Slashdot Mirror


Taliban Seizes and Burns PCs, Cell Phones To Stop Obscenity

retroworks writes "As translated from Central Asia Online, Cellular News reports that militants from South Waziristan set ablaze about 300 cellular phones and a number of computers in Wana because the devices were allegedly used to spread obscene materials. Prior to taking the action, they gave everyone fair warning with 'leaflets.' 300 cell phones down, 5 or 6 billion to go.

294 comments

  1. hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know association that would be happy to do the same here in the US.

    1. Re:hmm.. by InterestingFella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      U.S. already does. 18 year limit for natural love making, but violence is all good! Then when someone does weird porn that minority like (and doesn't hurt anyone), like shitting in mouth, they jail those responsible for filming it. Land of hypocrites.

    2. Re:hmm.. by koan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure if someone shit in your mouth you would be hurt, at least by the influx of E. coli if not emotionally.
      Go ahead and try it.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:hmm.. by youn · · Score: 1

      Technically, even light slows down in busy places :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    4. Re:hmm.. by youn · · Score: 1

      Oops, I was replying to speed of light... I guess I hit reply faster than 186000 miles per second :)... and I attached my reply to the wrong post... I was replying to the 186000 miles per second below

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    5. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Controversially, the new edition of the book [Bible On: Just Try to be Nice] has updated the names of some characters, and Jesus has been removed completely. 'He's been a bit hard to relate to since the '70s, if I'm honest', explained co-author Ken Flowers. 'If a kid is faced by a bearded man in sandals claiming that if they follow him they will experience endless love, they're probably going to report him to Childline. That's why we've replaced him with a talking bear called Nigel, who looks sad if you drop litter, or knock something over.'

  2. They took mine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I knew I shouldn't have browsed that one site where a woman showed her ankle!

    1. Re:They took mine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a chill pill.
      It was a joke.
      Ass

    2. Re:They took mine. by redkcir · · Score: 2

      Still got that link?

    3. Re:They took mine. by tsa · · Score: 0

      Is that why I had to say "Yes I'm over 17" before I could download Opera for my iPhone?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:They took mine. by orphiuchus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know I'll probably get modded -1 for pointing this out, but you're a fucking moron.

    5. Re:They took mine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://enrazzlement.blogspot.com/

    6. Re:They took mine. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You got that right, the Taliban absolutely hate Cell phones and computers, they both allow the real Afghans to communicate in ways that are difficult for the Taliban to monitor; their strategy works best when everybody is ignorant, superstitious and isolated.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. Oh noes by Osgeld · · Score: 2, Funny

    burn the devil box, it showed the chin of a female!

    If they were smart they would burn the internet ...

    1. Re:Oh noes by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      burn the devil box, it showed the chin of a female!

      Not even. It probably showed a female learning basic addition.

      If they were smart they would burn the internet ...

      By who's definition of "smart"? If they were smart they'd burn themselves in order to escape the atrocities of the world. You know, things like education, equal rights for women, free will, etc. Pure evil. [rolls eyes]

    2. Re:Oh noes by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No need. The US Congress is racing to do that for them. (I wish this was a joke)

    3. Re:Oh noes by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they were smart they would burn the internet ...

      We' ll take care of that with SOPA.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:Oh noes by skids · · Score: 1

      Aside from the obvious authoritarian fanaticism problem, someone needs to tell these asshats that when cost-plus contractors threw electronics in pits and burn them, it's not because they were environmentally safe to burn, it's just because cost-plus contractors don't give a crap about the environment "over there."

    5. Re:Oh noes by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Nah, if the Muslims over there were smart, we'd be reading an article next week titled "PC and cell phone users seize and burn members of the Taliban to stop idiocy and tyranny". Now we all know this won't happen because for some fucked up reason, they LIKE being abused....kind of like the really hot girls in high school and college who always date the guys who treat them like shit and beat the crap out of them.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  4. Idiots. by Tolkien · · Score: 2

    Because destroying the hard drives wasn't enough, wasting tens of thousands of dollars in perfectly good hardware was the right thing to do.

    1. Re:Idiots. by jo42 · · Score: 0

      West Bumfuckistan - Back To The Dark Ages.

    2. Re:Idiots. by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Whatever... just don't tell my wife about them!

      /hopes^H^H^H^H^Hprays they don't make house calls

    3. Re:Idiots. by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that miltant crazies don't really know what a hard drive is, or where the memory is stored. It's just a devil box at that point. Hell I don't think most US fundamentalist crazies would know either.

    4. Re:Idiots. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that miltant crazies don't really know what a hard drive is, or where the memory is stored. It's just a devil box at that point. Hell I don't think most US fundamentalist crazies would know either.

      Sure they do. It is that big box on the floor with all the buttons and lights on it and a cup holder. What do you think I am? Some kind of idiot?

    5. Re:Idiots. by a_nonamiss · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not a cup holder you moran. It's where you put the shiny circle. I seen one of those "Geek Nerd" guys up at the Best Buy do it once.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    6. Re:Idiots. by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Three weeks in thirty minutes.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    7. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kill yourself

    8. Re:Idiots. by Whiteox · · Score: 2

      Durrr! You only use the shiny circle if the cup wont fit in the whole

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    9. Re:Idiots. by tsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blowing up those ridiculously old and big statues was also the right thing to do.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    10. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's when it was obvious to me that they truly are assholes. I'd understand if they were pissed at a Christian holy site or even a Sikh given the history of wars between them - but what have Buddhists ever done to hurt them? Fuck em.

    11. Re:Idiots. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I don't know about how the Taliban thinks, but I am too familiar with the ways of thinking of Christian fundamentalists. They often consider sin as not merely a set of rules, but almost a substance. Something that can linger, corrupt and taint. I know of one chuch that rejected a huge donation from a lottery winner because they thought gambling was a sin, and thus money obtained from gambling would be perminantly stained with that sin. There might be something similar going on with the Taliban: Once a computer has been used for something obscene (And this being the Taliban, it might not even be porn - they probably consider a lot of things obscene) it becomes dirty in their eyes, and only fire can purify it.

    12. Re:Idiots. by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that miltant crazies don't really know what a hard drive is, or where the memory is stored. It's just a devil box at that point. Hell I don't think most US fundamentalist crazies would know either.

      Unfortunately, the Taliban has learned how to use thundersticks. That's all they need to know.

    13. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were probably afraid someone might be using the rest of the hardware as a distributed in-memory database of obscene material. Limitations are the mother of invention.

    14. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but what have Buddhists ever done to hurt them

      Exist in the same area and leave a statue featuring a human face to remind of the "Eastern Enemy of Islam" and a memory of the past where the Taliban didn't control everything and alternative ideas existed. That's subversive.

    15. Re:Idiots. by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Yeah and considering computers aren't people, it's nothing short of mind-numbing stupidity.

  5. ...I will wipe from the face of the earth every HD by zill · · Score: 1

    I bet the recent Thailand floods were the result of top secret Taliban weather control technology. After all, hard-drives are the bigger enablers of porn.

  6. Objective Hide their actual Activities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First objective is to hide what they are doing. This is accomplished by no one able to photograph their brutal actions and so the Leaders will not be photographed for later intervention by NATO.

    Second is to control the media and what the people are told. Hopefully create more little zealots to continue the cause.

    1. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by geekprime · · Score: 2

      Bingo! We have a winner!

    2. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by EdIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering the Taliban manual specifically prohibits any Taliban from being alone in a room with an unbearded man (boy), I bet it is so that nobody can record that evidence as well.

      Which is incredibly ironic that they are trying to prevent obscenity when they are predominately pedophiles.

      Before anybody mods this troll..... if it was false why would it have to be in the manual for the Taliban specifically?

    3. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by 517714 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doesn't that pretty much sum up our government's policies too?

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    4. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by number11 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering the Taliban manual specifically prohibits any Taliban from being alone in a room with an unbearded man (boy), I bet it is so that nobody can record that evidence as well. Which is incredibly ironic that they are trying to prevent obscenity when they are predominately pedophiles. Before anybody mods this troll..... if it was false why would it have to be in the manual for the Taliban specifically?

      Because it's a popular entertainment in Afghanistan that the Taliban want to ban?

      What makes you think it's not a problem with non-Taliban? Didn't American contractors with DynCorp pimp young boys for a party for Afghan cops (cite?

    5. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by argee · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean the USA? They burn domains, they go crazy over the Wikileaks, etc. And ...
      SOPA will take care of the rest. We have the best government money can buy.

    6. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the Catholics should have had such a rule.

    7. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it's specifically in the manual, is because it was one of the atrocities regularly carried out by the Warlords that used to run Afghanistan - and is one of the reasons that the Taliban was formed as a popular bastion of (Islamic) moral authority* in the first place....

      Now, I have many problems with the Taliban and the way they run things - and even more problems with 'moral authorities' in general - but lets at least keep our assaults on them based in fact and reality.

      *Aside from being a bunch of hate-filled bastards, the Taliban are actually a fantastic lesson in what happens when you allow a popular 'bastion of moral authority' gain a foothold in government. Sure they may rise to power on a strongly emotional subject like stopping the abuse of children - but where they go from there is the problem. Somehow I don't think this problem is restricted to Islamic authorities.

    8. Re:Objective Hide their actual Activities by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Homosexual pedophilia is a prominent part of Pashtun culture in general. Local traditional interpretation of Islam is extremely misogynistic, but allows for homosexual sex as an outlet, and young "beardless" boys are seen as legitimate object of sexual desire.

      Taliban is different in that they are much more straightforward on this issue: it's a sin, and punishment is death. In fact, Taliban had started as an organized militia movement when mullah Omar and his madrasa students liberated several boys kidnapped and raped by a mujahideen warlord from a nearby village, and hanged said warlord from the turret of his tank in front of the villagers.

  7. Jokes on them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The toxic chemicals released from burning all that hardware gave them all cancer.

    HA HA.

    1. Re:Jokes on them... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The toxic chemicals released from burning all that hardware gave them all cancer.

      "Why are you worried about something that will kill you in 7 years when there are so many things that can kill you tomorrow?" -- Lord of War

      Hard to preach long term thinking when most people in the community die in their thirties...

    2. Re:Jokes on them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That stuff is so toxic, it might kill them in two.

    3. Re:Jokes on them... by BarryHaworth · · Score: 3, Funny

      The toxic chemicals released from burning all that hardware gave them all cancer.

      HA HA.

      ... which leads straight into the XKCD cartoon about just his phenomenon.

      --
      I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
    4. Re:Jokes on them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That stuff is so toxic, it might kill them in two.

      And it would be no great loss. In fact, it would be a gain.

    5. Re:Jokes on them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ that guy has a comic about everything.

    6. Re:Jokes on them... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Hard to preach long term thinking when most people in the community die in their thirties..."

      Who needs long term thinking when the only objective is to enter Paradise? Superstition erases the need to care about much else.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  8. But you know... by JasoninKS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, they copied off and kept all the good porn for themselves before they destroyed the hardware.

  9. SOPAliban by Kikuchi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Much more efficient than blocking DNS, you have to concede that.

    --
    There's no scientific consensus that life is important.
  10. ACTA by kurt555gs · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why the USA is against the Taliban is beyond me. They are in favor of ACTA and SOPA by their actions here. We're all in this together.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:ACTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the USA is against the Taliban is beyond me. They are in favor of ACTA and SOPA by their actions here. We're all in this together.

      The Taliban are muslim pigs that worship false idol, and the American are a christian nation under God. Do you see the difference now? Do you understand why the war now? Thank you, and God bless America.

    2. Re:ACTA by Rational · · Score: 1

      Back during the Soviet occupation they used to be Freedom Fighters, though, and deserving of all kinds of help, support and training...

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  11. Lesser of many evils by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forget about this...

    Compared to throwing acid on a young girl's face because she wants what we consider an elementary education - now that's worth some outrage.

    Children are to be cherished and encouraged to reach for their full potential. Any society that fails to do this is failing, period - USA included.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Lesser of many evils by kanto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forget about this...

      Compared to throwing acid on a young girl's face because she wants what we consider an elementary education - now that's worth some outrage.

      Children are to be cherished and encouraged to reach for their full potential. Any society that fails to do this is failing, period - USA included.

      I think this is a perfect thing to get outraged at since it's just a different side of the same problem, "where you burn books, you will ultimately burn people also".

    2. Re:Lesser of many evils by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I had to google that last quote because I liked it so much.

      For everyone's edification:

      "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen."

        "That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also."

        Heinrich Heine, in the play "Almansor" - 1821

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Lesser of many evils by Khith · · Score: 1

      Just because there is something worse in comparison doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't still bad.

      Instead of settling for the lesser of two evils, we should be condemning ALL evils.

    4. Re:Lesser of many evils by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I would generally agree with you, but sometimes you have to pick your fights.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    5. Re:Lesser of many evils by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Children are to be cherished and encouraged to reach for their full potential. Any society that fails to do this is failing, period - USA included.

      And yet the USA took down a regime that blew up historical statues and encouraged this kind of degenerate behavior.

      Say what you want about the war, but we at least did that much.

    6. Re:Lesser of many evils by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on that one. When I added the "USA included" comment I was thinking more about policies at home.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  12. Extingush the Taliban by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Taliban is one organization I would not mind if we used a Neutron Bomb or some sort of method of extinguishing all organic life in an area to eliminate. They are probably the lowest vermin on the face of the Earth.

    1. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm with you with the following proviso:

      You must GUARANTEE, BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING within the AoE is a willing follower, enabler, adherent, and/or card-carrying member thereof.

      Once you've done that, Bombs Away!

      -AC

    2. Re:Extingush the Taliban by bug1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe instead of resorting to violence to achieve your goal (like the tailban does) we could try and teach them to think for themselves so they arent so easily brainwashed by religion.

