Slashdot Mirror


Taliban Offer Question-and-Answer Service Online

First time accepted submitter nachiketas points out this story about a new online service offered by the Taliban. "Worried about whether Islamic verses on Facebook are allowed? Or that suicide bombers kill innocent civilians? Afghanistan's Taliban have set up a new question-and-answer section on their website to address such issues. The facility on Voice of Jihad, the official website of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — the Taliban's own name for their movement — allows readers to submit queries to spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. It is a demonstration of how far the insurgents' attitude towards technology has changed."

284 comments

  1. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd love to submit a ton of subversive questions to troll the Islamofascists.

    But if I were to do that, I'm pretty sure that the US government's spying-on-our-own-civilians program won't notice the subversive quality of the questions, and the response would be more along the lines of "OMG this guy is talking to the terrorists!"

    1. Re:Sigh by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      Stay thirsty, my friend.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    2. Re:Sigh by Jmc23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'll find the answer to all those questions except the last one in the old testament.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    3. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      What? They didn't even make up their own imaginary friend but cribbed?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Sigh by N0Man74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If I submit a sincere question to you, will I find myself on no-fly lists and be investigated as a subversive by my own government?"

    5. Re:Sigh by murdocj · · Score: 3, Funny

      No

    6. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?

      There are defects in all munitions, so we may safely assume someone knows.

    7. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems like a site to gather up all "enemies of the rulers" so any person with curiosity checks the site and your automatically in a watch list, now they have supposed evidence to f your day up, lock you up and through away the key. It's a brave new world, and not in a good way. They did not like you before now they have evidence. I'd say if your a free thinker and don't buy any of the non sense don't allow the new gustapo to mess with you. With the new patriot act they love to label anyone a terrorist keep in mind in the 60-80s the money was made on war hardware, now its on internal spying so if your a free thinker and think the new nsa is a waste of resources your f kd. Anyway will not follow the link and I would recommend anyone with the bit of curiosity don't do it am sure you will regret it.

    8. Re:Sigh by spasm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You should also send these to your local church and synagogue.

    9. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These questions are easy to answer even for an infidel like me.

      1. I live in America and both of the toilets in my restroom face away from Mecca. I cannot afford a remodel. Do I blaspheme with every shit I take?

      No, if you can't help it it is never a problem.

      2. Can I have an 8 year-old wife if I choose to move to Afghanistan? How about a 12 year-old? 16?

      You can have her when she's had her first period, earlier if you promise not to consommate your marriage before then.

      4. Why does Islam prohibit the consumption of pork? Does the holy Q'uran consider that cannibalism?

      The general rule is basically that only herbivores may be eaten. Not that bad an idea if you consider the larger risk of diseases and parasites as well as the energy gone to waste if there are additional steps in the food chain.

      5. I have to heed nature's call in my favorite stool pit. Is it permissible to wipe with the Q'uran when no alternatives exist?

      Use three stones instead.

      6. When I lie with one wife, how long must I wait before I may lie with another? Must I take a shower beforehand?

      This is only limited by your own virility.

      7. Is it okay for my wives and daughters to dress up as ghosts for halloween?

      Sure, an excellent plan.

      8. Do the teachings permit beheading unarmed infidels?

      No.

    10. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'll find the answer to all those questions except the last one in the old testament.

      The answer to the last one is there as well.

      "The LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors." Deuteronomy 2:33-34

    11. Re:Sigh by issicus · · Score: 1

      i looked at it. They have terrible english. not a whole lot of content ether.

    12. Re:Sigh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      1) Why are you arselifters all such surly, miserable bastards? Don't you think that a few beers and a bop might cheer y'all up a bit?

      2) What's the deal with those silly hats - the ones that look like massive pies?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Sigh by Issarlk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They forked it, just like the christians did earlier and the mormons later. Abrahamic religions are a mega hit.

    14. Re:Sigh by gox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, it's "belittle people you don't know, whom are your enemies according to what somebody you don't know told you" day again?

