pakistani and you all can say its a nuclear armed nation of Taliban but trust me, its way better than that. I see hope and when you grow to take your grand children to school, you will see a better image of Pakistan and a Pakistani is saying this to you. I work 45 hour week in IT and more to improve my skills and trust me what worries me a zillion times more than FB and youtube blocks is my access to online forums and my 2 hours of study/blogging/ helping other techies and geeks and seeking info myself and whether my family gives me the time to sit on a computer reading webhosting/data center technology/*nix stuff.

Re:Pakistan News

[BCGlorfindel]

You really do know current affairs in Pakistan well ;) Yea, things improve but slowly and maybe for the sake of closure, we do find the killers of Benazir. I am a Pakistani and you all can say its a nuclear armed nation of Taliban but trust me, its way better than that. I see hope and when you grow to take your grand children to school, you will see a better image of Pakistan and a Pakistani is saying this to you. I work 45 hour week in IT and more to improve my skills and trust me what worries me a zillion times more than FB and youtube blocks is my access to online forums and my 2 hours of study/blogging/ helping other techies and geeks and seeking info myself and whether my family gives me the time to sit on a computer reading webhosting/data center technology/*nix stuff.

Thank you, if you don't mind my asking please be vocal to our side of the world about how things are going over in your country. As I see it Musharraf returning to power isn't as much a concern for us over here as it is for people like yourself that would be living under him again.

If you don't mind I've a got questions for someone closer to what's happening :).

Do you see the PPP being able to hold on to power much longer?
Do you see them being able to get anything good done for the people, or do they lack the strength needed?
Do you care who is leading the nation, or do you think any leading party would stay on the generally positive path things are slowly following already?

Re:Pakistan News

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see the PPP being able to hold on to power much longer?

Yes, for once the hidden establishment seems unable to dislodge them off the government. Their last attempt is judicial coup against the government but it is likely to fail since the shameful face of the establishment has been exposed to the masses more than ever before. The opposition normally gains power after 2 years of elections in Pakistan which eventually leads to toppling of the government each time but this time opposition is being maligned more than the government which is strange.

Do you see them being able to get anything good done for the people, or do they lack the strength needed?

Only this last and then things should improve. I am not a PPP supporter but other options are rightist and they are just plain blank in policy. They just know how to rally crowds by chanting anti-govt slogans. Nothing concrete in terms of policy debates etc.

Do you care who is leading the nation, or do you think any leading party would stay on the generally positive path things are slowly following already?

I believe only in work work work. I do care but only to the extent of voting for the lesser evil (I always vote rather than staying quiet). I can do only this much right now rather than just getting frustrated by talks of corrupt politicians etc. When I do get a bigger role and chance to influence things on a grander scale, I will. No day dreaming, just work 4 now. ;) For general public, the urban young generation is educated and the rural is also moving to cities to get education. I traveled 11 years daily from a village with no electricity to the city just to study and became a computer engineer and earned a masters degree and currently seeking another masters in quality and operations. mgt. Its not only me, people have worked harder than me. Nations take centuries to build and we are only 63 years old when over 50% people walked barefoot. Now, we are a nuclear nation and doing quite well in emerging sciences. Terrorism has cost us a lot, but it will be defeated sooner rather than later. Yes, the leading party will move in the right direction for its survival because people have information now and that makes all the difference.

Re:Pakistan News

[chattr]

That was me (Chattr), perhaps ticked the wrong checkbox and it posted me anonymous.

Re:Refreshing

[BCGlorfindel]

The GP did not state Pakistan doesn't have problems, but to state the democratic nations also have problems which shouldn't be ignored. Stating these problems in developed and democratic nations should not be ignored is neither malicious nor ignorant.

No, he didn't simply say that our problems shouldn't be ignored. He compared the state of affairs in Paksitan as comparable to pretty much any developed nation:
I find that a lot of these foreign developing countries that seem to be oppressive and support censorship are usually pretty much just as bad as any developed nation.

I spoke directly to the relativism that would compare censorship acts and declare all is equal. I pointed out the notable difference that Pakistan's elements pushing for this ban, are also the elements that not only aren't pursuing Benazir's assassins, but are additionally going as far as to blame her for her own murder. That is after all what a women gets for not knowing her rightful religious place. She may not have drawn a picture of Mohammad, but being a female politician was really no better.

My point was to make it entirely clear that the posters implication that Pakistan's problems were comparable to anything faced in the western world was a load of lies. I stand by it needing to have been said, and by it being overwhelmingly true.

Muslim religion is not monolithic

[fantomas]

My understanding is that Islam is interpreted in different ways in different places, just like every other world religion. So this is not too surprising. Plus the religious leaders may have different degrees of influence in different countries.

