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."
I for one am glad to see the Islamic religion embracing their moderate side.
I demand a pony! I want a pony! So I can chop it's head off and put it in a Pakistani lawyer's bed.
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.
... while the wider implications are scary, I'm not sure I really have a problem with this particular case. Think they could make Four Square a crime against humanity while they're at it?
Islam - a religion of peace. Are you serious?
We seem to be willing to cave to the Muslim extremists in every other way, so why not this one too? Surely it's only sensible to be pussies every time the extremists pressure us, life and liberty be damned!
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
That's not "a nightmare scenario of legal jurisdiction". That's an opportunity. Allow me to sever the Gordian knot of tangled jurisdictional issues with justice, THUNDERDOME style.
Tonight's card: Muslim Fundamentalist Lawyer vs. Mark Zuckerberg. Two men enter, one world wins.
All the Pakistanis have to do is give us Osama Bin Laden first!
In the meantime, we'll keep Mark in a nice safe cave built by the CIA.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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'
should unfriend the Pakistani Lawyer
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
Once canvas takes over, we draw can Muhammad every fucking where.
It's sad, because I really want to support executing Zuckerberg. But . . .
I get the general religious offense in drawings of Muhammad. In that regard, it's like the Piss Crucifix. But, I don't see the need for the great animus behind all this. I mean, are Muslims really such pussies they can't take a fucking joke about their Prophet? Also, isn't this sort of elevating the Prophet to the level of a deity? And if so, doesn't that sort of nullify the Muslism creed (there is no god but God, and the stick figure behind the "censored" blackout bar is His Prophet)?
In the meantime, here's a fucking ASCII drawing of Muhammad . . .
O ----( Allahu akbar! ) -|- | /\
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
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.
I guess this is a development that no one really foresaw in the early stages of the Internet: instead of creating a global village with a global set of social mores, the Internet is creating a global court room where every jurisdiction can claim tort against anybody who does something over the Internet. Furthermore, it was always implicitly assumed (especially in the US) that the Internet users would adopt, or at least move to American moral standards. Instead, we're discovering that there are plenty of communities out there who are happy to apply their local standards to the world, and that these communities have enough power to at least make life uncomfortable for everyone.
There is a lesson here. Actually, there are two lessons here. One, Americans aren't the only ones willing to export their values, and they will have a difficult time arguing that others shouldn't. Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.
I have a sneaking suspicion I know which one is going to win, and it's going to give geeks heartburn all over the world.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
And yet people get so upset and claim that the US "made" the terrorists. I guess they did. Just like Mark Z. did. It does not take much for a western to anger someone. In fact, most people on slashdot would be likely candidates for execution; most of them deny that Allah exists.
But what we really need to do is talk about this with them and come to an understanding...
And by the way, Israel is bad. Israel shouldn't have a blockade, Hamas isn't really a big threat. They just want to "execute" Israel...
Hm.
Could someone explain why some Muslims believe that their rules need to apply to non-Muslims?
As a point of contrast, many Christians believe that their primary responsibility is to not themselves sin. Secondarily is to encourage their fellow Christian to avoid sinning; this includes (at the worst) kicking people out of the church when they're chronically unwilling to shape up. But But it's pretty hard to find anything directly in Christian theology that suggests Christians are supposed to try to impose these standards on non-Christians.
So what is it about some Muslim theologies that leads them to try to, for example, feel justified and/or compelled to try to kill Dutch cartoonists and Facebook executives?
See, hacking government computers is illegal everywhere, recognized by a crime by two allies who have an extradition treaty with each other. "Blasphemy" isn't a crime in America, or most of the non-Muslim world. Pakistan is basically the world's Arkansas and no one takes them seriously. There is no moral or legal equivalent.
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
Well, Facebook has customers in Pakistan, and that is probably enough, for FB to be considered a fugitive.
However, it should probably be noted that Zuckerberg is NOT facebook.
Can you imagine what would happen if CEOs for companies were actually personally criminally responsible for any illegal action anyone at their company committed, or that their company enabled any customer to commit?
If that were true we might have companies actually following the law....
It's a real problem for Zuckerman. He's previously made fund-raising trips to Dubai. That's over. The UAE has blasphemy laws, which they enforce. The UAE also has an extradition treaty with Pakistan, but not with the United States. So he can no longer visit Dubai, and is unlikely to get funding from any source in the Arab world. He can't even fly Emirates Air.
Would they be willing to settle for a plea bargin of having a drawing of Mark Z executed on national television?
Pakistan's Deputy Attorney General is preparing to also file charges against the blasphemous group Anonymous and his leader 'moot' for their continued and aggravated offenses against ... pretty fucking much everything.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
To bite America's shiny metal ass?
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
Just earlier this month I WANTED to strangle Zuckerberg. How is it possible for these assholes to suck the fun out of everything?
based on the actions of their equivalent of Jack Thompson? Oh way to go there. Let's show the rest of the non-Judeo Christian based world just how merciful and understanding we really are.