      If so, FUCK YOU, INFIDEL!!! :D

      This is so much fun!!!1! Let's continue doing this for a few more millennia!

    15. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why make up a new one, a large part of the old testament contains rules and knowledge for a good and healthy live that could be applied independent of your personal believes. Of course that is if it is applied to the environment it was written in, today it is unlikely to die from eating bad pork meat and other rules are outdated, too (which depends on where you live).

    16. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They forked it, just like the christians did earlier and the mormons later. Abrahamic religions are a mega hit.

      But atheists have been forking it since Epicurus. So it's ok, especially as one follows the usual atheist self exemption. ;-)

    17. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they also have issues with capitalizing and spelling like yourself?

    18. Re:Sigh by gplus · · Score: 1

      4. Why does Islam prohibit the consumption of pork? Does the holy Q'uran consider that cannibalism?

      The general rule is basically that only herbivores may be eaten. Not that bad an idea if you consider the larger risk of diseases and parasites as well as the energy gone to waste if there are additional steps in the food chain.

      Chickens are omnivores, just like pigs. The other day I saw a chicken eat a dead mouse (in a TV program where some English guy investigates behavior and intelligence of farm animals).

    19. Re:Sigh by jlar · · Score: 5, Funny

      "9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?"

      An AGM-114 Hellfire is supersonic (Mach 1.3). So you won't hear it until after impact.

      But if it is a dud you will of course hear it after impact.

    20. Re:Sigh by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      4. Why does Islam prohibit the consumption of pork?

      This is a common misconception. The Koran merely advised against eating pork at certain restaurants.

    21. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until they outsource the service.

    22. Re:Sigh by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      The question was being posed to the Taliban. Hopefully it was being asked rhetorically.

    23. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, the commandments and the other rules and regulations of the Bible (and I can only assume other scriptures as well) make a lot of sense if you consider the circumstances they were written in and they were very sensible in their time and age. Not eating seafood during a time when refrigeration was but a mythical dream was a pretty GOOD idea for a people who dwell in a very hot climate and by and large too far from the coast to consider the stuff "fresh". It's simply easier to tell people not to eat certain foods with a religious "because God says so" if you cannot really explain it to them sensibly, lacking the scientific means to explain bacteria and parasites.

      The problem is that the zealous are stuck in a system that's 2000+ years old, without acknowledging that the times change, that science and technology advanced and that certain rules that were very sensible back then simply do not apply anymore. If the Bible (Koran, whatever) was written today, it would contain no such nonsense. It would (hopefully) still contain the parts about not killing, stealing and lying. These parts are still important to make the cooperation of nonrelated human beings possible. One could argue that we wouldn't need commandments from a God for this matter and that our "morals" are "advanced" enough to understand from a logical point of view that this is a necessity. True for some. And I am fairly convinced it was already true for some back then who noticed that society will have a pretty hard time holding together when we have to assume (with good reason) that our neighbor just waits 'til we leave our home to take away our cows and sheep (or today our plasma TV and stereo) because he needs them and has none.

      "Morals" are nothing but a convention dictated by society. Biologically, it would be limited to friends and family, aid them and fight the rest because they compete with you for the same resources. So, biologically, I should go over to my neighbor that I hardly speak to, bash his head in and take what was his. It's a social convention that I don't do that. And most societies these days are at least to some degree influenced by some religion, even if it is agnostic and atheist as can be, its morals are usually rooted in a religious background. Even as an atheist I cannot ignore that most of my moral values (namely don't lie, steal, kill, cooperate and the like) are very similar to those most religions teach. And I cannot say for sure that this is not influenced by the Christian society around me.

      Personally, I consider it a sign of moral weakness if you need a religion to make you socially acceptable. In my eyes, an advanced human being is able to comprehend the implications of a lack of "morals" (I use the term loosely here, in the sense of "something that makes society possible where you don't have to watch your back constantly so you don't get a knife between your ribs") and that he has more to lose than to gain from a dog-eat-dog anarchy. Think of it as an applied prisoner's dilemma.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Sigh by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      oh oh, who gave the radical christians mod points?