    3. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we tried that in america, it didnt work.

    4. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. You guys couldn't even bother to finish Iraq, let alone to what was necessary to defeat what was causing the problems in the first place. Because you let politics get in the way of beating an ideology.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:Extingush the Taliban by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That's the huge problem: They don't think for themselves and there are literally centuries of distrust you're working against. Iliteracy is in the high 90-percentile in Afghanistan, and no one trusts anyone outside their villiage. For example, when that whacked out minister from Florida said he was going to burn the Koran, not actually do it but said he would, there were huge protests here. NATO and UN cars trying to enter/leave base were attacked, windshields cracked from large rocks thrown at them, etc. Those were just WORDS at that point, as I don't think he ever actually did it. Then, the TB incited people by saying the US Government endorsed the guy and was part of the Koran burning. You and I know that's ludicrous, but when you're literally a goat herder in the middle of nowhere, can't read or write, what else would you believe? Religion is just the ends to justify the means. TB are murderers who use the veil of Islam to justify their evil. Think through the logic on this parent thread: It's ok to put out a video of a man having his head severed with an old rusty machette, or hang a 7 yr old child in the middle of a public soccer game, because you THINK he might be helping the US, but... it's NOT ok to take a picture of a naked lady.

      How do you logic with that? The answer is you can't. I don't really expect you to understand because you're in a Westernized, modern, industrial world. You follow laws, understand technology and very likely had an education. None of these are done here, in Afghanistan where I write these words, nor have they been done in thousands of years. You know, you can drive a donkey down the middle of the road here, put a family of 4 (no eye, head or other protection) on a motorized scooter, or drive the wrong way down the road here in their capital (Kabul), right past a cop, and he won't do a thing? Mind blowing but that's how it is. After we leave, that's how it'll still be...

    6. Re:Extingush the Taliban by bug1 · · Score: 1

      Insightful comments, i dont know the answer to the problems there, but i believe it has to _start_ with literacy (education).

      Even "crazy" people can have logical reasons to behave in their own twisted way, the logic only makes sense if you apply it to their twisted base conditions. (it can be logical for a crazy person to behave in a crazy way)

      I think a lot of arguments happen because people look at the same problem from different viewpoints and disagree with what they see. To resolve the problem requires them to agree on what the problem is first. That is where literacy and critical thinking can help.

      Ive heard that there are programs over the help them to read their religious books, its a start, it might take a generation to see the benefits.

    7. Re:Extingush the Taliban by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Thermonuclear weapons are cheaper.

    8. Re:Extingush the Taliban by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2
      I poorly articulated the original response relative to your original point: Their "logic" is in no way similar to ours other than the very bottom layer of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs: Physical Security. If they think the Taliban will provide them and their family better security, they will continue to dig in the middle of the dirt road to emplace an IED (knowing they have a very good liklihood of being spotted by a UAV and being at the pointy end of a GBU). The "winning side" will still be taking care of their family is one strong riding priority.

      If they think the US will win, they'll take our money to to go school. However, they have seen large power (Brits, Soviets, and now ISAF) come in, play around in the dirt, and then go home. So you tell me: If you've been abandoned for centuries by people who want you to learn to read and other things that don't directly (in your Afghani mind) put food on your table for you and your family, why would you switch sides from the guy who's been your neighbor for centures and occasionally burns your phone, kills a friend, etc? That's the choice they make, and the reality of their logic. The rest is usually, "Allah Willing." If you die or live, it's whatever Allah determined for you regardless of your decisions.

      There are literacy programs, but it's usually one of the first targets of the insurgents. They also believe 50% of the population (women) are not allowed by their religion to be on equal footing, nor go to school. Attacks on little girls, here in Afghan as one example, are much more common than you will ever see on the news.

    9. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Nick_13ro · · Score: 2

      And you expect the afghans to discriminate between a US minister's words and the beliefs the US military may have as a whole after the US attacks Afghanistan for the supposed actions of a saudi guy living in Afghanistan unaffiliated with the taliban regime ? Oh, or you mean you don't take the taliban's word that they had nothing to do with the guy but they just have to take your word on that minister as scripture ? And about killing people for mere suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, how about all your laws allowing you to kill or imprison without a trial and torture anybody suspected of "terrorism" ? Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, ring any bells ? Now the latest defence authorization act allows the US to do the same thing to any US citizen it sees fit even though Obomber already needed no authorization to order the killing of a US citizen cleric in Yemen.

    10. Re:Extingush the Taliban by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      In a conflict between violence and non-violence...

      You know of Tank Man, the famous protester in China? You don't know his name though. Because after the protest he vanished and was never seen or heard from again. The only force that can really counter violence is more violence. That is why most countries have a police force: A legitimate force, able to counter violent crime with violent enforcement, but willingly (-ish) subject to constraints and accountability.

    11. Re:Extingush the Taliban by bug1 · · Score: 1

      You think that its the police that keep society safe from violence, LOL.

      Ever hear of a riot... if everyone in society wanted to vomit violence then do you seriously think the police could stop it ?

      Morality is what keep society safe, we are safe from violence because most people dont want to commit violence, not because everyone lives in fear of the police catching them (a police state).

    12. Re:Extingush the Taliban by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2

      First, it's really hard to read what you're saying, when you have huge run-on sentences. I have no idea what your first sentence is trying to say, or not say. However, I'll take a stab at it. Yes, there are 0 (zero) Afghans who have watched a US Soldier burn a Koran with their own eyes. There are many who were told by TB that they were, after the TB guy burned something down and then threw a Koran into the ashes. Your second sentence seems to ramble a duplicate of the first, but I'll give a second example. The Afghan has never watched a US Soldier stop a public soccer game, bring out a 7-9 yr old boy, and then hang him from a goal post, yet quite a few watched this done by TB. So to answer your question: Yes, you should usually be able to discern conduct you watch, versus conduct described that does not follow what you've observed. Now the real issue here isn't them discerning truth versus non-truth. You seem to have skipped the entire, following discussion. The issue really is, "Who is the winning side." If they think the US is going to prevail, they'll believe whatever we tell them. If they think the TB will prevail, they'll go with whatever they tell them. This is why most are stuck between because, depending on their past, they may not like either choice. They just want to be left alone to be able to farm their land and provide for their family. Sorta like the US. You really don't care if a Democrat or Republican is the President because as long as you can provide for your family, it really doesn't impact your daily life.

      I'm not sure if you're American or not from your post, but I'll go based on your comments that you're completely in the dark about US, US Law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. US law does now allow imprisonment without a trial. Military Law allows enemy unlawful combatants to be held because there are severe jurisdiction and legal issues that arise when someone is unlawfully waging war. If a Saudi unlawfully fires an RPG provided in Pakistan, against a US and British patrol, who prosecutes? Whose jurisprudence prevails? Then, for Professionals in Arms there are two additional sets of laws. For Title 10 soldiers, airman, sailors and Coast Guardsmen (there are a few in Afghan), you have the UCMJ. This is why the soldiers at Abu Ghraib are no longer serving as they were tried and convicted under UCMJ for breaking those laws, as well as others of the last set of laws I mention, Law of Armed Conflict. There is no civilization alive that would survive a litmus test of condemning everyone for the mistakes of a few. Every military and civilian sent over is briefed on the LoAC laws and how they pertain to them. This is why if a Sniper sees an IED emplacer digging in the road, he can then watch for hostile intent. When the emplacer confirms hostile intent with an IED device being buried, he is then lawfully able (doesn't always happen) to take a shot. Let's say the shot misses its mark and the guy starts to limp away. There is no longer hostile intent, nor capability (he's left the IED behind) and the Sniper is bound by LoAC to NOT take a 2nd shot. This also happens often. A Quick Reaction Force (QRF) will respond (as usually the Sniper team will stay in place or egress as to not be found/seen) and find the blood trail, and no bad guy to be found.

      What is Obomber? Is that a misspelled October reference to an event? A reference to Obama allowing bombing, which every President for a few decades on both sides have allowed? We've been bombing militants and terrorists since before Reagan. Libia and Gaddafi ring any bells?

    13. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't bad enough that we have people signing their posts now we have ACs signing as AC.

    14. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if everyone in society wanted to vomit violence then do you seriously think the police could stop it ?

      So you're worried about the Bulemic Liberation Front, or what?

    15. Re:Extingush the Taliban by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If morality is all that kept people in check then even the tiniest percentage of people with lax morality would lead to a total collapse of society. A petty criminal could get very rich in such a world. Go to someone's house, smash windows, steal everything, move on.

      You would need some sort of a public protection organisation, one able to stop these crimes by force and provide a threat of punishment to discourage more... which is what the police are for, when they do their job properly.

    16. Re:Extingush the Taliban by bug1 · · Score: 2

      Sure, the police can keep a small percentage of "immoral" people in line, but if a significant percentage of people decide to act against society, then the police wont be much help.

      Police often have resource problems as it is on say New Years EVE, or other special occasions, what makes you think they could handle it if crime say doubled, and they had to lock up 2% of the US population instead of 1.

      If there wasnâ(TM)t a clear majority of "good" people then society would have crumbled long ago.

    17. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Crookdotter · · Score: 1

      Splitters.

    18. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot:

      "TB are murderers who use the veil of Islam to justify their evil."

      Islam IS evil, you moron.

      Try reading the koran, for a start, then find out about the life of the so-called 'prophet' Mohammed. He was a mass murderer, multiple rapist and a paedophile. All well documented by muslims, not their enemies, and muslims call him 'the perfect man'. Need I say more?

    19. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Nick_13ro · · Score: 1

      "The issue really is, "Who is the winning side." If they think the US is going to prevail, they'll believe whatever we tell them. If they think the TB will prevail, they'll go with whatever they tell them. This is why most are stuck between because, depending on their past, they may not like either choice. They just want to be left alone to be able to farm their land and provide for their family. Sorta like the US. You really don't care if a Democrat or Republican is the President because as long as you can provide for your family, it really doesn't impact your daily life."

      Finally something I can agree with, with the addition that since you're invading their country they're not likely to appreciate your presence very much and in the propaganda war everything being equal the taliban have a distinct advantage. :) About my formatting not sure why it doesn't show. i just looked in options and changed from html to plain text, hopefully that will help.

      About the rest- military conduct on the battlefield was not the issue and the unlawful combatant status only applying to foreigners to the country you're pummeling I wish that were true, but it's still no excuse for torture. But I don't have many reasons to believe it though, given how the US reclassified WW2 german prisoners to "unarmed enemy forces" so that the Geneva convention would supposedly not apply to them and then let them starve and freeze to death in open fields.

      For the rest- no I'm not an american and Obomber was indeed a reference to the bomber in chief by which I didnt mean to imply that he's any better or worse then your other psycho mass murderers.

    20. Re:Extingush the Taliban by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      Most trained fighters, and nearly all TB leaders, here are foreigners. They are Pakistan, or from areas of the Middle East that come here to fulfill their Jihad obligations according to their Mullah (because Islam is a religion of peace, ya know). The local fighters are often untrained and have a very short lifespan (meaning they don't usually survive to be captured). Look at footage of Libia to see examples of what I'm saying: Guy runs to the middle of the street, fires off every round of his automatic assault rifle, and then....RUNS BACK TO COVER. Do that against a highly trained military force and your life expectency is measured in days, probably minutes. We have problems like this training Afghans to be their own Army. It used to be, if they found an IED, they'd shoot at it, and/or throw it in the back if their truck (I'm not exaggerating or making this up). Wonder why many didn't make it back to camp? I don't have Intel on the Gitmo detainees, although I haven't really looked to see if I do have access since I don't have a "need to know," but from what I recall a majority are also foreign. This is why extradition is a barrier. We capture them in Afghanistan or Iraq, but they're not from Afghan or Iraq. And their home nations don't want them and others won't give them amnesty because they've smartly realized: these are armed radicals. Why in the world would I let them come into my nation and create issues.

      The only problem with the propaganda issue is this: Most Afghans are illiterate. They also don't have electricity or running water. Everything they learn is talking to their neighbor and MAYBE watch a little bit of TV at the open market (Bazaar). You can hardly call this a PsyOps (the guys who do military propaganda) rich environment, since our troops don't hang around talking to villiagers or at bazzars for obvious physical security reasons. SpecOps do but I won't talk about what they do. We broadcast propaganda on the radio, but again, a lot don't have radios and one of the first things TB does is search homes for anything "West related." If TB find a radio in someone's home, they're accused of being spies and often killed. We do drop leaflets, but it's usually just asking them to NOT allow people to plant IEDs because it's killing their own women, children, etc. I don't know if the # is classified, but I would generalize it to say they kill 4 Afghans for every 1 ISAF person involved. I say involved because we've gotten exceptionally better at finding them, and Afghans are tipping off ANA, ANP, and ISAF in record numbers as to the locations of IEDs. (see the "radio means you're a spy" above, they know huge numbers are tipping us off).

      Which brings me to my last point, there's not really a "national identity" here. When I talk to Afghans, it's not, "Oh you invaded," because they don't think like that. As I mentioned, all they care about is: How can I live through today and provide for my family. There are regions of Afghanistan that have no idea the Americans are even here. Seriously. Tribal affiliations are their identity. So, unless you're attacking __their__ villiage, they really aren't tracking or care what you're doing. This is why in the South, Pres Karzai isn't really considered their leader. He's just some uppity guy, hundreds of KM away, that doesn't help make (in their eyes) their lives any easier or better. Now, you spend a few thousand dollars on a road, or drilling a well (so the villiage knows they will have fresh water to drink, farm,etc), or something and now they're extremely interested in you. Which, this is the path ISAF is trying but having on and off success. We go in, build a road or school for them, put in a well, and then the TB comes in and blows it up. It's, I think, partly the reason we have had what ever successes we do have. Go with us, and we build things for you. TB just takes and destroys. But I come full circle at this point, it still boils down to, "Which side will ultimately provide them security." And in some regions they

    21. Re:Extingush the Taliban by Nick_13ro · · Score: 1

      Tks. Merry Xmas to you too. And thank you for the detailed explanation of the situation there. But honestly, your dislike of the taliban aside and thinking logically- who do you think will prevail in the end ? The trillion dollar a year high tech army that is bound to bankrupt the country that sent it there or the "Allah Akbar" illiterates costing the taliban next to nothing and which also seem to get free training in the US run afghan army ?