Similar to the view from muslim - dominant countries looking at how different Christian countries consider abortion, contraception, etc I suppose. Different responses in different Christian dominant countries.

Re:Refreshing

[tsm_sf]

Oh, I'm afraid you've committed the ultimate sin of political correctness--you've DARED imply that one country/religion/belief-system is even the slightest bit superior to another!

Yeah, that's the problem with post-modernism. It's hard for some people to understand. Then again not everyone lets the TV do the thinking for them.

Re:Refreshing

[penix1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/nyt060199.htm

Last but not least, the law itself:

http://law.justia.com/texas/codes/cp/004.00.000096.00.html

Re:Refreshing

[ZeBam.com]

You sound like you don't believe it's possible in the US. Better go have another look out there.

Draw more cartoons; post them everywhere.

[poity]

Fuck them. Let them try to close themselves off.
The more they clamp down, the more of their citizenry will see what oppression they live under.

Re:Refreshing

[Toonol]

Such websites would be illegal in Texas

Of course that's not true, and nobody believes you.

Re:Refreshing

[BCGlorfindel]

Oh, because no western Nation has any religious intolerance. Have you seen France lately?

Actually I said there was intolerance everywhere. I just also noticed that it is very, very much worse in Pakistan. America still has racial intolerance, but compared to the 1930's, the America of today is much, much better.

France has riots, Pakistan has entire states/provinces/regions that are overrun by religious fanatics. Their control there is so absolute that the Pakistani police and even army still dare not go there. These fanatics, let's call them the Pakistani Taliban, as that's what many of them call themselves, use those regions of Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks against such targets as universities that allow women to attend them. They've also claimed responsibility for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Their mindset stretches far enough though that the list of those suspected of involvement stretches out from them into Paksitan's Intelligence services, Military and former dictator, sorry that's president, Musharraf. Oh, but yes, France does have riots and sometimes people even get injured pretty badly. I guess if you close your eyes and cover your ears well enough you can pretend they are the same thing. That won't make it true mind you.

And

[mahadiga]

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

good thing

[Tom]

It's actually a good thing. Hear me out.

One, I'd rather have the people being offended by something someone else does on his own turf to turn away than trying to stop others from doing it. Yes, Draw Mohammed Day is a bit childish, and it's purpose is to offend, it also does make a point about free speech. The important difference is whether or not something offensive is being shoved in your face against your will or not. I'm fine with Draw Mohammed Day. I'd not be fine with Send A Picture Of Mohammed To 100 Muslims Day. One is excercising your free speech, the other is being intentionally offensive to people.

Two, it makes clear what the actual effect of these prohibitions is: Removing yourself from civilized society. If you want to remain in the middle ages, fine with me (as long as you leave me alone). But don't try to profit from everything that modern technology gives while at the same time condemning it (most christian fundamentalists fall in the same category - they discard what science says about evolution but they gladly take a plane and a car on their next trip, instead of a donkey and their own feet).

Three, it makes it more clear to the general public just how fucked up these extremists are. A stick figure turns from a stick figure to a mortal sin the second you write "Mohammed" under it? If it weren't in the context of religion, where we accept the greatest nonsense, people like that would be classified as insane.

Re:Why offend? Why not understand first?

[ChatHuant]

It is incredible to me that offending a people's faith is seen as a glorious example of free speech. When did that happen?

When is it okay to make fun of the Holocast or deny so many lives lost? When is it okay to keep offending a people when you know that it is something they hold in high esteem?

Yes, that's precisely what freedom of speech really means. Isaac Asimov had an essay, ("Untouchable", in the June 1991 edition of Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) where he explains this much better than I could hope (he was referring to the issue of flag burning, but his arguments are universal). Unfortunately this essay hasn't been reprinted, and a quick search couldn't find it on the web, so I'll try to summarize it here.

Basically, Asimov's point was that the most important meaning of freedom of speech is protection of unpopular speech (be it unpopular to the government, to powerful people, or simply to the majority). There is no need to protect popular speech - there are no negative consequences to agreeing with the ones in power. In Soviet Russia, people could agree with Stalin as much as they liked, and as loudly as they felt like. And yet, you can't call this freedom of speech, because any deviation from whatever was approved took you to the gulags.

The whole point of freedom of speech is that the unpopular, the contrary, and yes, the despicable, the disgusting and the hateful speech must be protected. This can, and does cause offense at times, providing great moron-fodder to the likes of Fox News (which is just funny, since the very existence of Fox News relies on this principle). But the principle is so valuable, so useful, and, in the end so productive that it needs to be preserved carefully. Paraphrasing Asimov: he doesn't want the flag to be burned; he likes the flag, and what it stands for. But if there was a law forbidding the burning, the flag wouldn't stand for anything anymore and it wouldn't matter what happened to it.