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    25. Re:Sigh by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      "9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?"

      An AGM-114 Hellfire is supersonic (Mach 1.3). So you won't hear it until after impact.

      But if it is a dud you will of course hear it after impact.

      Unless, of course, it hits you in the ear.

      10. Why does a vengeful, all-powerful deity need the assistance of ignorant mortals when someone, for example, burns some book?

    26. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6. When I lie with one wife, how long must I wait before I may lie with another? Must I take a shower beforehand?

      ...and more importantly, can I lie with them at the same time? In that case, are they allowed to stimulate each other without being guilty of lesbianism?

    27. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the commandments are pretty timeless. I'll skip the ones that deal with God, but the majority deal with interpersonal relationships and are quite relevant:
      Honor your parents, don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, don't kill, don't be covetous (ie. don't feel you need something just because someone else does), don't lie about others.

      Pretty much all things that are still considered common decency.

    28. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I consider it a sign of moral weakness if you need a religion to make you socially acceptable. In my eyes, an advanced human being is able to comprehend the implications of a lack of "morals" ....

      Humans didn't advance. God created us stupid and meant for us to stay that way. That was part of his Intelligent Design.

      I wish people thought the same way as you did, friend. We wouldn't kill each other over religion. We'd find something else to kill each other over. Like you said - that's what we are biologically wired to do. Some people do it behind the guise of religion, others do it without it.

    29. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical geek moral equivalence. No wonder you filth are socially shunned.

    30. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How that answer could have so much weight if the parent was a TSA agent answering.

    31. Re:Sigh by dryeo · · Score: 1

      While some of rules make perfect sense for the time and place, others don't like don't rotate your crops. The writers may have been relatively wise for the time but they sure weren't all knowing.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    32. Re:Sigh by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Biologically, it would be limited to friends and family,

      Sorry, but no. Our biology is a bit ahead of where you think it is. You're assuming a strictly competitive environment where biological agents directly compete with their peers to pass on their genes. That's an interesting scenario, and yeah, it comes up quite often in really spectacular ways. But usually we're social creatures. Possibly even eusocial like ants and bees. And that's not an unnatural aspect. We're hardwired to work together. We're social animals.

      So even on a biological level there are rules, or at least suggested guidelines, for "thou shalt not murder your neighbor".

    33. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.... it certainly sounds like you've got it all figured out ;-)
      Good for you....

      Of course this will all need to be properly analyzed before it's considered a religion but I think you're going to make it.

    34. Re:Sigh by MrKettlePot · · Score: 1

      The definition of radical radical (rd-kl) adj. 1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem. 2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education. 3. Down voting atheists.

    35. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why skip them? They make sense too!

      1. no god but god and all that.
      Well, self serving. It's kinda a necessity to establish the justification of his rule. It also serves a very real purpose, if you could have other gods with other commandments, you might start to fight amongst each other who's right. For reference... well, look around you.

      2. No images
      Ok, that one was killed by the stonemasons' union, I guess. My guess is that it exists so rulers don't create an image of god that looks like them, which can also easily lead to unrest. Imagine the leader becomes unpopular (think Nero), that could lead to god becoming unpopular if they are unified.

      3. not abusing god's name
      Hard to do with a god that has none. But it's similar to why in many totalitarian systems making fun of the head of state is severely punishable. You cannot fear something that you mock.

      4. sabbath and not working
      If you ask me, an early anti-burnout strategy. In its original form (and held high by very orthodox Jews) it means resting and doing NOTHING. Sitting around and waiting for the day to pass. I guess a lot of our burnout problem stems from lacking this, we have activities that we "must" do all week, even during our holidays we don't really rest. When was the last time you sat around and really did nothing? And I don't mean sit here and talk on /. or chat, but really just sitting around and following a train of thought?

      You see, I am not so sure that the "god commandments" are pointless. They have their meaning. Sure, mostly they are self serving to ensure that they stay in effect, but I wouldn't dismiss them. They were very important for their own "survival".