      I have no doubt that in the end the people would end up serving the strongest force that remained on the ground. The history of the roman empire and every other empire proves it. I just think Afghanistan may live up to its reputation as graveyard of empires yet again.

      As to arming local militias and counting on them- nice idea. Problem is those people and their leaders might feel, just like karzai and his army that they deserve a lot more than the few dollars they're likely to get and end up just as notoriously corrupt. The only way this is not a problem is if they so completely overwhelm the taliban in numbers that competition is not an issue. Do you see any chance at getting to that point before either 1) the US decides it can no longer afford the cost; 2) Pakistan and Russia both cut your supply lines forcing an exit or 3) the US economy collapses in hyperinflation brought about by all the reckless spending and the US can't even pay to bring the troops home anymore ?

    22. Re:Extingush the Taliban by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 1

      There are costs being here, but, first it's not that much compared to our GDP. We're also drawing down, as we were 130k at peak and we're now under 90k troops. Second, it's an NATO-ISAF mission, so the US isn't paying for all of it. We pay a majority, but not all of it. Let's look at it historically. We stayed in Iraq and although sectarian violence is a growing problem, they are governing themselves and no longer a threat to the region. We stayed in Japan, and they became, within 20 years, the leading country in terms of manufacturing and economics (as a result). In the 70s and early 80s, Japanese cars were derided in the US and quality was lacking. Today, a Japanese car (Honda, etc) holds a better resell than many domestics and the quality is top notch. Compare that to Hyundai. I had a Hyundai XG350 listed for $2,000 under value for a year and only got one call. We stayed in Germany, and within 20 years they became a powerhouse within Europe. Today, they keep the Euro afloat and have the largest, strongest economy. On the flip side, we ran from Vietnam and 4 decades later it's still stagnant. We ran from Mogadishu, and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands are slaughtered annually. So the answer to your first question is: It depends. There was a political will in Europe, and Japan, and we're still in those regions today with Air Force and Army bases that foster information sharing, Joint/Combined military exercises, etc. If we punch out due to a lack of will to see this through, then the historical answer is that someone, not us, will prevail. It could be the Taliban, China or Iran, or some other power sharing. On your second question, the Taliban does cost money. Their fighters expect to get paid, you have to buy the chemicals they use to make home-brewed IEDs, and logistics. They're hurting big time because not only are we killing their leadership (who know where the money is), we're disrupting their ability to move and use cash. Like I replied earlier, there are a lot of foreign figthers. You have to equip them, move them, etc. So just as they try to disrupt our "Freedom of Movement," we restrict theirs so it costs more to train (locations move), costs more to equip (we are raiding their caches in staggering numbers), and move the cash (there's corruption on their side too... $10 sent might result in $1 making it).

      On your second paragraph/point, you might be right. We will see.

      The third area it's harder for me to gauge where we are, versus where we were, and how effective things are in making things better. Under Gen McChrystal and Petraeus, the daily CUA (briefs to the senior leadership) had a lot of status slides on rebuilding, training, local governance, population outlook, etc. The new 4* General is a USMC guy, and he doesn't appear to be embracing the "hearts and minds," campaign they created, called COIN. It seems he's gone more into Special Ops, and just plain punching the bad guys straight in the face (to use a euphemism). He's also adopted a more "Obama style" approach of keeping the exit door in view, but that may just be a coincidence. I don't think it is, but it's possible. We're due to draw down in 2014, and Obama has shown that regardless of a power vacuum or other problems left behind, he just wants out. Two years ago the ANA was hardly ready to take the lead on any operations, however, I've noticed that lately they are taking the lead quite often and actually doing very well. They're effective at calling in Close Air Support (harder than it may seem), basic searching and security, etc. It's now quite common to see successful operations they performed alone, as well as Combined patrols where they took the lead. Maybe one day if I have time, I can look at this from a Macro view and see how spread out they are, but I just haven't had the time and it's not part of the briefs I see. My main takeaway on this point is that we're training more of them, they're getting quite effective, however they have large logistical and public perception issues in some

  13. All your porn are belong to us! by kawabago · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's the Taliban's leaders that should be raided! They all watch porn and force their spouses to wear the Burka so no one will find out it's a MAN! You're not gay if everyone thinks you're with a woman.

    1. Re:All your porn are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure how often they hide a man under there. I think you mean boy. They are medieval, or even ancient in so many ways. Some of them are pedarists much as the ancient Greeks were. OTOH, I've also heard that they exploit the boys as opposed to mentoring them. We don't know how it compares to Greek pederasty because all we have to compare it with is archaelogical evidence and a few ancient texts that survived bias and censorship through hundreds of years. Who knows, maybe the Greeks were worse and the whole "mentor" relationship was spin.

    2. Re:All your porn are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont' forget about the mules Dude!

  14. Ya... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I even got a speeding ticket last week! Cop asked, "You know what the speed limit is?"

    I answered: "Um, somewhere around 186,000 miles per second?"

    Go on, find some law you hate and then freely make absurd comparisons...

    1. Re:Ya... by meerling · · Score: 5, Funny

      How dare you make light of the situation. :)

      I'm betting not a lot of cops will get your joke. :(

    2. Re:Ya... by skogula · · Score: 1

      These aren't the droids you're looking for.

    3. Re:Ya... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably would be in the dark.

    4. Re:Ya... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Traffic cops aren't usually the brightest.

    5. Re:Ya... by Garybaldy · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, the cop said. "if you continue being a smart ass, i'll tow your car"

    6. Re:Ya... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid cop verbal judo. I had a conversation once that went like this:

      Cop: Do you know what the speed limit is?
      Me: Yes I do.
      Cop: What is it?
      Me: I'll take the Fifth on that.
      Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?
      Me: Because you wanted to give me a ticket.
      Cop: Why do you think I want to give you a ticket?
      Me: Because that's why cops pull people over.
      Cop: Why do you think you should get a ticket?
      Me: I don't think I should get a ticket.
      Cop: Why not?
      Me: I was hoping you would tell me.

      and on and on.

    7. Re:Ya... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh - like any other job, cops get a lot of tradeoffs. Sure, they have a SMALL chance of being killed in the line of duty - but so do truck drivers, EMT's, firemen, electricians, and school teachers. Alright, to be fair, cops probably have about ten times the mortality rate that school teachers do, but still . . . .

      Oh yeah, let's not forget the perks. Joe Motorhead gets his adrenaline rush from driving fast. He grows up, goes to the academy, and then he can drive 80 through a school zone and never get a ticket.

      I'm not terribly impressed with the bravery of cops pulling over unknown "suspects". Vice cops are slightly more impressive. Some of them are ballsy enough to be Marines!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Ya... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they bright enough, they don't become traffic cops, work at CSI maybe ???

  15. Neanderthals All by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

    Who in the world would want to live under and be governed by these Neanderthals?
    (I realize that this is an insult to true Neanderthals.)

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Neanderthals All by Lunoria · · Score: 1

      Who in the world would want to live under and be governed by these Neanderthals? (I realize that this is an insult to true Neanderthals.)

      The Taliban rule with guns. He with the most guns sets the laws.

    2. Re:Neanderthals All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Neanderthals, but guess what? The Taliban were better than the thugs they replaced and they control large parts of the country because they are better than the US backed Neanderthals.

  16. Queue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All the Anti-US, pro-Taliban posts in 3, 2, 1....

    1. Re:Queue... by DnaK · · Score: 2

      ALLAHU AKBAR!

    2. Re:Queue... by SlashdotWanker · · Score: 2

      God bless you. That was quite a sneeze :-P

    3. Re:Queue... by M8e · · Score: 1

      It's a trap!

    4. Re:Queue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it makes more sense than the environmentalists who burned the SUVs thus releasing toxic chemicals into the environment which they are (supposedly) against.

  17. The thing is... by bmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are people in the US that are ready and waiting to do the exact same thing. Some of them are corporations.

    The RIAA and MPAA wish all this would go away.

    The Dominionists and other so-called-Christian radicals (note the location of the hyphen) would burn all modern communications technology and "unchristian books" (meaning anything other than the bible) in a heartbeat.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:The thing is... by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Excuse me?

      In case you haven't noticed, the MPAA and RIAA have been nothing but terrorist thugs when it comes to the Internet. It fucks with their distribution system, cuts out middle men, and is generally a pain in the ass to them. They would like nothing better than to go back to the bad old days of no Internet where they held the distribution channels in their grip.

      SOPA, a bill which they wrote, is tantamount to burning down the Internet.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:The thing is... by 517714 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes. OP, please apologize to the Taliban for lumping them in with such low-life scum.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    3. Re:The thing is... by tsa · · Score: 1

      One of my friend's kids wanted to place a dinosaur in the Christmas stall he built yesterday. A true believer and righteous boy, he is.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    4. Re:The thing is... by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 2

      I'm just begging to hear this logical fallacy play out. Humor me. How does the comparison PROVE BMO's IQ? What would be an IQ boosting analogy you agree with, and what's the threshold between a 120 IQ analogy and a, say, 40's IQ analogy? I'm just curious since I don't recall this lesson in any critical thinking-related classes.

    5. Re:The thing is... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      I have not noticed the RIAA or any similar organization using suicide attacks against civilians and then proudly bragging about it, refusing to even consider educating anyone of the female gender or use females for anything other than cooking and breeding stock, executing 9 year olds as spies, or enforcing their rules with swords and AK's. And this behavior was their SOP long before the US ever set foot in that hell hole. My solemn wish is for the US to leave that entire region and let the inhabitants kill each other in peace. They certainly do not contribute anything positive in the world and with the world population pushing 7 Billion I doubt anyone would miss them. And before you make the claim that the US created the Taliban pick up a fucking history book and educate yourself, I know that may be a new concept for you but give it a try anyway. It is and has always been the Pakistanis who have supported the Taliban so they can use them as pawns in their foreign policy. The US was just one country involved during the Russian invasion with the majority of military support provided by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the British while the majority of US support was humanitarian aid for the 1000's of refugees fleeing the violence. How many muslims are running around with M-4's or M-16's? In the future I will forgo mentioning IQ since I seriously doubt you morons would even qualify for the tests used to measure IQ.

    6. Re:The thing is... by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 0

      As a guy working CJ2 (Intel) in Afghanistan (I'm in Kabul), with intelligence collection systems, believe me. I have a really good grasp on who does what, how, to whom, and for how long they've been doing it. If you're going to be specific, it's not "Paks," as it's more the ISI that is supporting insurgents. There is a def rift between the Political, ISI and Military leadership that's gotten even wider in the last couple months. INS just suicide bombed the Paki military in today's news, and kidnapped a dozen troops who they said, "We will hack them into pieces and send them to their commanders." I do not doubt their resolve to do this in any way.

      In any case, you still haven't equated an IQ with an analogy. Since you're still stuck on square 1, let me help. Analogies are not meant to be literal. I once tried explaining a point of orbital mechanics (space maneuvers) to an AF Lt Col using a plane as an anology since she seemed to be having difficulty understanding it. Instead of looking big picture, she stops me in mid-sentence and said, "Oh, so you're a pilot?" I have flown a plane but that wasn't the point. Physics is physics. The "Big Picture" here are people who, when faced with an opposing logic, have a tendency to do everything to destroy what doesn't support their original beliefs. RIAA sues in mass, often snaring innocent grandmothers, and Taliban burns phones. It's a similar picture, only a differing level of action taken in response. It's also a similar response to when someone can't logically defend their position they tend to just say, "You're a moron." Get it? If you're interested in investigating this more, look into logical fallacies and then explore first, since it's very relevent to this discussion, "Straw Man." You take someone's example and present a grossly distorted, exaggerated example of their position, such as bringing in mass genocide (killing millions), and then discredit the original thought. It's not sincere, and mature conversations will never take place when its practice is commonplace.

      Sounds like you're here in Afghan with me. Hope your day gets better and Happy Holidays. FWIW, as a military officer, I've read not only every book on the Commander's Read List regarding insurgency, Islam and most terrorist topics. I've also studied greatly US Foreign Policy, Overseas Diplomacy (Beasts in the Garden is a great book) and many other topics relevent to armed conflict.

    7. Re:The thing is... by bmo · · Score: 1

      I suggest you go look up the definitions of metaphor, simile, comparison, and contrast. I also suggest that you go back to school and learn literary criticism, because you only read the surface and take whatever you want from there and do not look any deeper.

      I also note that you also conveniently disregarded my mention of our own Taliban right here in the States. There is little difference between what the Taliban want and the Dominionists like Joel's Army whose ultimate goal is "kill everyone"

      Lastly:

      You can take your personal attacks, print each of them out on oaktag, fold them until they are all sharp corners, and shove them squarely up your ass..

      Meet your new status.

      --
      BMO

    8. Re:The thing is... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The *AAs don't drag you out on the street and publicly murder you because they suspect that you may have sung a song without paying license fees. Hell, organized crime in western countries is probably less evil than the Taliban (I'm not going to compare second or third world organized crime here though). Criminals are after money and power, the Taliban kill people for not adhering to their insanely strict moral codex. The closest comparison to the Taliban in the western world might be the SS.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to post anonymously, but I just decided to mod the commenter you are responding to... I almost never mod and prefer to comment, however, I think he is being unfairly moderated down.