To return to our discussion: offending a people's faith IS free speech. Making fun of the Holocaust IS free speech. The fact that some people are offended should not be a factor. Where do we stop otherwise? Lots of people are Catholic, or like the Catholic Church. Should the journalists that discovered priests abusing children be jailed (or at least muzzled) for lack of respect to Catholics? Criticising a public figure should be forbidden as well, because it annoys his or her fans and admirers? Heck, lots of people like Santa Claus, shall we make laws forbidding the portrayal or discussion of Santa?

I believe freedom of speech is one of the most impressive founding principles of Western civilisation. While there may be limits (insert fire theater example here), the judgement should almost always err on the side of more freedom, not less.

Re:Why offend? Why not understand first?

[ChilyWily]

To return to our discussion: offending a people's faith IS free speech. Making fun of the Holocaust IS free speech. The fact that some people are offended should not be a factor. Where do we stop otherwise?

Don't get me wrong, I support the freedom of speech, but this is not it. Where do we stop otherwise? In fact, we do not start such stuff at all. We show higher deference and respect for others and their beliefs. We elevate our discussions to higher logic and reason instead of shock-jock tactics.

To the people who are protesting and the Pakistani Government's knee-jerk reaction, they too are handling it poorly. They should instead make their own statement - something to the effect of "this act intentionally hurts the feelings of Muslims all over who are sick'n tired of being dragged into any foolish thing any 1 person does in the name of their faith. It does not build a constructive conversation about the real issues and promotes anti-Islam feelings under the guise of some higher principle. We urge people not to participate as a show of support to the vast silent majority of Muslims who feel offended."

Re:New Internet Meme !!!

[mcgrew]

*facepalm*

Re:Religion is not an acceptable excuse for murder

[Shompol]

Religion has been used as a perfectly valid excuse for murder since the beginning of times. The Crusades, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, Ferdinand's Assassination... oh wait, strike the last one.
Imagine, you are a holy priest, in charge of being a leader of a flock of followers. How do you cement and use that power? Here's an easy recipe:

1. Eliminate outside information influence. The flock has to hear only what you have to say, so they will not be informed enough to dissent. Internet must go.
2. Invent a fearful outside enemy. Nothing unites people behind their leaders more than having an enemy. Using some nation that actually exists helps your credibility. USA and zionists - check.
3. Have fun being a Supreme Leader. Politicians come to consult with you (think 14th century Europe). Execute opposition, expand your domain, fling shit into backyards of your imaginary enemy. It's all in the name of <insert your favorite deity>.

Too much power to 12 year old idiots

[cowtamer]

There's a point that, if understood by these countries, would make all this nonsense disappear:

They are collectively handing over the decision of what they can and can't see from their country to 12 year old trolls from countries that don't really like them.

Anyone can post a taboo subject for country X to a site like YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, etc. from outside the country for the sole purpose of tricking that country's judicial system into blocking that site.

That's worse than any DDOS I can imagine.

While this point is obvious to US Slashdotters, there are many (otherwise intelligent) people in these countries who agree with their censors thinking that they are "showing the west" the consequences of its disrespect.

Re:Why offend? Why not understand first?

[RabbitWho]

Agreed! This whole thing is disgusting! It mocks every single Muslim, not just the handful of people who threatened the lives of cartoonists in the past. It does not defend free speach it actively represses it. No one should be ridiculed for their beliefs and every non-violent person should be respected. But whatever about that, this stupid project is doing damage to real life people. It will give the dictators in Iran an excuse to block free media that everyone can agree with. It makes social networking an enemy to the people it should be liberating. Youtube is banned in many countries for political reasons. The censored internet is being used as a tool of political oppression and a place to spread propaganda, people are being told that the west hates them and western media exists to corrupt their children and make them shallow and godless consumers. And you know, this campaign makes me think they are right. It's so horrible to mock someone else belief, anyone who does it is no better than a schoolyard bully. Damn the sense of superiority. Damn this idea that nothing is sacred. Look at the "will it blend" video for the iPad. Look at the complaints! That is what is sacred to us! It is empty and meaningless and we don't even care about it! And yet we feel superior muslims!? How and why! What the hell makes this okay!??

Re:Religion is not an acceptable excuse for murder

[Tom]

Religion has been used as a perfectly valid excuse for murder since the beginning of times.

Yes, but does that justify it? How long do I have to keep something up before it becomes ok? Is there such a thing?

You are certainly right in your three steps. What I'm doing is going one step further. Most people agree that these religious extremists with their call for murder are perverts. I'm going the step further saying that all the religious people are perverts, it's just that the extremists are so much over the edge that it becomes obvious.