      I admit, save for the 4th, they serve little real purpose anymore, but I can see why they had to exist.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But wouldn't it be a lot more honest if we had no religion to hide behind? We want your land, and we want your resources. So we kill you and take them.

      What exactly is the problem with being honest about it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Don't rotate your crops? I thought it was exactly the opposite, that you have to leave your field barren every seventh year and let the wild flowers and wild seeds occupy it, to honor the lord and allow him to take his seventh share back from you. Translation: Let your field recover, since artificial fertilizer won't be invented for another six millenia.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      As soon as it surpasses our "pack" level the society would break down, though.

      I tried for the last hour to find it again, if anyone finds it please provide a link. I recently read an essay about it, where we are, essentially, pack animals who "choose" the members of their pack out of the current necessities. That translates into how you choose which friends and why today. Everyone has a "role" in a pack (or circle of friends) and if a role is not filled, we will try to find someone who fits the bill. It was interesting to see how this actually fit my friends pretty well.

      If your neighbor now "fits" into your pack and if he can fill the role he should fill, you will probably get along with him and he will become part of your pack. If he does not, or worse, if he competes with someone who tends to be "important" in the pack (which is not necessarily the "pack leader", but someone who was hard to acquire for the pack and whose loss would be considered nontrivial) he will become a rival.

      So, if you're not accepted in a group, it's not you. They just already have a geek. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    39. Re:Sigh by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I don't really disagree with you (some commandments reflect evolved/instinctive behaviors), but your argument is circular in that you're comparing the commandments with modern-day values, which are in turn heavily influenced by religion (and thus the commandments).

    40. Re:Sigh by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Not eating seafood during a time when refrigeration was but a mythical dream was a pretty GOOD idea for a people who dwell in a very hot climate and by and large too far from the coast to consider the stuff "fresh".

      It may seem off topic, but Israel has the most remarkable sunsets. Really the most majestic view I've seen. Much more magnificent than anywhere else in the world. You know why? Because the entire country has an almost perfect west coast. The coast goes as a perfectly vertical straight line from north to the south. What does that have to do with anything? Well, you are never too far from the coast in Israel.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    41. Re:Sigh by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      All my groups consist entirely of geeks...

    42. Re:Sigh by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I really don't think he's trying to establish a religion with this sort of thinking. But that doesn't stop some people. Of course you need a rather broad definition of religion which incapsulates most -isms if you want to lump secular humanism in with all the other religions. As much as I agree with him about how history probably played out and the fundamental nature of morals, I'm more religious about Linux than this philosophical stuff.

    43. Re:Sigh by kokoko1 · · Score: 1

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02

      --
      http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
    44. Re:Sigh by kokoko1 · · Score: 1

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02 @07:12AM

      --
      http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
    45. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Why are you arselifters all such surly, miserable bastards?

      I suggest you get out and meet a more diverse example of my brothers, we're not all sad-sacks. But if there's a trend that way, I could say it's because god is testing us. We're kind of like Catholics like that.

      Don't you think that a few beers and a bop might cheer y'all up a bit?

      We prefer not to get run over by drunks on the way home. Or to have wives beaten. Those are statistical minorities, I know, but if we all abstain it still saves the few.

      2) What's the deal with those silly hats - the ones that look like massive pies?

      Funny hats is just one of those things.

    46. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "9. What does an incoming hellfire sound like?"

      An AGM-114 Hellfire is supersonic (Mach 1.3). So you won't hear it until after impact.

      But if it is a dud you will of course hear it after impact.

      Unless, of course, it hits you in the ear.

      Was going to post this variation on an old joke;

      Q: What was the last thing to go through the mind of <insert name of dead Taliban>?

      A: Hellfire! (this may mean the missile, or the non-missile type. The missile answer may not always be correct, the other type is guaranteed.)

    47. Re:Sigh by euxneks · · Score: 1

      It's simply easier to tell people not to eat certain foods with a religious "because God says so" if you cannot really explain it to them sensibly, lacking the scientific means to explain bacteria and parasites.