      The thing is, like BMO, am not looking at the "method" as much as I am the purpose and reasoning behind it. The RIAA/MPAA use the corruption of government and ultimately, the government's own 'forces' to achieve their ends. The Taliban are their own corrupt government and the RIAA/MPAA combined. If the Taliban were idealists, they wouldn't use the drug trade to fund their operations and support their agenda.

      You lack the ability to see beyond the bloodshed to see the core of what is wrong and that they are quite similar. When I heard about the Taliban destroying ancient artifacts because they supported another religion or ideology, that told me everything I needed to know about their mind set. They cannot see humanity but can only see surface matters. In many respects, they are polarized in their ability to see and understand things just like you. For you, the polarizing detail is 'murder and blood in the streets.'

      Make no mistake though. The Taliban are after the same money and power as all the other sociopaths we call leaders. Just as the politicians in the US, holding up a religious banner (in the US, it is usually 'Christian' and in the Taliban it is usually 'Islam') to get stupid foot soldiers to do their bidding in a general way. This is exactly how it works in human society and has worked this way for hundreds of thousands of years. Religion has NEVER EVER been about expanding the mind or taming humanity or anything of the sort.

      This is why the religious are often called "followers."

    10. Re:The thing is... by bmo · · Score: 1

      The thing is, like BMO, am not looking at the "method" as much as I am the purpose and reasoning behind it.

      At least someone gets it. The methods may change but the motivation is always the same.

      Another similarity is the out-of-proportion reaction to the world. Rather than find a way to deal with how the world has changed as far as media distribution goes, the goal is to disable the most important information revolution since the printing press for everyone. It is collective punishment. Collective punishment is always bad. It is so bad that it is illegal in meatspace and sometimes a war crime.

      --
      BMO

  18. Now we know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we know the REAL reason bin Laden moved to Pakistan!

  19. They may be on to something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first read this, I wasn't surprised. Now, I'm thinking how nice it would be to return to a time where I could live without this device.

    1. Re:They may be on to something... by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm thinking how nice it would be to return to a time where I could live without this device.

      BLASPHEMER! You obviously do not belong on /.!

  20. Re:...I will wipe from the face of the earth every by dirty_ghost · · Score: 1

    no, that was Kim Jong Il.

  21. Is this about blocking porn or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    About the militia maintaining a monopoly on electronic communication to prevent a rebellion or infiltration by the government or other tribal leaders?

    Remember, these villagers are mostly Muslim, and they pray five times a day. And somehow I doubt the people in the militia will be burning their own phones and computers.

  22. Sounds more like a power move by Yoik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The motive is (IMHO) most likely to express and increase their power over the people affected rather than the stated one. Eliminate something that gives those people power, and show them how weak they are against their new rulers.

  23. That whooshing noise is modernity passing you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that. Let me know how that crushing illiteracy and unemployment works out for you.

    1. Re:That whooshing noise is modernity passing you by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Perhaps they think it better to hold great power in a country of poverty than to serve in a country of wealth?

  24. The Taliban is finished. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will be completely massacreed in a lawsuit brought by Apple over patents held on destroying data.

  25. This just in... by mapinguari · · Score: 1

    Leaflets used to spread obscenity.
    Burn all leaflets.

  26. obscene images? Sexting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cellular News reports that militants from South Waziristan set ablaze about 300 cellular phones and a number of computers in Wana because the devices were allegedly used to spread obscene materials.

    There they'll take your phone away for sexting, while in the USA you could become a registered sex offender for life. Honestly I'm not sure which I favor more.

  27. No txt ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didn't theY just txt the cell owners ?

  28. It's okay by slapout · · Score: 2

    According to Joe Biden, the Taliban is not the US's enemy so it's okay.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/joe-biden-taliban-america-enemy-gopers-romney-santorum-mccain-pounce-article-1.994760?localLinksEnabled=false

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:It's okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like any pragmatic leader trying to forge peace, he's willing to sit down and talk with the other side in a civilized manner, even to the point of pushing a diplomatic solution, rather than forcing a peace that needs MRAPs on daily patrols. When even diplomatic talk is ridiculed peace has no chance at all, why does the GOP cry about Joe Biden's attempts at starting some talk? Can the Republican party put aside partisan bickering even on one basic subject. I didn't think so in the late 90's, and it's still true.

  29. xkcd knew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    xkcd knew along that this would happen https://www.xkcd.com/750/

  30. Signals Intellegence by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Clearly, this has an impact on the strategic capabilities of the Talaban.

    There are two possibilities. Either they are eliminating all cell phones, or only the cell phones of the non-Talaban under their control. If the get rid of all cell phones, then their ability to coordinate and send/receive timely information will be seriously impacted. They will become less effective.

    If they keep cell phones for themselves, they become much more obvious targets. It will be easier to listen in on their communications because they will be the only ones talking. Even just detecting a cell phone signal will flag the location of a Talaban member. Not such a good move in the era of loitering UAVs with GPS enabled munitions.

    It's nice when your enemies are such stupid fanatics that they either shoot themselves in the foot, or paint a target on their backs. I hope they find even more ways to use their religious fanaticism screw themselves up.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Signals Intellegence by bmo · · Score: 1

      DRAVOT:Now listen to me, you benighted muckers! We're going to teach you soldiering, the world's noblest profession. When we've done with you, you'll be able to stand up and slaughter your enemies like civilised men. But first, you'll have to learn to march⦠in step and do the manual of arms without having to think! Good soldiers don't ever thinkâ"they just obey!⦠Do you suppose if a man thought twice he'd give his life for King and Country? Not bloody likely. He wouldn't go near a battlefield!⦠(pauses) One look at your foolish faces tells me you're going to be crack troops. Him, thereâ"(pointing) â"with the five and a half hat size has the makings of a bloody hero!

  31. shit, why didn't Obama think of that by decora · · Score: 2

    maybe we should also just round up a few thousand of them and ship them to cuba and torture them until they tell us where all the bad guys are?

    i bet that would work, this war would be over tomorrow!

    1. Re:shit, why didn't Obama think of that by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      maybe we should also just round up a few thousand of them and ship them to cuba and torture them until they tell us where all the bad guys are?

      i bet that would work, this war would be over tomorrow!

      Na, just lock them into a room with a TV running C-span 24 hours a day.

      Three weeks of that and they'll be babbling vegetables.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  32. Randall & the Taliban by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Bunch of Savages

  33. What else is new? by no-body · · Score: 1

    Religious surpression creates perversion.
    Old story - for reference see Wihelm Reich, Character Analysis.
    Totally perverse to destroy cellphones and computers.

  34. What do you expect the poor nations by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    to do. They're just following the leader, that's right the good ol USofA.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  35. Keep in mind by Karmashock · · Score: 0

    Most of these people can't even read. These are true barbarians. And the real threat to them is the modern world in any form. They make a point of ruining infrastructure and keeping people simple.

    If there's any place that could use the one laptop per child program it would be Afghanistan. If only because more people might actually learn to read.

    I thought their madrases taught the children how to read while teaching the Koran but apparently not. They just sit there and recite/chant whatever the teacher says.

    The whole country is feral.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  36. Close... by msauve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Taliban Seizes and Burns PCs, Cell Phones To Stop Obscenity"

    Contrast with:
    US Government Seizes and Burns DNS domains, To Stop Copyright Infringement.

    Discuss.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Close... by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why contrast between two unrelated things?

      The USA arrested and jailed a man for directing obscene pornography between consenting parties.
      Now I'm sure some would argue what he did was manipulative and destroyed the lives of several people and liken his abuse to rape. Well the USA also arrested and jailed a man for possessing obscene comics, where no adults or children were harmed in the making.

      Let's discuss related facts shall we?

    2. Re:Close... by justsomecomputerguy · · Score: 1

      What's to discuss? When a particular "mission" is taken to "religious" extremes, with no good can come of it.

    3. Re:Close... by FrootLoops · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your first link led to this fascinating story. Thank you; I don't have mod points right now, though.

    4. Re:Close... by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Taliban Seizes and Burns PCs, Cell Phones To Stop Obscenity"

      Contrast with:
      US Government Seizes and Burns DNS domains, To Stop Copyright Infringement.

      Not even close.

      The U.S. Govt. does not carry out capital and corporal punishment in public - all at one convenient location on a regular weekly basis.

      The U.S. Govt. does not mandate the stoning of women for failure to adhere to a dress code.

      The U.S. Govt. does not make employment of women - in any capacity what so ever - a crime.

      The U.S. Govt. does not demolish archaeological sites on the grounds that they depict religious beliefs other than Christianity.

      You might be able to make a comparison with Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, but certainly not with the U.S.

    5. Re:Close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. Govt. does not carry out capital and corporal punishment in public - all at one convenient location on a regular weekly basis.

      This is true - better to kill people behind closed doors so the horror of murdering your fellow man in cold blood is hidden.

      The U.S. Govt. does not mandate the stoning of women for failure to adhere to a dress code.

      This is true - better to rely on the much higher chance that the woman will be sexually abused for "asking for it" with no chance of conviction.

      The U.S. Govt. does not make employment of women - in any capacity what so ever - a crime.

      This is true - better to export work to countries without labour protections or individual rights (human rights only apply to humans, after all) and make the employment of either gender a thing of the past.

      The U.S. Govt. does not demolish archaeological sites on the grounds that they depict religious beliefs other than Christianity.

      This is true - the US native ethnic cleansing program was completed centuries ago.

      You might be able to make a comparison with Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, but certainly not with the U.S.

      They also sucked.

    6. Re:Close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the US Govt. does give millions of dollars to regimes like the Taliban. IIRC the total in 2001 was $125 million before 9/11.

  37. Okay, let's examine that decision by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So given that there were 2 sides fighting, which side do you suggest America should have supported ?
    a) the Soviets, a communist government that ran extermination camps that killed about 10 times more people than the holocaust, was starting wars left and right, built up a force of thousands of nukes that were deployed in the configuration they thought would kill the maximum number of Americans, and threathened the lives and freedom of more than a billion human beings, in both Europe and Asia and America.
    b) a lunatic, local band of mohammedan theocrats (at that point in time muslim was not the term used), with grand dreams, for running religious genocides amongst other things. And at this point in time unable to resist (a), but with a little help they can open a front against (a) which will in the end weaken both them and (a)

    Is this a tactical decision that doesn't stand up to moral perfection ? Of course. It sacrificed the lives of a few tens of thousands to massively improve the safety of hundreds of millions for decades.

    How about we apply a moral standard to this ? Actions like war and even killing are never justified, but when you're confronted with lots of bad choices, all of which are unjustified, you take the least bad one you can find. Even if it is starting a war. The people making this decision certainly thought so.

    Or how about the atheist standard ? Clearly it was critical to the success of America to stop the Soviets. Supporting this moronic genocidal faith was cheaper than fighting the Soviets directly, so it was justified. The numbers are very clear : supporting the paedophilic theocrats pays off better than any other option. Therefore : justified.

    You are attempting to use very general and naive "moral rules", or maybe even legal rules, in situations where they do not apply.

    1. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      "a) the Soviets, a communist government that ran extermination camps that killed about 10 times more people than the holocaust,"

      WTF?!? Nazis have killed around 20 million people in the USSR during the WWII. There's simply no way Stalin could have killed 10 times more people.

    2. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The parent commenter was probably taking pop statistics to calculate that. Figure 6 millions Jews killed (which is not the whole story) and the use the 60 million figure that is commonly touted for Stalin (which is way overestimated according to anything I've read about it; that doesn't make it less heinous, however).

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or how about a third option:

      c) do nothing

      The Taliban didn't need our help. Our psychopathic drive to jump into every conflict on earth (ok, maybe we largely ignore Africa) is a big part of why America is bankrupt and widely despised.

    4. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So given that there were 2 sides fighting, which side do you suggest America should have supported ?

      Neither, because it's none of our business?

    5. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, a well thought non-knee jerk reply to a topic without a single wikipedia reference to imply authoratitive knowledge on a subject. I'm blown away. Did I wake up and log on to the Al Gore invented, kiddies run amock Internet, or some sick parallel universe where people civiliy discuss topics in a mature way? Kidding aside, great reply. It's easy to sit behind a computer and type BS, when your words or lack of action don't cause thousands to die. Unfortunately, outside actors have forced us into situations where we have to chose between a few hundred fighting or a few million dying. Both will lead to loss of life. If you want an example of what happens when we DO NOT take action, look at Pres Clinton and Africa (Mogadisu to be specific). We bailed because he couldn't accept the political fallout of a few Americans dying, and now millions still die there. So which is better? Me? I am biased since I am a Capt in the Air Force, writing this from Afghanistan. Obviously, I advocate good men taking action to stop evil men from killing.

    6. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      So given that there were 2 sides fighting, which side do you suggest America should have supported ?

      How about "a plague on both your houses"? We don't need to take sides in every fight, you know; in fact, in most fights, we shouldn't.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by paiute · · Score: 1

      If you want an example of what happens when we DO NOT take action, look at Pres Clinton and Africa (Mogadisu to be specific). We bailed because he couldn't accept the political fallout of a few Americans dying, and now millions still die there.

      So why didn't Bush invade Somalia instead of Iraq?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    8. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, OP referred to a) the holocaust (which was specifically the 6 million figure you cited) and b) the Soviets, not Stalin in particular. The Soviets killed plenty of people that Stalin was not personally responsible for. 10 times is probably a pretty decent ballpark figure. I'm not an expert on it by any means, of course. And that isn't a completely fair comparison, either, the Nazi's killed far more than just the Jews.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by mirix · · Score: 0

      Well, if you actually wanted women's rights, schools, shunning religious extremism, and whatever other humanitarian claims they used to justify our presence there, then the Soviets would have been the wise choice.

      If you wanted anything but soviets in power, to support american influence worldwide, no matter the cost, then yes, support the mujahideen.

