Slashdot Mirror
Pakistani Lawyer Wants Mark Zuckerberg Executed
Earthquake Retrofit sends along a piece from The Register reporting on a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction on the Internet: a Pakistani lawyer has filed blasphemy charges, carrying the death penalty, against Mark Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives (and the pseudonomous user who initiated the "Draw Muhammad" contest last month). Pakistani police have apparently opened an investigation, according to this Google translation of a BBC Urdu report."
If Pakistan were to actually uphold this absurd attempt, it wouldn't hurt Mark Zuckerberg (I'm pretty sure he's not planning on going to Pakistan anytime soon and no civilized country is even going to consider extradition). But it WOULD certainly hurt Pakistan (which already has a pretty bad rep to begin with). It's the equivalent of holding up a big sign to the world that reads "We're a backwards shithole, filled with intolerant Koran-thumping hicks. Don't even think about coming here or doing business here." It would be a valuable lesson on what religious fanaticism can do to your country, I suppose--especially for countries that don't have oil (the only reason any businessman from the civilized world would even be caught dead in Saudi Arabia).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And on a more serious note... what does the people who want the UK Hacker extradited and tried in the USA think of this?... after all the crime was commited in Pakistan (showing drawings of Teh Propeth) no?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I don't think the pages for "Draw Muhammad Day" is that big a deal. FarmTown, now THAT is a reason for execution.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
No, people are assholes pretty much anywhere.
Yet another example showing that the Islamic world is still in the Dark Ages that most of the rest of the world emerged from sometime in the 13th century.
Even if you look at it from their perspective, that Mark Zuckerberg is somehow guilty because he's "enabling" these "offensive" actions on his website, doesn't that make their entire religion guilty because they're enabling the grisly murders of people like Daniel Pearl, or hell, all of 9/11?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
That is referring to his followers being persecuted and rejected by their own family members.
Which, I might add, is an exact description of what happens when a Muslim converts to Christianity. If the family doesn’t outright execute him or her, they at the very least are completely disowned.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I know I may have fallen for a troll trap here, but I am not letting this one go: Hitler atheism is in doubt. The evidence point more toward him being a catholic. Beside wasn't the soldiers who committed these crimes?, are you telling me that Germany's army during ww2 was an atheist army ??None of these soldiers was a catholic one ? Stalin was dogmatic in his views about social composition, he was so dogmatic about these things, it was as religion. Same goes for Pol Pot. It was religion that started the Crusades, it was religion who started the inquisition, it was religion who brought down the Towers. What about slavery in US ? who were the south quoting on the right for slaves? Get you fact right! "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg
Actually, I'd be more likely to agree that all religions are, at the core, about power and influence. Frequently they're tools whereby a tiny elite try to influence and control a large flock of sheep.
Art only becomes idolatry when one feels that it has some special representation. Pledging to kill the creator of an image is in fact proof of worshiping it.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
The Reformation gets very little credit for the relative moderation(or at least contemporary impotence) of Christianity, outside of some real shitholes. Calvin's Geneva was a Protestant theocracy, and there were numerous examples at least as unpleasant.
Also, while Islam didn't have a "reformation", it also has the "two-substantially-dissimilar-and-mutually-displeased-with-one-another-sects-operating-under-one-heading" thing going, with the Sunni and Shia branches(plus some smaller oddball variants), and that hasn't exactly exposed its warm and fuzzy side.
Most of the credit for the West not being a ghastly theocratic hellhole, torn by endless wars between the terrorized papistical minions of Rome and the terrorized heretical minions of various protestant factions, with the occasional witch burning or crusade to bring people together, is due to the Enlightenment.
"Mankind will never be free until the last King is strangled with the entrails of the last Priest"(and the last advertising shill is buried alive alongside them)...
So just because some of our remote ancestors behaved like giant douchebags it's okay to let people repeat it, especially if it's in the name of religion.
What happened to learning from history to avoid repeating its mistake? Or did i miss some clause detailing exceptions to this?
Oh like Islam is any better.
Child brides, pederasty, repression of women, homosexuality as a crime with the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen.
I'd bet that more young males are molested in countries like Morocco a year due to the repressed sexuality Islam imposes than have been molested by all the Catholic priests in the last thirty years.
The son of one of Hamas's founders admits that the social restrictions on dating and sex in Islam and the Middle Eastern tribal society is one of the leading causes of militarism in Islam.