      How about "It'll most likely make you sick." It's not sensible at all to say "magic", and never was - it's an easy, unthinking cop out, and that's the only description that's valid. I'm not trying to argue with you here, I just want you to think outside what the religious nuts are pushing down your throat.

      "Morals" are nothing but a convention dictated by society.

      I agree with this to a point - if you hadn't grown up in a society, I think you would still have morals. I think there are certain morals it's likely that everyone in the world has - this implies to me either 1) there is a higher order of morality or 2) we all have the same morals, and immorality is a convention dictated by society.

      It would (hopefully) still contain the parts about not killing, stealing and lying.

      To be fair, I doubt very much those are the parts that made these religions successful. The horrible "kill others" message that is prevalent throughout these "holy" texts is what has allowed religions to fester and build up like a boil on society's ass - those that preached peace and tolerance would very quickly fall away to religions that preached intolerance with physical violence.

      So, biologically, I should go over to my neighbor that I hardly speak to, bash his head in and take what was his

      What?? No! That's not biological at all! We are as social as we are familial - it's likely someone who is perhaps not a friend today may become one tomorrow and aid in social/economic/biological needs in the future. This is best practise. i.e. maybe your neighbour will become your brother in law some day?

      its morals are usually rooted in a religious background

      I dislike this argument. Where is there proof that this is true? Who says the morals written in "holy texts" didn't exist before the "holy" texts? Just because it's an old document in which ignorant peasants attempted to codify some morality doesn't mean that the morals weren't there beforehand.

      I just want you to consider that religions haven't really given us anything beyond what we may already have had except for perhaps being a foil for certain art, literature, or perhaps, philosophy, and even then, it's questionable that we wouldn't have had those without religion anyway.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    48. Re:Sigh by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Re the Sabbath.
      The religious jews begin the Sabbath with sundown. They have a great family supper, with good food, and lots of winding down leading to relax. The next morning, it is off to prayers. Some go at 6am, home for 10am, others go anytime up to 10:30 or so. Walk to synagogue, following prayers, a walk home, with a shot of shnaps before leaving the synagogue, No big drinkers or drunkeness.
      Once home, the lunch time with wife, kids, and some friends, then a two hour snooze, followed by some torah study or similar from talmud, or mishnah. If it is summer, some light meal (supper), off to prayers, and at sundown, the day of rest is over. For the ultras, Sunday is a day of work. For others, another day for shopping, etc.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    49. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. No images
      Ok, that one was killed by the stonemasons' union, I guess. My guess is that it exists so rulers don't create an image of god that looks like them, which can also easily lead to unrest. Imagine the leader becomes unpopular (think Nero), that could lead to god becoming unpopular if they are unified.

      that one failed pretty spectacularly, given that the popular image of Jesus is pretty much Cesare Borgia.

    50. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You will still find out that every geek in your group serves a role. Have you ever turned down anyone? Or not included him, or had him as some sort of "fringe" friend who might show up or not but it wasn't a big deal if he didn't?

      Ponder, I'm sure you find someone in your "in" group that is similar to him and fills his slot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. I am curious of what they think about Fox news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?

  3. really?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok....I don't see this working or ending well

  4. Of Interest by dark+grep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks like a very good way to get yourself tagged as a 'person of interest' if you access it from any western country. Anyone want an all expenses paid holiday to some non-specific Caribbean island?

    1. Re:Of Interest by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that this would put you on Sarkozy's naughty list, for sure...

    2. Re:Of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's not like /. actually posted the link, buncha pussies they are...

    3. Re:Of Interest by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Rats! TSA butt-search on its way

    4. Re:Of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing that this would put you on Sarkozy's naughty list, for sure...

      That's the one you're worried about? I would be more worried about the one where you are given due process.

    5. Re:Of Interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, your facebook account and thus you are now associated with this islamist site, by the virtue of you reading this slashdot page that links to the site.

      Welcome to the brave new, super-monitored, state. It's for your protection, citizen. Think of the children!

  5. I assume that questions like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why do you hate Islam?" are modded down as "Flamebait" or worse.