      Penal labour is something entirely different from extermination camps. (not that the conditions were amazing, but it's fundamentally different).

      The Soviets never used a single nuke on enemies, it was purely defensive. You pretend like the US wasn't targeting Soviet cities... and never used them in an offensive role.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    10. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love revisionist history:

      The Soviets were deathly afraid of an invasion, and their nukes were aimed at a country that HAD INVADED THEM IN THE PAST. Look up Murmansk and Archangel. In fact, there was not one single offensive push by the USSR in its history if you look at the whole picture.

    11. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      Communism killed around 100,000,000 people in the last century.

      The Black Book of Communism

      The Black Book of Communism (Translation by Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer) (Review) / (book review)
      Author: Daniel J. Mahoney

      The Black Book of Communism is one of those rare books that really matters. It is the first systematic and comparative analysis of the "crimes, terror and repression" that accompanied Communism everywhere and that seemed to define its "genetic code." The book's centerpiece is a relentlessly documented narrative of political violence and repression in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, drawing on extensive archival materials made available to researchers since the collapse of Communist rule in 1991. But The Black Book also contains absorbing accounts of Communist repression in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Third World. . . . .

      The chapters on the Soviet Union and China are as powerful as they are in large part because their authors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, avoid excessive polemics and allow the evidence to simply speak for itself. If anything, Werth is excessively conservative in his estimates, drawing almost exclusively from not always reliable "official" party and state archival materials to verify politically--inspired deaths and incarcerations in the Soviet Union. Despite the limits of this method, Werth concludes that the Bolshevik regime was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of 20 million people between 1918 and 1956, and for the imprisonment in camps of millions more. He demolishes the notion of a good Lenin and a bad Stalin by showing that terror defined the Soviet regime from its inception. And he concludes that there is no basis for the claim that the terror of the 1930s was driven by overzealous Party and police officials acting independently of orders.

      Likewise, Margolin's chapter on China shows that the crimes of Maoism are rooted in ideological hubris and a denial of the humanity of political or class "enemies." Margolin demonstrates that Mao committed crimes unprecedented in Chinese history, and damaged the nation in everything from economics to ethics. The devastating consequences of Mao's rule: 65 million lost lives. Perhaps the deepest reason The Black Book has sparked controversy is that it argues Communism is as intrinsically perverse as Nazism. Editor Stephane Courtois argues that Communist crimes, like Nazi ones, partake of the desire to eliminate groups of people on the basis of their origins, not because of any individual culpability or responsibility. He denies that Communism's crimes have any right to be excused or qualified because they were committed in the name of egalitarian principles. Courtois shows that Communism is an exterminationist ideology which selects its enemies on the basis of class...

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by mirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many people did capitalism kill 'directly or indirectly'?

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    13. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I am biased since I am a Capt in the Air Force, writing this from Afghanistan. Obviously, I advocate good men taking action to stop evil men from killing.

      Be careful young man when it comes moral absolutes. There are quite a few people who hold that opinion about you. You are an officer in a foreign invading military - a military that has killed innocent civilians.

      And what no one else has mentioned is that under the Taliban, the Afgan opium trade was just about destroyed. Now, it's quite alive and well - which is also considered "evil" by our government.

      The fact is that those "evil" people you are killing were not considered evil by the US government not too long ago.

    14. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Our psychopathic drive to jump into every conflict on earth (ok, maybe we largely ignore Africa)

      Sadly, we didn't ignore it enough; cf. Angola and the Congo.

    15. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I love revisionist history:

      The Soviets were deathly afraid of an invasion, and their nukes were aimed at a country that HAD INVADED THEM IN THE PAST. Look up Murmansk and Archangel.

      Yup.

      In fact, there was not one single offensive push by the USSR in its history if you look at the whole picture.

      To be fair, you might want to ask the Poles about that. Yeah, the Germans invaded a bit before that, but they'd already agreed with the Soviets to carve Poland up.

    16. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Kelzar · · Score: 1

      Communism doesn't kill people, physics kills people.

    17. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by menocu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How many people did capitalism kill 'directly or indirectly'?

      Quick answer: not nearly as many.

      Note: The figures above deal primarily with those of its own citizens communist countries have killed, through policy induced famines and political repression. Although the book does address those killed in communist initiated wars, that isn't the point here. Usually those who follow up with your retort would cite all those who died in all the wars of aggression initiated by capitalist countries in order to draw some kind of equivalency, but it is not equivalent. Let's leave war casualties off the table for both sides.

      The issue is perhaps somewhat complicated by one's definition of capitalism, because while those who effected communist policies leading to mass death proudly waved the communist banner, conscious of their ideology, their supposed counterparts (Custer? English landlords?) were not consciously waving some "capitalist" flag. More likely they were motivated by a sense of strong nationalism, or outright robbery, which is not a necessary attribute of a conscious "capitalist" ideology at all (which is much more compatible with liberal internationalism).

      Further, by "capitalist" do we mean only modern industrial capitalist countries? Usually bona fide Capitalism is not considered to have begun until some time in the Middle Ages, with the movement away from feudal institutions. If we want to call any market economy capitalist, including, for example, that of ancient Rome, then perhaps we can lay the many deaths brought about by the dysfunctional economic policies of the late emperors at the feet of "capitalism", but this is a stretch and rather nonsensical. Even very primitive tribal cultures often have rudimentary markets--shall they too be labelled capitalistic for the sake of consistency? All the deaths resulting from slavery too are difficult to pin on "capitalism" precisely for this reason. Slavery is an institution that predates capitalism, and has existed under a wide variety of both primitive and more "modern" economic circumstances. It has been practiced in some capitalist countries, but it is certainly not a defining attribute of capitalism or a necessary consequence of it (though a Marxist cynic may disagree, he'd be wrong--and just being spiteful), and was first driven out institutionally in England under an explicitly liberal/capitalist banner (if you don't believe me check the history yourself).

      If we're talking about a country that is capitalist in the full sense (an industrialized market economy, i.e. one that has accumulated much capital), what are the episodes during which many died from following a capitalist policy rather than some superior "socialist" (or other) alternative? I'm prepared to accept that there may be such an example, but I doubt it approaches anything close to the massive and tragic waste of life that resulted in the last century's pursuit of communism.

    18. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      To be fair, you might want to ask the Poles about that.

      They would be the wrong ones to ask. Rather ask Wikipedia and you shall receive: USSR was just taking back what was theirs in first place so that one was not a valid rebuke.

      GP is wrong nonetheless, the Soviet Union has led an offensive war exactly two times.
      1) Winter war
      2) Soviet-Japanese war of 1945

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    19. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by toriver · · Score: 1

      The U.S. invaded and failed to rectify Somalia ages ago, Bush didn't want to sink his feet into that mire again.

    20. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Informative

      How many people did capitalism kill 'directly or indirectly'?

      ....

      If we're talking about a country that is capitalist in the full sense (an industrialized market economy, i.e. one that has accumulated much capital), what are the episodes during which many died from following a capitalist policy rather than some superior "socialist" (or other) alternative? I'm prepared to accept that there may be such an example, but I doubt it approaches anything close to the massive and tragic waste of life that resulted in the last century's pursuit of communism.

      The Nazis were capitalists.

      "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

      How was it not 'capitalist'?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    21. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0

      Even that 100 million is just the figure they directly killed holocaust-style. Which is FAR less than the number they're responsible for.

      So I think the original assertion, I think, comfortably stands : socialists (that's what they were, and are, called) ran a holocaust about 10x larger than "the holocaust" about 60 years ago.

      It doesn't include the millions from Soviet "tactical famines", nor does it include any figures from the Chinese equivalent. It doesn't include the extermination campaigns that occurred outside their state borders, like in Korea for example ... It doesn't include the many victims from Soviet and Chinese wars ...

      And it is by far not the full figure. South America, Africa and the Middle East each had a very unpleasant encounter with socialism themselves. And socialists may not have put the Taliban in Charge, but they have their own fuckup that is in danger of turning into a nuclear confrontation : Iran. The mullahs would never have gotten anywhere near power without the socialists (the socialists brought down the Shah, then lost control of the situation ... as usual).

    22. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by menocu · · Score: 1

      The Nazi policies that brought the deaths of millions were motivated by racial / ethnic purity considerations. Is that an inherent property of capitalism? Is it a regularly occurring feature of capitalism? I would not dispute that Nazi Germany's economy was some form of capitalism, but that doesn't establish that it's their economy's capitalism that caused them to commit so much slaughter (cum hoc). If a doctor commits murder do we adopt the generalization "doctors are murderers", though the murder was not committed even under the pretense of practicing medicine?

      For communism, however, the massive death being referred to was carried out specifically with the aim of effecting what the practitioners believed to be a communist economic system. The collectivization of agriculture in the Ukraine and China were not merely incidental to the governing powers being communist, but were policies adopted because communists at the time believed that they followed from communist principles.

    23. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0

      There is no "do nothing" option here. Do nothing is what the Germans did in 1941, and what worldwide socialists helped them do all around the globe. Do you consider that an innocent act ? Do nothing is equivalent to helping the Soviets start yet another extermination campaign for ideological purity.

      In that case Afghanistan would be filled with mass-graves inflicted by communists, and there would probably have been an extra war with the Soviets somewhere in Eastern Europe, as that is what they intended the resources they needed in Afghanistan for.

      Are you really unable to see this ? It may be hard for you to understand, but the Soviets and their extermination campaigns were everybody's problem, and there was no opt-out available anywhere in the world. Not in America, not in Europe, nowhere. Not even Southern Africa and South America were spared.

      Unless of course, you truly only care about your own little life and you somehow have managed to convince yourself that what happens in the world doesn't affect you. Then yes, why protect a few million people from a genocide or two ? After all, there's a new videogame out ... It doesn't quite make one wish the Soviets had actually pulled off a few dozen of their hundreds of attempts to cause a 9/11 like scenario on American soil, but ...

    24. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0

      Let's rephrase that question : if Obama succeeds in totally destabilizing Iraq, and oversees it's state collapsing into lawlessness or worse (like what democrats did to Iran under Carter) then the most naive amongst the democrats will be in full agreement with the hardened republicans : let's NOT go back.

      In case you can't understand why :
      1) democrats : we don't care. We want more handouts. We'll just send them 5 bibles and 10 kumbaya tapes, and everything will sort itself out. More weed !
      2) republicans : we are NOT going in only to have the next fuckwit from (1) screw it up again

    25. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Go buy a copy of The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and try to tell us that any crimes remotely resembling such were ever organized and committed in the name of capitalism. Just for reference, we're talking about a nontrivial fraction of the entire population of a very large nation being sent off to be deliberately worked to death while they starved.

    26. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you actually wanted women's rights, schools, shunning religious extremism, and whatever other humanitarian claims they used to justify our presence there, then the Soviets would have been the wise choice.

      Cool, let's nuke mecca tonight. Are you in favor of that. It will be the best thing that has happened to women's rights in 14 centuries, and since such concerns override all other concerns, like such trivialities as the death of millions of people ... we should definitely do it. Is that what you're suggesting ?

      Well, if you actually wanted women's rights, schools, shunning religious extremism, and whatever other humanitarian claims they used to justify our presence there, then the Soviets would have been the wise choice.

      You seem to have left out "and regular holocausts". Tell me, how do the Soviet exterminations fit into this picture you're presenting ? The Soviets are just as genocidal as the taliban, they simply have a different, equally wrong, religion. The Soviets massacred far more women than the entire muslim world oppressed at the time. The big difference is that the Soviets actually knew what they were doing.

      But yes, you're right. If you assume that doing something different would have had the exact same end result, and then judge the action based on the present situation and currently popular values, sure I'll agree with you it was a horrible decision, after all, the taliban are much more dangerous than the soviets. Viewed from that perspective, the decision was a disaster. That such a perspective was obviously unavailable at the time (and is *wrong* since the decision would obviously have affected the evolution of the Soviet union) doesn't seem to bother you at all ...

      Of course, by that standard George Washington is a massacring slave-driver and thief, and hates women. Of course, without him it is quite possible there wouldn't have been any women's rights anywhere on the globe ... but since we don't care about the result and goal of his actions, and simply look at them in isolation assuming his decisions made zero difference at all, he's nothing but a massacring thief and slaver.

      Here's the reality : helping the morally bankrupt and paedophilic islam, at that time and place is a decision that was partially responsible for stopping the Soviet genocides. That was part of the objective of that decision, and in that, it succeeded. And yes, decisions have fallout and that fallout needs to be dealt with. That's how the world works. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

      Whichever way the current confrontations in that region end, Russia - Afghanistan - Iran + Iraq - China, I'm sure there will be winners and losers. And the US will be partially responsible for whatever the end result is. I for one am glad that it will be.

    27. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      those who effected communist policies leading to mass death proudly waved the communist banner, conscious of their ideology, their supposed counterparts (Custer? English landlords?) were not consciously waving some "capitalist" flag.

      Hitler's genocide was committed in the name of eugenics, anti-semitism and a generalized virulent racism. He did not send the Jews, the Roma, gays, the disabled and so many others to death camps while chanting "All hail capitalism and the free market!" At worst, "capitalism" (if you wish to lump all economic activity under such) was a tertiary beneficiary of the reduced cost of medicine/care due to the eugenics aspect.

      The Nazis were many things - are all of those things evil because of what the Nazis did?

    28. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      During the Cold War, cockblocking the Soviets at every turn was America's raison d'etre, to hell with the consequences down the road. Most of the unpleasantness currently playing out (or that has played out) in the middle east, northern africa and south america is a direct result of either that. That or Europe deliberately drawing the lines poorly during decolonization to keep the former colonial areas economically subservient.