Here's a thought. Why don't we read up on what actual Islam is, versus the supremacist Arab culture that permeates and corrupts it. Karen Armstrong did a wonderful job of pointing out what Islam actually is, and how Arab culture with it's tradition of jahilliyeh has since permeated and corrupted it (note to the curious - Wahibist Islam is a fundamentalist version of Islam where the clerics try to reconcile the pre-Mohammed "heroic" cultural mores of Arab tribal culture with Islam itself - which is what Mohammed explicitly fought against).
but wait. It's far easier to learn programming, and read physics textbooks, and read Dawkins/Hitchens, and other men bloviating about the evils of religion, when they don't even have any real expertise in theology to begin with (Dawkins is a BIOLOGIST). And therefore, when one Muslim version of Jack Thompson goes with an attention-getting stunt, we automatically do to the entire muslim world what people who didn't understand gaming did to us gamers - we stereotype and hate. Way to go, there.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Muslims consider the Christian and Jewish G-d to be Allah and Jesus to be a prophet. They are unlikely to make fun of them. Islam's crime is rather the denigration of all non-Muslims into non-humans.
That depends what you mean when you say "Christianity". If you are referring to the "churches" where things are hierarchically structured and they teach that you must adhere to a strict system of "beliefs" or "doctrine" or "theology" then you are correct. Ironically, the Bible comes out strongly against those things and that way of doing things. It seems that either "Christians" haven't read it, or they didn't understand it. In that regard, "Christians" are much worse than followers of most religions, since don't practice what they preach in any noticeable way (the very act of instituting "Churches" runs contrary to the Bible). Jesus certainly wouldn't be allowed in "Church", they'd probably stone him if he went up before them preaching some of the things the Bible says he preached.
I think it's more likely that Slashdot posters want Zuckerburg executed too, only for different reasons. My personal feeling it death is too good for the guy who founded Facebook and caused me to waste so much of my time.
This ain't rocket surgery.
If you've ever logged on to Facebook, you have only yourself to blame. I like Zuckerburg - after investors complained about the company's wasteful spending, wondering whether he was wasting all their money on hookers and blow, Zuckerburg once filed an expense report itemizing his expenses as "hookers and blow". He's the hero of anyone who has ever struggled with getting expenses denied.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Mohammad was a child-raping psychopath and Allah doesn't exist.
There, now CmdrTaco can't go to Dubai.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
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.
The current Pope led that office until he became Pope.
But it is not just one guy. I don't care what people want to say Islam is supposed to be, you have to take what it in. In particular, look at the countries that are Islamic countries. They are almost to a one fundamentalist dictatorships of one form or another. You have Iran that has sham elections but is run by a "Supreme Leader" that is a cleric and an "Assembly of Experts" also clerics. You have Saudi Arabia, a long standing monarchy where they don't use lawyers but clerics in court and so on. The actual implementation of Islam is stuck back in the crusades and no amount of explaining away can change that. I don't care if that's not what it is "supposed" to be, that's what it is. I'm not going to say that Christian behavior in the actual crusades was ok because it was "Actually Christian". Sorry, it was what the vast majority of the follower of that faith did at the time. Doesn't matter if the book said they shouldn't, they did and justified it with their faith.
This is the same kind of crap from the people who cry that every single communist state "Isn't a real communism," and therefore communism is still a fine idea. Well strictly speaking that may be the case but practically speaking when communism is implemented, you get the USSR or Vietnam or Cuba and so on.
It's all the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Oh those guys aren't TRUE Muslims. Yes, they are. They identify as Muslim, they follow the basics, they are Muslim. They may not be what you think a Muslim should be, but they still are.
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.
Or, in the words of Mr/Ms. Garrison:
"Put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim - it's Friday night, but you can't have sex. And you can't jack off. There's sand in your eyes, and probably in the crack of your ass. Then some cartoon comes along from some country where people are getting laid and mocks your prophet. Well, y'know what?! I'd be pretty pissed off too!"
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Theocracy in Europe was parallel to secular authority. They each had their own courts, own tax system, etc. Yes, there was fighting over who was really in charge, which escalated into open war, but for the average guy on the farm the cvhuch was a government he had better obey. Post-reformation the secular governments had won, and in many places you could even decide to go to a differenct church if you wanted to.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I hate to break the news to you, but Islam simply doesn't play nice with...well I'd say any non Islamists, but look at Sunni VS Shia. Have you seen the translated videos from the tribal region? Little 6 year old singing lovely songs with words like "I'll get to Allah with the heads of Americans and Jews on my belt". They ain't raising kids there, they are raising future suicide bombers.
As it is all of Europe will be a Sharia law hellhole in under 40 years, simply because Muslims treat their women like cattle, and keep them pregnant. Whether we like it or not sooner or later it is gonna be all out US VS Them, simply because they refuse to respect the right of non Muslims to exist. Look at what happens to countries that get beyond 50%, they turn into violent backward hellholes. They simply don't play nice, and appeasement don't get you anything but laughed at by them. Sorry, but peace and love doesn't work if the other guy thinks you don't have the right to live, and with Islam that is pretty much the way it is.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.