    1. Re:I assume that questions like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Stonebait"

    2. Re:I assume that questions like by crutchy · · Score: 1

      not if you're a woman though (although you might get in if you wear a fake beard)

  6. Umm? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "It is a demonstration of how far the insurgents' attitude towards technology has changed."

    Other than some tactical intimidating-cell-operators-into-shutting-down-at-certain-times, based on the (plausible) theory that NATO was having a merry old time eavesdropping, I don't remember the Taliban being terribly anti-technology... Not particularly big enthusiasts(in public) of internet pornography or applied empiricism; but perfectly happy to use technological artifacts where available.

    I do look forward to seeing what the /b/tards discover when they engage Mr. Mujahid in a game of "Haram or Halal?"...

    1. Re:Umm? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, Taliban used to ban TVs on territory they controlled.

    2. Re:Umm? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      ...but perfectly happy to use technological artifacts where available.

      True. They are Islamist, not Amish.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Umm? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering their goal is to bring us back about a thousand years, it stands to reason that they have issues with technology. From Wikipedia:

      Under the Taliban regime, Sharia law was interpreted to forbid a wide variety of previously lawful activities in Afghanistan. One Taliban list of prohibitions included: pork, pig, pig oil, anything made from human hair, satellite dishes, cinematography, and equipment that produces the joy of music, pool tables, chess, masks, alcohol, tapes, computers, VCRs, television, anything that propagates sex and is full of music, wine, lobster, nail polish, firecrackers, statues, sewing catalogs, pictures, Christmas cards. They also got rid of employment, education, and sports for all women, dancing, clapping during sports events, kite flying, and characterizations of living things, no matter if they were drawings, paintings, photographs, stuffed animals, or dolls. Men had to have a fist size beard at the bottom of their chin. Conversely, they had to wear their head hair short. Men had to wear a head covering.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:Umm? by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 3, Informative

      But is that due to speech / communication they didn't like, or because it was technology itself?

    5. Re:Umm? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Does it matter?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Umm? by philip.paradis · · Score: 2

      It matters if your objective is to figure out why things are the way they are, in the interest of figuring out how to change those things. History is replete with cases of people trying to effect change by attacking problems from angles that represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the contributing factors involved, with accordingly hilarious or disastrous results, depending on your perspective.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    7. Re:Umm? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      They banned the old soviet weather balloons as sorcery (equating weather forecasting with telling the future).

    8. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they liked airplanes

    9. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thou must remember such, English.

    10. Re:Umm? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...and nothing of value was lost...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Umm? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked they were quite eager to trash them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Umm? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The Taliban have no qualms about using instruments of evil to fight evil. Technology being an instrument of evil and all.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    13. Re:Umm? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 0

      Jeez. Stupid troll, not even an attempt at hiding it, and so stupid it doesn't even warrant a pity point. Troll rating 0/10

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    14. Re:Umm? by nbauman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Best story I heard about that: The Taliban drove up to this woman's house in an SUV and said, "Sister, in the times of the Prophet, they didn't have televisions."

      She said to them: "In the times of the Prophet they didn't have automobiles either. Come back on a camel."

    15. Re:Umm? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but did you know that e.g. Wahhabi don't wear underpants, because "the Prophet didn't"?

      Somehow it doesn't prevent them from carrying AKs and RPGs, though. Why not wage some honest-to-Allah jihad with swords and bows? The Prophet did it that way, after all, and it worked for him.

    16. Re:Umm? by million_monkeys · · Score: 4, Informative

      they liked airplanes

      No. You're confusing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban wasn't involved in 9/11 and they even condemned the attack.

    17. Re:Umm? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      And they didn't punish her for talking back to a man?

      I have trouble believing this story...

    18. Re:Umm? by Nimey · · Score: 2

      I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    19. Re:Umm? by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      I make no such assumption. Rather, I start from the assumption that in many scenarios, they cannot be reasoned with in any useful capacity. However, to assume that the treatment of any organization, which is necessarily comprised of individuals operating within a structure, should be completely black and white is a foolish approach. Likewise, unilateral action of any kind taken in support of or against any such organization without understanding the precise workings of the body in question is likely to be judged by history as foolish at best, suboptimal in the middle ground, and disastrous at worst.