    29. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 0

      "Not that the conditions were amazing?" Read some accounts of what the Soviets did in the Gulags, particularly during the 1934-1944 period. To paraphrase (because books don't have Ctrl-F) Solzhenitsyn: "Before you are too harsh condemning the stool pigeons, keep in mind that virtually anyone you congratulate for having survived their ten-year sentence in Gulag was a stoolie."

    30. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      those who effected communist policies leading to mass death proudly waved the communist banner, conscious of their ideology, their supposed counterparts (Custer? English landlords?) were not consciously waving some "capitalist" flag.

      Hitler's genocide was committed in the name of eugenics, anti-semitism and a generalized virulent racism. He did not send the Jews, the Roma, gays, the disabled and so many others to death camps while chanting "All hail capitalism and the free market!" At worst, "capitalism" (if you wish to lump all economic activity under such) was a tertiary beneficiary of the reduced cost of medicine/care due to the eugenics aspect.

      The Nazis were many things - are all of those things evil because of what the Nazis did?

      I thought that they were just groping for an example where capitalists did horrible things, not whether capitalism drove them to do those horrible things.

      Capitalists do horrible things all the time. Though its usually because they put human life second to acquisition of capital. Bhopal for example.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    31. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by xelah · · Score: 2

      The Nazis were capitalists.

      "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

      How was it not 'capitalist'?

      Because it's not control of production by those individuals who supplied the capital to it. (I'm obviously not counting governments who use tax revenues to establish industries, firstly because they're not individuals, and secondly because it would include typical and obvious communist economies). 'Capitalism' isn't 'favouring an economy with markets in it', nor 'favouring an economy in which some people control large commercial organizations and have a lot of power over the rest of society'. It has a specific meaning: a belief that the individuals who pay for the factory should get to control it, not those who work in it, not those in government, not those who supply it, not those who live near it and not those who buy from it. It doesn't mean that those individuals shouldn't be subject to all sorts of outside pressure, nor does it mean that they should have power outside of their factory. Those may or may not be true, but that's a different question and a different concept.

      Naturally, no economy is pure capitalist because such an economy would both serve its purpose poorly and because it's practically impossible with corporations of any size, or with diverse ownership, or where investors haven't got enough time to manage all of their investments properly and have to rely on professional fund managers. The Nazi economy most certainly was not capitalist - those who supplied the capital (taxpayers, people who had property confiscated, people forced to work to create it, etc) had little control over the industry.

    32. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Aren't you just a hero... spouting your brainwashed nonsense...

      The Jews were responsible for the Second World War. Who do you think told Britain and France to declare war on Germany in 1939? Was Germany invading Britain or France? No.

      You haven't got a clue about the entire history of the last century, because the entire media is controlled by the very scum who idiots like you rush to defend, the Jews. Why did the U.S. and Britain invade and attack Iraq? Syria? Libya? Why are hundreds of millions of white people paying taxes to support that shitty little rogue state, Israel? Why is the U.S. Congress completely under the control of Jews and Israel?

      Try reading this:

      http://www.ihr.org/other/economyhitler2011.html

      You literally haven't got a clue.

      Every white country on Earth now has open borders, with millions of parasitical, hate-filled third worlders flooding in every year. In other words, Genocidal Population Replacement. And idiots like you want to deny people like me free speech, because you don't like hearing the truth - and because of IDIOTS like you, all white people are going to be brutally murdered, as soon as the third worlders reach a critical mass in our countries. Thanks for that, 'useful idiot'...

    33. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that USSR did not have "extermination camps" in 1979 for like 25 years already, right?

      Soviets in Afghanistan were teaching the locals - building schools and universities - and also country infrastructure like roads and power plants. They were supported by a considerable chunk of the population, too, the more secular part. It wasn't Soviets vs Afghans - it was a civil war, Afghan secularists with Soviet backing vs Afghan Islamists with US/Pakistani backing.

      The end result is that you sacrificed the quality of life of several million people for your convenience - every madrasah built instead of a school, every mosque built instead of a factory in the last 30 years. Worse yet, you didn't even gain anything for yourself as your support for Islamists came to bite you in the ass today, and unlike Soviets, they have no hesitation about striking first, hitting your territory directly, and targeting civilians. Karma's a bitch.

    34. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who are the evil men in Afghanistan? Perhaps more importantly, who are the good men? I'm pretty confident that there are none in their present government, which you as a captain of USAF help support (see also: Shia Family Law).

    35. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Arguably, Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 also count as offensive wars.

    36. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      I hope you're trolling...

      The Nazis were capitalists.

      They were the National Socialist German Workers' Party. They denounced capitalism because it was too jewish.

      How was it not 'capitalist'?

      He, as most people do when they say 'capialist', mean 'free market capitalist'. The merger with the government takes the free market part away.

    37. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far fewer than it saved through advances in: access to sanitation, medicine, affordable and reliable food supply, and prevention of war due to economic interdependence. The history of innovation is the history of the free market.

    38. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual and Genuine Communism killed nobody. People purporting to be espousing the ideas of Communism may have, but the philosophical construct was not responsible for it, and if say there was no Marx, then it'd be some other memetic system they would have utilized to facilitate their activity.

      And yes, it could have been that of the "capitalists" with ease.

    39. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, OP referred to a) the holocaust (which was specifically the 6 million figure you cited)

      The holocaust was one of the worst times in human history.

      But for whatever reason, people seem to often neglect mentioning the other half. Yes, 6,000,000 jews were killed. But the 5,000,000 mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, Poles, Russians, Roma, intellectuals, actors, thinkers, teachers, etc. who were just as "undesirable" nearly always fall by the wayside.

      I'm in no way trying to diminish the suffering of the Jewish people, but I think that it's not only absurd but outright insulting and revolting that everyone else who was killed in the holocaust is so often ignored and forgotten.

    40. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 0

      B-b-but that's not the stuff my college professors tell me! I can't pass sociology class listening to you!

    41. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      I've had more than one communist declare to me that you sometimes have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. What do you think that meant?

    42. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Actual and Genuine Communism killed nobody. People purporting to be espousing the ideas of Communism may have, but the philosophical construct was not responsible for it

      "Actual" and "genuine" communism can't exist in the real world without being subverted. That is its problem.

      "Genuine" communism is reliant upon people behaving in an idealised and unrealistic manner, and is therefore reliant upon external forces to make them behave in that manner- which leads to repression and subversion of the original ideal. And, to be honest, any system that doesn't accurately take account of the nature of human beings shouldn't be excused for people's failure to live up to it, because that would be putting the horse before the cart.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    43. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that USSR did not have "extermination camps" in 1979 for like 25 years already, right?

      I'm confused, do you mean they did, or that they did not have extermination camps since, well, really since before WWII.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_famine_of_1932.E2.80.931933

      You might want to read the rest of that page too ... If you want book references, pretty much every library has plenty of them. "Gulag" is usually a good term, but you need to follow the references to find the earlier massacres.

      Or are you going to say that that is only extermination, and only has very few camps involved at that particular moment in time ? Don't worry, plenty of camps followed : read the page, read some books. Socialists started killing during the Russian revolution (actually even before that), and the 8 year lull in socialist mass-killing that followed the revolution was the longest that the world ever had to wait for another socialist massacre.

      Like muslims, socialists committed genocide with clockwork-like regularity. Unlike muslims, communist massacres have been decreasing in number of victims since the Soviet collapse, and there are only 2-3 countries left that have socialist extermination camps (it's not entirely certain in a few cases). It is a certainty though, that North Korea has them, today, and that they are still executing ideological purging, as they call it. Even in America you see this mob behavior on one side of the political aisle, yet absent on the other. It hasn't escalated to the level of killing, but as for discriminating for jobs for example ... well we've all seen this in action at universities and government departments (btw: I did get hired, guess what, republicans are capable of telling lies too. So please, I'm probably bitter, but it's the low wage, not the utter ridiculousness of the political campaigns. Besides, I hardly ever met a long-time researcher that actually held the political opinions they swear to have in front of their students. That was a big relief : I was not at all the only lying democrat, and you could actually discuss sane policies with these people too. Likewise, most organisations I've worked for ... well they're very outwardly democrat/progressive/liberal, each and every one of them. Why ? Because of the immediate and mindless drone attacks that follow anything but full compliance with socialist madness. When voting time comes ... that's a different story).

      Why is it so extremely important to you to deny these genocides ? Or that they are ideological in nature, just like the taliban's massacres are, the only difference is the religion. Socialists, given the chance, kill millions to hold on to political power, and still fail. The dead don't come back though. This has been shown to be true in over 50 cases. Please just stop denying it. Some ideologies, like socialism and islam (and they are not alone in this), are immediately followed by massacres if they gain power. Adherents of these ideologies think ANY tactic, from randomly killing innocents, to massacring millions of people, is justified.

      I wonder why half the political establishment is so very dependant on revising that oft-repeated part of history, and trying it again. Can you explain it to me, since you seem to share this opinion ?

      BTW: if you happen to be 19 years old ... calm down, wait 10 years. You'll meet a few people who've been involved in these massacres at some point. You'll learn that they are not monsters out to destroy your precious little perfect world. And then you'll have to live a few times with "socialist" decisions while actually trying to accomplish something ... and you'll have the same response we all have.

    44. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had more than one communist declare to me that you sometimes have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. What do you think that meant?

      That they would like to make an omlette but after standing in line for 6 hours to buy eggs they discover that there are no longer any eggs but that there are canned pig testicles available?

    45. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

      And North Korea is called the Democratic People's Repubic of Korea, but that doesn't make them democratic.

    46. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > Is that an inherent property of capitalism?
      Is genocide an inherent property of marxism?

    47. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      I always take the phrase "The Holocaust" as referring specifically to the murder of the Jews (which was an attempted act of genocide), given the Jewish origin of the word, and not referring to the 5-6 million other people the Nazi's also murdered. Which is why I stated the 6 million figure, and recognized at the end of my post that it wasn't a fair comparison as the actual figure killed was larger (10-12 million).

      It is a bit sad that everyone forgets about all the other murders, but they weren't specifically directed at any one specific race, so I don't see that it would be insulting, exactly. Besides, after a million people can't even recognize anything beyond just the scale of the numbers anymore: not to make light of it, but for most people (looking at it historically) 6 million or 12 makes little difference, the basic idea (Hitler was evil) gets through either way. People just cannot comprehend numbers that large, much less make a comparison of them.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    48. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The unification of China, expulsion of colonial influence, and moving China from warlordism and anarchy into the modern age are among Maoist accomplishments, like it or not. Tens of millions or a hundred million isn't much relative to China's population and a reasonable price to pay.

      Bolshevism forced the Soviet Union into the modern age and made it capable of defeating the Wehrmacht, in contrast to the Tsarist government who lost to the Kaisers army.

      Communism isn't very nice and has a terrible economic model, but its willingness to erase opponents made it a fine way to destroy failing, obstacle governments and social systems, particularly those reinforced by superstition.

      Unlike religion, Communism very quickly disappeared (in historic term, "decades" = quickly) once enough people understood it is an illogical construct for any purpose other than offense against an enemy.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    49. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      corporatism.. well.. only if you count the other stuff nazis did as some sort of weird marketing campaign for building goodwill for the company.

      just consolidating all power under one cause is hardly corporatism. nazis also took over the health care, so let's call it healthism?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    50. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Captain, I deeply respect your courage and sacrifice. Your analysis, however, needs more depth.

      Obviously, I advocate good men taking action to stop evil men from killing.

      Yes, we all do.

      Opinions diverge when into the picture butts in "reality", which is far more complicated than any of us would like.

      Unfortunately, outside actors have forced us into situations where we have to chose between a few hundred fighting or a few million dying.

      "Forced us"? Is there a gun to our head?

      We bear no inherent responsibility for the choices of "outside actors" or for the outcome of 3rd party conflicts. We are a sovereign nation, with the free agency to do, or not do, whatever the hell we want.

      Historically our wars are not waged simply to righteously defend innocent civilians from unprovoked aggression. In my lifetime each of our wars has been absolutely elective, motivated by "american interests" that had little to do with the cause of freedom, world peace, or blind justice.

    51. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      You left out those nice people with the pink triangles.That happens a lot.

    52. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you... sometimes the /tards are a bit dense

    53. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To "insulting" and "revolting" I'd add "disturbing". To ignore the non-Jewish victims of the holocaust is to take a position that lives and deaths are worth more or less depending on their race - and that, fundamentally, was the mindset that made the Holocaust possible.

    54. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I've had more than one communist declare to me that you sometimes have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. What do you think that meant?

      I have no idea what they meant, but you certainly can't make an omlette without killing a few people.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    55. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by rockout · · Score: 1

      They would be the wrong ones to ask. Rather ask Wikipedia and you shall receive: USSR was just taking back what was theirs in first place so that one was not a valid rebuke.

      Wow, very selective reading of history there. From the second sentence of the article you cited: "Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established by the Treaty of Versailles following the Partitions of Poland in the late 18th century, sought to secure territories it had lost at the time of partitions; the Soviet states aimed to control those same territories." So more accurately, the Soviets were taking territory that had been taken back by the Poles because it was theirs (the Poles') in the first place.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    56. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between other isms and the capitalism is that when we say capitalism has killed someone that is called life, and when a political machine has killed someone that is called murder. The difference is of course in the amount of intent. Although colonialism and slavery can be said to be in the "merit" list of the capitalism, the murderous activities where based also on racism, royalism, greed, pre-enlightenment dehumanizing class society and religious fervor, which actually sound very much like the ideological bases of murder used by Nazis and Communists.

    57. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (ok, maybe we largely ignore Africa)

      Sissies......

    58. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retards deserve to be gassed. Fuck you, cunt.

    59. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Jews comprised about 55% of the holocaust.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    60. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Ohh, oh so wrong Holocaust "1200â"50; Middle English http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocaust. It would seem that, yes, the Israel government has abused the history of the abuses of the German Nazi party for their own political advantage in their pretty nasty land grab of Palestinian properties.