      In short, this video sums it up.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    20. Re:Umm? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Their goal is far more primitive than that. Is is simply to ensure that they can continue to sexually abuse the women they call they wifes (of any age and more than one) and force them to obedient slaves.

      That they be able to violently react to anyone who challenges their male rights and their ability to hide behind a religious book and claim God made them them narcissists so that is normal behaviour.

      Now when it comes to laying the blame, first door to kick in and find some arses to kick would be in the US state department. Prior to the US State Departments psychopathic fun in order to stick in to the Soviet Union the Afghanis were not much of a problem.

      This definitely falls in the, you will reap what you sow department, great short term thinking you bloody pack of morons in the US State Department (of course with the assistance of Cowards Idiots and Arseholes, CIA), now, exactly how many of those fools were fired for the billion dollar problems they created.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re:Umm? by spasm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For sure. It's like reasoning with Rick Santorum. I mean, here's Foreign Policy magazine's quiz to see if you can successfully identify the difference between Rick's quotes and those of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei:

      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party

    22. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is right. Who are you to judge? Americans promote extreme liberalism, I guess talibans took the chance and did something with it.

    23. Re:Umm? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yep, here's one such example from recent history.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    24. Re:Umm? by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      She was raped and stoned to death after she said this retort, then her sons were killed and daughters taken as wives for the killers. But the joke isn't funny when that piece of realism is added on.

    25. Re:Umm? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That was supposed to be a real story. I think I read it in the Wall Street Journal.

      I can believe that Pashtun women say things like that.

    26. Re:Umm? by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Have you been to Afghanistan?

      Or do you just depend on stereotypes you get from tv, radio and newspapers?

    27. Re:Umm? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.

      "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people." -House, MD

    28. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stereotype or not there are things you just don't do. I am often in 'bad' parts of Detroit. I tell the people that come along that there isn't anything to be afraid of, yet I still drive my old car, forget the suit, and don't make unnecessary stops.

    29. Re:Umm? by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      Taliban used to ban TVs on territory they controlled.

      hence the name - telly ban

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Umm? by gox · · Score: 1

      I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.

      Your parent's comment doesn't require that property. Even if you are dealing with irrational animals, what you know about how they function will still help you solve problems exactly the same way if it were otherwise.

      Making up random facts won't help your cause. Either you'd be fooling yourself to believe that some action is helping your cause, or someone else would be doing it for you. Then you'd be the one who's irrational, no?

      Also, are you making the unfounded assumption that "extremists" like the Taliban can't be reasoned with? You like believing they are irrational, don't you? Because your normal is the rational one?

      Look, being enemies with others because you are supporting different norms is perfectly understandable. You don't have to make it holier than it is. Want to destroy them? Fine. The religious narration is unnecessary.

    31. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Foreign Policy's "quiz" was stupid. The two were easily distinguishable - I got all 8 correct without even following Santorum or Khamenei closely. If I were FP's editor, I would have told whoever came up with that thing "If your objective is to embarrass the Republican party, go back to your desk and try again."

      All of which has nothing to do with dealing with the Taliban. Personally, I'm with Ron Paul on this one.

    32. Re:Umm? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      An eye for a tooth, a nose for a chin, a butt for a...

    33. Re:Umm? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      they liked airplanes

      ...as huts (hey I don't blame them... alclad would reflect the sun's heat better than just about anything else)

    34. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As with any criminal organisation, the problem is not the people as such. The problem is with what they're trying to accomplish, in this case the problem is the religion they're pushing.

      As for being anti-technology, the taliban *are* anti-technology. But like most others, they're not prepared to actually risk their life for what they believe in. They fight because their religion promises them victory. Most suicide bombers are forced into it, with some flimsy familial situation as a pretext for horrible punishment on the entire family that they can buy off by delivering a suicide bomber.