      Then of course humanity has a history of psychophathicaly driven obscenities, salting the earthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salting_the_earth, slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery, genocide there's a whole list of them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides and who can forget nuclear weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon (a device designed to irradiate, burn, and then blow to bits everyone in the target zone from the youngest child to the oldest grandparent and oh so many scum sucking politicians praise their value).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    61. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *crickets*

    62. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think told Britain and France to declare war on Germany in 1939? Was Germany invading Britain or France?

      A set of treaties known as the Anglo-Polish military alliance. Try reading a history book not written by IHR nutjobs.

    63. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Ok, first thing, the very link you gave said the work "holocaust" derived from the Greek word (holókauston) via the way of the Latin (holocaustum) and was from the Septuagint (the Greek translation by the Jews of the Old Testament) originally. The word is Jewish and invented by the Jews, so you're wrong there.

      And secondly, a horrific act that was ignored at the time by many countries and to this day is denied in many Muslim countries is not made any less horrific because other people have also done horrific things in the past.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    64. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by tchall · · Score: 1

      So given that there were 2 sides fighting, which side do you suggest America should have supported ?

      What if they gave a war, and the United States just watched them duke it out WITHOUT taking sides???

      I realize they our "representatives" still believe the idiotic mantra "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but it hasn't worked that way in the last fifty years... at BEST we've found fair weather friends that way...

      Our ENEMIES from the past are now much better allies than some of those we've never opposed at all...

      Can you imagine how much money it would save just minding out own business unless there is a "Vital Interest" at stake?

    65. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by mmmw · · Score: 1

      the 5,000,000 mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, Poles, Russians, Roma, intellectuals, actors, thinkers, teachers, etc. who were just as "undesirable" nearly always fall by the wayside.

      Also homosexuals.

    66. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Rational · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, if you are sort of right-wing yourself, you need to find some way to make Stalin look worse in comparison, so low-balling the Holocaust and high-balling Stalin's purges is par for the course.

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    67. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not at all ignored in muslim countries. You should talk to a muslim about this.

      Muslims simply claim that people defending themselves against muslim genocides (like the Jews of Israel, but equally Christians of Egypt) victimized muslims much more than the Jews were ever victimized. The less than 10.000 losses that invading muslim armies suffered attempting to commit genocide in Israel (this was their stated intent, as broadcasted on the radio) are much more deserving of pity.

      Their position is simply entirely hypocritical, demanding perfect morals in others when in fact muslims are by far the biggest committers of genocide in known history, surpassing even communist states (for those who don't know : socialists bear the distincting of massacring only slightly less people than muslims. The difference being that socialists did it in 1 century, muslims needed 14. But muslims are still committing genocide on a regular basis). And of course there's the problem that while genocide was mostly committed by communists to solve extremely bad situations, and thus can hardly be said to be an integral part of socialism (no socialist started out wanting to commit genocide). By contrast, genocide is an integral part of islam, committed countless times in their history, and the muslim prophet, when he wasn't raping children or kidnapping people into slavery committed no less than 7 genocides in less than 30 years. And it is very much part of religious curricula for children in muslim countries (and outside of them).

      They are actually proud of it when you ask it of them one way ('see allah made the muslims victorious, and they couldn't even prevent their children being buried in sand and horses run over them in front of their parents'). And of course this was completely justified, and anyway didn't happen ('allah commanded it, and it has no bearing on the morality of the prophet').

      Of course, it is a pretty typical reaction of people living in authoritarian states. North Koreans, even the escaped ones, are more or less of the opinion that murder is wrong, except of course when Kim Yong Il (well, now the next one I guess) orders it.

      But this opinion you encounter many times, so rince and repeat for all the despicable properties their prophet had :

      • kidnapped people into slavery
      • committed paedophilia, and long time committer of child molesting before he actually had sex with not one, but several children (either
      • sold women and children to people who liked to mutilate them
      • bought a child for sex
      • stole the water and horses of people travelling through the desert
      • sent out groups of men into villages he controlled with the express order to kill families because he had heard something about them
      • ...

      None of this is contested, but muslims will deny it has any bearing on the morality of their faith. Despite the fact, of course, that these acts are enshrined in the law that muslims are pushing even in western states.

    68. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Rational · · Score: 1

      Less than tobacco, then?

      --
      "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
    69. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      No no, I included actors, see?

    70. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by bmo · · Score: 1

      So you think that that the invasion itself and Bush's actions did not plunge the entire state of Iraq into lawlessness and chaos? Bush explicitly stated that we are "not into nation building." We went there, killed everyone claiming to be Baathist, disbanded the government, disbanded the army, and basically broke the entire social structure of a nation, with the attitude from our President Bush that basically "we don't care" about national stability and you want to hang this on Obama?

      You're a fucking idiot.

      --
      BMO

    71. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Obviously, I advocate good men taking action to stop evil men from killing.

      Yes, we all do.

      Ahem ... no you don't. Your next paragraph makes it very explicit that you in fact favor abandoning everyone and anyone because you think it better to let people be massacred when you can't be blamed for it. (that's putting your "not responsible" comment in slightly different words).

      Yes getting involved means that you will be blamed. After all that's what evil men do : when they are stopped from killing they will point out that you used bullets to stop them. Just look at the palestinians : when their attempts to commit religious genocide are stopped through more thorough border controls they complain that said border controls are a crime : they make it harder for them, economically ... Is this what you're afraid of ?

      You can't have your cake and eat it too : next time you claim something, don't directly contradict it in the sentence immediately following that claim.

    72. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is of course the problem with "neutrality". There does not exist such a thing. If an armed man stands by while a women is raped in front of him, would you call that neutral ?

      Switzerlands "neutrality" in WWII was clearly a vote for nazi domination, for example (as evidenced in several books about how they arrived at such a decision : there were both nazis and communists in their government, which pushed for this outcome, and they got what they wanted). Holland did the same, incidentally, with elements of the Dutch government blocking a military response, and elements of the military refusing to fight the nazis. After all, you would be fighting the "champion of the poor" in defense of bankers, arms merchants and Jews. (Incidentally the Dutch did quite a bit of arms trading at the time)

      This is simply the same on a larger scale : doing nothing is not neutral, you clearly favor one side. Why we let people get away with doing this is beyond me.

    73. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, do you mean they did, or that they did not have extermination camps since, well, really since before WWII.

      What I'm saying is that USSR didn't have "extermination camps" since a few years after Stalin's death; and even under Stalin very few labor camps ("gulags") could properly be called that. I have no idea what Holodomor and other famines have to do with that, since they are not camps - and in any case they happened before WW2, not after. Either way, USSR didn't have these kinds of famines for many decades before the Afghan war, either.

      If you can point out any extermination camp that existed in the USSR after 1960, or any genocide that was carried out by USSR during that time period, please prove me wrong by pointing them out.

      I don't make any claims with respect to DPRK or other communist countries. That is not of any relevance here: it was USSR that invaded Afghanistan in 1979, so what we're discussing is the USSR as of 1979 - and specifically GP's claims that it had "extermination camps" and routinely massacred millions. What I'm saying is that it was not true in USSR at that period of time, and hasn't been true for two decades or so; so any assertions that Soviets would have established such in Afghanistan are unfounded.

    74. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And doing nothing is supposedly neutral ? Doing nothing equates to support for the Soviets, and their extermination campaign. It also means allowing the Soviets to open up another front, probably against an Eastern European country.

      Let's look at this at a smaller scale. Suppose some guy attacks a few kids on a school playground. You're perfectly capable of ending the fight, but you choose not to. The kids get beaten up very badly. Did you just act "neutral" ? Was that a moral way to go about the situation ?

      Neutrality hardly ever exists as an option, and even then only until violence starts. Once that point is crossed, irrespective of who starts the fight, the only answer is more violence, by a superior force who wants to end the fight. Unless, of course, you want to see mountains of corpses.

      I'm very sorry that such a simple and obvious fact contradicts your moral thinking ... but that's how the real world works.

    75. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the win, I'll answer "The rest".

    76. Re:Okay, let's examine that decision by seantide · · Score: 1

      Some of you people are so ignorant its hard to believe any of you went to college or hold down a job.

      Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and if you want to get detailed about it, private was intended to mean everyone, not just artificial aristocracies and corporations.

      Capitalism is not a form of government, and has never been used as a banner under which people are slaughtered for political reasons as was communism, socialism, etc.

  38. Re:...I will wipe from the face of the earth every by EdIII · · Score: 1

    After all, hard-drives are the bigger enablers of porn.,/quote>

    Uhhhh no. It's Ethernet cables.

  39. Behead the non-progressives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Technology becoming the new western black? (that's a triple, for those of you counting) The dead hand of Darwin in humanity's post-predation period? (mechanism of self-correcting selection pressure towards progress) The emerging membranes of the meta-organism? (you think technology isn't as much a part of us as language?)

    Is it more likely than centipedes in our vaginae?

    But seriously, now, let's just stop sending foreign aid straight down the shitholes and watch as the problems of the third world correct themselves. "Our" struggle up the Sisyphean hill of civilization wasn't easy or quick, but it didn't happen because "we" had untold trillions squandered upon artificially sustaining "our" non-functional economies, or because "we" had external moralities and cultures unfairly competing with "ours" (leveraging economic incentives to do so!).

    Isolate the barbarians. Let them rot or kill each other as they like. If they do, we lose nothing while recovering vast tracts of usable surface area of the planet. If they decide to stop eating shit and behaving like subhuman trash, then we can finally welcome them back into the species after they have earned the privilege of being included. In any case, the decision is about to be made for us as the world's water supply is the next global crisis and will absolutely demand a technological solution (the alternative is the deaths of billions). What will these troglodytes do when Evil Western Technology is what stops their children from dying to cholera? Why, the same thing they did when we tried to eradicate polio by vaccine (they rejected it, thereby becoming a reservoir for the disease and re-introducing it to the population after the global health organizations spent epic oodles of cash on the effort. so today we still have polio).

    I'll just leave this here:
    http://bigthink.com/maudebarlow#!video_idea_id=1798

    You think the savages will have problems surviving without water? How well do you think they can keep up with the rest of humanity without information? You think the divergence of the species based on information is sci-fi? Futurism? Not even possible? Information is what makes us human. Information is what we actually are. Deprivation of information, or even just the specific access to distinct sets of information, is one of the selection factors mankind has always been dealing with. The divide isn't some possible dystopian future in a novel, it's so severe, it's so REAL, that what we're seeing is the stretch starting to split, to tear right down the fault lines, separating information-species from each other in a multi-pronged fork on our evolutionary tree branch.

    You think sociology and culture is all it is or will be? Regenerative medicine and genetic science is the hot, emerging field of knowledge... those who have the information, have access to it -- and that right there is hardware (or "wetware", if you prefer your juicier, sexier punny labels) level modification. Speciation based on information via the mechanism, the medium of technology.

    No need for eugenics wars and conspiracy theories, Darwin is winning because that's just how our universe works.

  40. hypocrisy go! by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1

    someone needs to remind them that Osama bin Laden had his own porn stash. that makes it ok.

    1. Re:hypocrisy go! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Discovered by US forces though - that means the claim has no credibility at all for anyone who distrusts the US government.

  41. Ah, just like the Americans by Artemis3 · · Score: 0

    Ah, just like the Americans burning the National Library in Baghdad
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_National_Library_and_Archive#Iraq_War

    --
    Artix
    Your Linux, your init.
    1. Re:Ah, just like the Americans by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Americans?

      Following your own link and reading it contradicts your assertion.

      Eskander also reported that the destruction was performed by "a mix of poor people looking for a quick profit, along with regime loyalists intent on destroying evidence of atrocities"

      And...

      âoeAccording to Eskander, Saddam loyalists burned the entirety of the Republican Archive, which contained the records of the Ba'athist regime between the years 1958 and 1979. Also completely destroyed were the Ba'athist court proceedings detailing the charges against and trials of party opponents. Records of Iraq's relations with its neighbors, including Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, are missing. Iraq has accused neighbouring countries of stealing sections of its national archives.[6]

      "Neigboring countries" are not Americans.

      Flamebait
      Troll
      Douchebag

      Fuck. Off.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Ah, just like the Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read that cite? It doesn't mention Americans burning the library at all. It was burned by Saddam loyalists to destroy information about the regimes activities held there to keep anyone from using it as evidence. They managed to burn the majority of the libraries archives in the process. They were idiots just as you are.

  42. Haha good one by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Have you considered that they fucking like whats currently happening? Look at the big revolution that happened in Egypt. A new set of leaders and the same shit is still going on without even a pause.

    How do you propose to teach someone who would rather die for their beliefs?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  43. Don't look now... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    If the Taliban wants to see something obscene, they should look in the mirror.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  44. Reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget... They didn't do it because they're fundamentalist extremists or oppressive or anything like that. They only did it because they didn't like the foreign policy of the phones or the cellular provider.

  45. 5 or 6 billion to go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can somebody explain this?

  46. They really move with the times by quax · · Score: 1

    Burning books is sooo last century.

  47. Expect a lot of insults here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You've got to understand that most people here have not accomplished anything in their life. They believe they're smart ... but "somehow" this has not translated in a decent, long-term, stable job. They live at home, or alone in a tiny apartment, and have zero prospects to change that.

    You know how you recognize the 3 smartest people in any IT organization ? They're the guys at a slightly higher lever, who got married at 25, and they just happen to have their job for 10 years or more. They're the driving force behind every project. They solve every problem, they decide how to do it, they get things done. They probably were politically on the left side of the communist party until they really tried to help some of these "smart geeks", and got their effort thrown into their face because what they were suggesting actually involved doing something. Some really nice people let this happen 4-5 times before switching allegiance, and have found the solution : just let them fight it out amongst themselves and the smart guys will come and present their latest brilliant progress, trying to hide it from their "fellow geeks". Those cops we're talking about are much more like those smartest guys, they have a stable job, a wage that beats the large majority of these "smart" slashdotters by a lot, and have done more for society before they turn 30 than 90% of the guys here will ever do.

    People insult others to mask their own shortcomings. The shortcomings in question here are living in your parent's basement, jacking off hourly, never accomplishing anything, swapping jobs without advancing every year, and have recently neglected to celebrate their 35th birthday, but are convinced they are teenagers or children. And they tell themselves that what they're doing is worthwhile, that it won't result end in suicide or total abandonment. The only human contact for these guys is either during binge-drinking or at work. And while they're not nearly as smart as they think they are, they're smart enough to realize what the future holds for them.

    Geeks used to be people who really made intellectual contributions. These days "geeks" I meet in companies are more worried about their waist line and running endurance than about their latest ill-fated idea for a recursive algorithm to calculate prime numbers. Geeks used to be people who worked for a company and were brilliant during daytime, and did even more at home, constantly thinking about how things worked, how to improve things. "Geeks" these days are the guys who in high school beat up the guy with the big glasses for getting grades that are too high.

    I'm going for the simple explanation : what hasn't changed is what the percentage of real smart people is, and smart people have not suddenly started worrying about their waistline or physical prowess or sports. Really smart outliers have remained at the very best 0.5% of the population. But somehow everybody's a geek these days. I'll tell you what has changed : the definition of "geek".

    Expect a LOT of insults.

    1. Re:Expect a lot of insults here by toriver · · Score: 2

      You need to light-en up; you responded to a post that just continued the joke centered around the "relativity speed limit".

  48. Jewish rabbi burns New Testament AND tv sets by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2

    Jew burning the Christian bible, the New Testament. Big News... Big Deal... ;)

    "Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak oversees burning of a New Testament"

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4158924,00.html

    It gets worse. The same dork is now burning tv sets...

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4158924,00.html

    "Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak held a protest against television and its products on Tuesday evening, during which 1,000 (relatively old-fashioned) TV sets were thrown into large garbage bins. The modern "Tashlich" ceremony was held outside the Israel Broadcasting Authority's building in Jerusalem. Rabbi Yitzhak is famous for his activities which are centered on helping Jews to become more religious or observant. Leader of Dushinsky Hasidic dynasty threatens to expel members caught with 'non-kosher' cellular phones, computer with Internet connection"

    Published? December 9, 2011... So much for progress into the 21st century.

    What I am getting that these Amish-like sheep brains are all over. The Amish, the Hasidic and now some Moslems. I am sure that there has been symbolic burning amongst "peace-loving" Buddhist too...

    Why can't people get over their religion. Sigh...

    1. Re:Jewish rabbi burns New Testament AND tv sets by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      What I am getting that these Amish-like sheep brains are all over. The Amish, the Hasidic and now some Moslems. I am sure that there has been symbolic burning amongst "peace-loving" Buddhist too...

      Why can't people get over their religion. Sigh...

      Amish use cell phones.

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.01/amish.html

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Jewish rabbi burns New Testament AND tv sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, what's wrong with the Amish? The worst sort of sectarian violence I've heard of out of them some fundies shaving the beards off of men from the community they split off from. In the world of religious, political, and other factional violence, that's incredibly mellow. (And kind of funny in a, "So there!" kind of way...)

    3. Re:Jewish rabbi burns New Testament AND tv sets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lumping the Amish in with these other guys isn't really fair. They don't try to convert people. They don't do stupid things in public. They keep to themselves, and even with that, their children are always free to leave when they come of age.

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. They have oil by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Name other random natural resources.

    Don't you get it, we only intervene where there are resources to be acquired.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:They have oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why do we spend trillions in resources by intervening to no effect? The food, the clothing, the medicines... we intervene alright, and they're the ones acquiring.

  51. Not about porn by Hentes · · Score: 2

    But controlling communication and infromation access of the people. The more ignorant they stay, the better for the Taliban.

    1. Re:Not about porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not only controlling , they program and dictate your thoughts . Any one who can think for them selves is a threat .

        the idea of change scares them , that is why they will fail . the only constant in the world is change

  52. Strawman by ameen.ross · · Score: 0

    +99 flamebait

    Anyone have a link to the _orginal_ article? Then we can confirm that this, indeed, is a bunch of bullcrap.

    --
    $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
  53. Of course, they kept enough of the devices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in order so that they could "monitor" the pornography themselves.

    It's well documented that the Taliban leadership during their time in power in Afghanistan were privileged to own and use such devices and media that were banned for everyone else from owning.

    The Taliban are not only inflexible and irascible, they're hypocrites too.

  54. Taliban: messengers beware! by macraig · · Score: 1

    I see they've migrated from just shooting them to burning them at the stake now, huh?

  55. they are all the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taliban are not that different to the australian government nor the US from what I hear.

    Computers shows porn. NUKE IT ITS THE COMPUTERS FAULT.
    Guns kill people. BAN ALLL GUNS.
    Pens mispell words. BAN ALL PENS??? whaaat?
    wait there is something in all that logic that missing? we need to check the parity bit for consistency. I reckon some data may have been corrupted :)

  56. War on Terror by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, let me get this straight:

    The USA spent years, trillions of $$$ - amounts where the interest on it could pay for the entire financial crisis - and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives (a few of them US soldiers) on this war thing... ...and here we are, essentially where we started with the Taliban, just with more of a mess?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:War on Terror by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      If you want to Actually fix things there, you need to stop playing "but he's our bastard game", and put people in power who will actually work for the better of the country, and not just themselves. Short-term, this would likely require cou d'état and direct military rule for the time being. Put secularists in power, ditch the current constitution that makes Sharia the supreme law. Invest heavily into infrastructure - first and foremost education, schools and universities - but also the basis for commerce and industry. And be prepared to defend that all against extremists like Taliban.

      In short, do what Soviets did. Well, except maybe without shelling villages to the ground.

    2. Re:War on Terror by shoes58 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, we thought we were smarter than the Soviet Union...

  57. Where does religous freedom stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's one thing to believe in something, it's another to impose that believe onto others. The real problem is the retarded view on life that some people have. It's the middle ages or worse that keep hunting us.

  58. My Dad did this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got so pissed off installing some software on the Mac, he lit it on fire.

    But that didn't stop the obscenities. He's still pissed.

  59. What defines obscenity? by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    When asked the taliban replied: "Well we can't really describe it, but we know it when we see it!"

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:What defines obscenity? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if it gives a boner.

      you know what's wrong with that? you can get a boner from anything. I guess it's more about who didn't bribe the guys.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  60. Radical feminists should move there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti-porn feminists should move there. After all, they both want to stop pornography!

  61. In other news.... by Mojo66 · · Score: 1

    ...since Nipplegate, the US delays live shows by a few seconds in order to enable censorship should a stray nipple appear on screen.

    The technologies might differ, but the end result is the same. And what's with putting alcoholic beverages in brown bags? It is easy from a western cultural point of view to critisise the Taliban as being culturally retarded, but and least they don't have double standards.

    Disclaimer to the CIA: I don't support the Taliban please don't raid my IP Address.

  62. Bombs Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like a move to stop people from calling in airstrikes on their asses.

  63. fake strory by kokoko1 · · Score: 1

    it sound like another fake story and most probably propagated by western media backed by US. cellular network already not functional in north of Pakistan if working then its with very bad reception. most of the time the authorities in Pakistan jam the signals in north/south wazirstan however i am sure like all other fake stories west will believe on what they get from their Jewish backed media :)

    --
    http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:fake strory by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you don't need cell reception for viewing and storing media on a cellphone.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  64. Why not give them what they ask for? by Froggels · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the best way to deal with the Taliban for the next several years is to deny Afghanistan access to all modern technology. No transport, medical, communication, industrial, agricultural, textile, (especially) military - absolutely nothing. We could start by taking out what little electricity they already have so in about a week most cellphones and computers will become useless. I realize that this may sound cruel but in the long run it may be what is needed to drive the Taliban out once and for all.

  65. Lost in translation by jduhls · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they took "firewall" a bit literally. Silly Taliban.

  66. So much for freedom to by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    So much for freedom to practice your religion. You have the freedom to practice what the government allows and if you don't we will bomb the shit out of ya.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  67. Good Start by BigSes · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, that won't get rid of most of the assholes on Slashdot. You know who you are.

  68. The depth of reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The truth is that many people posture about how bad their own state is, how they think they can make moral equivelence and try to make light of the differences.

    The Taliban and what the represent, and what they impose on people who end up under them equates to the most abject, misery. The combined culmination is a world where you cannot read. Where music cannot be played. Where women face a life of misery and slavery under barberous rule. Where people can't fly a kit, where freedom of expression, and all forms of liberty get annihilated.

    So, to put this simply, to every reader of Slashdot, Yes, I'll take flawed Western governance, liberties, and all the mistakes that happen along the way, I won't make moral equivelence on a stupid premise that you or any of you think that the Taleban and their actions are an allowance based on the fact you don't like something stupid thats going on in your free lives.

    Sometimes - imperfect, flawed people havee to fight evil people. Get over it.

    Merry Christmas.

  69. Re:...I will wipe from the face of the earth every by Rie+Beam · · Score: 1

    I believe monitors play a much more important role than either one of those. After all, without the output, you're essentially masturbating to electronic noise. Not that it can't be done, but it's probably not what you're after.

  70. Osama likes it by koan · · Score: 1

    I guess there is no trickle down porn for terrorist.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  71. Re:...I will wipe from the face of the earth every by EdIII · · Score: 1

    Jeeez. Okay. Fine.

    If we are going to distill it down to the absolute fundamental requirement it is going to be a penis . That is the biggest enabler of porn.

  72. Uh oh, now they've gone too far by bratwiz · · Score: 2

    Raping, looting, pillaging and being general all-around scoundrels is one thing, but now they're fucking with access to the Internet!

    I reckon the Taliban's days are finally numbered....

  73. Fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't even post anything this bunch of animals do. They should not get even one iota of tech/blog space on this for anything they touch (smegma) to anyone on this planet.

  74. In unrelated news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In unrelated news, the Christian Church burns hundreds of books for deeming them heretic. Go ahead, please, throw stones! we're all going to Hell according to one myth or another... so might as well enjoy the ride.

  75. Explosive Cell Phones by GrantRobertson · · Score: 1

    OK, the Taliban don't give a shit about obscenity. That is just a ruse for another wave of controlling the people. Just like it has always been. The Taliban are just afraid of an Arab Spring happening in their area. So they are destroying all means of communication and spreading of information and education.

    This is a perfect opportunity for the CIA or other US covert organization to start putting trackers in cell phones and laptops and leave them around for the Taliban to "round up." Then it will be easy to trace them to their hide-out. Sure it will only work for a while but it will be a help. Sure, they may start smashing them where they find them but the assholes are sure to keep some for their personal use.

    The icing on the cake will be to put explosives in the cell phones. When the Taliban jackass puts the thing in his pocket, just set it off and blow his dick off. Then let him bleed out slowly while the nearby women jump on his crotch to add to his humiliation.

    Normally, I am mister anti-violence, passive guy. But these Taliban jackasses truly deserve to die in the worst way possible.

  76. Amish hate crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From December 20, 2011:

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-20/justice/justice_ohio-amish-hate-crimes_1_assault-victims-ohio-amish-amish-men?_s=PM:JUSTICE

    "Sam Mullet, leader of a breakaway Amish sect in eastern Ohio, denies allegations he's running a cult. Twelve members of a breakaway Amish sect were indicted on federal charges for allegedly shaving the beards and cutting the hair of Amish community members, the Justice Department said Tuesday. A federal grand jury in Cleveland returned a seven-count indictment charging 10 men and two women with conspiracy to violate the Matthew Shepard-James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. They were also charged with obstruction of justice in the five incidents, which prosecutors said occurred between September and November."

    Sam Mullet doesn't even have a mullet!

    http://anthony-whatsgoingon.blogspot.com/2011/11/mullet.html

    He is even more quaint

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-20/justice/justice_ohio-amish-hate-crimes_1_assault-victims-ohio-amish-amish-men?_s=PM:JUSTICE

    which is, of course, entirely fine. But shaving the beard off former friends to humiliate them, for religious reasons (of all reasons...) is not acceptable.

  77. Recursive obscenities by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Prior to taking the action, they gave everyone fair warning with 'leaflets.'

    And I wonder just how they produced those leaflets? With DTP software on a PC, source of obscenity?

    So, they're using obscenity-producing machines to produce their warnings about obscenity. Which is getting perilously close to infinite loop territory, followed by letting out the "Magic Smoke".

    Lets see if I can give it another push : some people would find the idea of destroying other people's property an obscenity. So they're using obscene machines to produce obscene documents denouncing the use of obscene machines to produce obscene documents denouncing the use of obscene

    "£!^$£%&%*&*(^ [CARRIER LOST]

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  78. 300 cell phones broken by HArchH · · Score: 1

    I hope the Taliban contacted the cell phone providers and used their power as a lawful government cancel the plans of those 300 phone. Otherwise, those people are going to face some stiff cancellation penalties. Merry Christmas to them from the Taliban.

  79. South Waziristan by ananthap · · Score: 1

    South Waziristan (where these talibs seized and burnt cell phones and PCs) is actually in Pakistan. The cancer is spreading. OK

  80. Re:...I will wipe from the face of the earth every by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    More like hands.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  81. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new followers of Steve Jobs overlords!

  82. Re:...I will wipe from the face of the earth every by EdIII · · Score: 1

    Nope.

    Females and Eunuchs can have hands, but not penises. Females don't drive the creation of porn as consumers, and Eunuchs don't have a part in it either (no pun intended).

    Plus you don't need you hands for masturbation. Apparently you missed the advanced class.