    35. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Somehow it doesn't prevent them from carrying AKs and RPGs, though. Why not wage some honest-to-Allah jihad with swords and bows? The Prophet did it that way, after all, and it worked for him.

      "Somehow" ? No :

      When the sacred months are over, slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and use any tactic and any trap to kill them

      Note that this is a direct command from allah to all muslims.

    36. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to judge?

      A sane human being ? Not an islamic wife-beating child-rapist thief and warmonger ?

      Take your pick.

    37. Re:Umm? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      So what you mean is that the taliban and their co-religionists were better behaved before the state department decided we shouldn't just let Stalin kill them all ?

      That seems like an easily verifiable fact.

    38. Re:Umm? by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      I think you're making the unfounded assumption that extremists like the Taliban can be reasoned with.

      Understanding them may not make them more reasonable but may make them more predictable. Also, if TV's are a threat to them, we should be getting as many over there as we can, if it's communication that's the threat then there are better ways of achieving that communication than through TV.

    39. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sharia law is simple compared to the U.S. tax code and TSA rules!

    40. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They banned the old soviet weather balloons as sorcery (equating weather forecasting with telling the future).

      Well to be fair weather forecasting is only slightly more accurate than astrology. It's an easy mistake to make.

    41. Re:Umm? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Zombie Stalin killing Afghans almost 30 year after his death? Where do you get that grass?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    42. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were involved as far as providing a safe place for Al Queda to plan, train and organize. And they only condemned the attacks to prevent a US invasion. They didn't actually condemn them enough to make arrests or hand over Al Queda members.

    43. Re:Umm? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      TV? Pah.

      I rely on the voices in my head. Much more trustworthy.

    44. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best story I heard about that: The Taliban drove up to this woman's house in an SUV and said, "Sister, in the times of the Prophet, they didn't have televisions."

      She said to them: "In the times of the Prophet they didn't have automobiles either. Come back on a camel."

      And they said to her: "We cannot ride our camel today sister, for we rode it too hard last night. And before you ask sister, no we can't ride the donkey either."

    45. Re:Umm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither was Al-Qaeda. And they weren't involved in that little "accident" at the Pentagon either.

    46. Re:Umm? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Whoops. Although in my defense, the first attacks started under Stalin.

  7. CIA/NSA Listening Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are waiting for you to ask them questions.

    You get tagged, and you get a robo-answer, a la AskSanta.com

    1. Re:CIA/NSA Listening Post by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      They also have something else in common with AskSanta.com in that there is no Allah, either.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:CIA/NSA Listening Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see it now:
      "THE TALIBAN ARE A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS!!!"
      "I'll remember you when robots take over the world"

    3. Re:CIA/NSA Listening Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not talking to allah, they don't even pretend you're talking to allah. So you aren't making much sense.

  8. The website itself by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

    Neither TFS nor TFA link to the website in question, so here's it:

    http://shahamat-english.com/

    Unfortunately, it seems that the English version doesn't have a Q&A section, so you can't troll them unless you know Pashto. Too bad.

    1. Re:The website itself by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Google Translate do Pashto?

    2. Re:The website itself by shibashaba · · Score: 2

      Whats funny is that the contact for the website is a gmail address. I wonder if they opted out of googles user data retention....

      --
      ---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
    3. Re:The website itself by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For that matter, it's a .com domain - which, as we know, is de facto fully in US jurisdiction.

    4. Re:The website itself by million_monkeys · · Score: 1

      Neither TFS nor TFA link to the website in question, so here's it:

      http://shahamat-english.com/

      Unfortunately, it seems that the English version doesn't have a Q&A section, so you can't troll them unless you know Pashto. Too bad.

      If you really want to ask them a question, that site lists an gmail address and a phone number...

    5. Re:The website itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you!

      Why someone would write an article on the interwebs about something else on the interwebs without including a URL is beyond me.

  9. Why ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... is everything modded "+Die Infidel"?

    Can we get that on Slashdot?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if it was modded OS/2?

      Wow, I'm dating myself here.

    2. Re:Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are perhaps thinking of the slashdot beta .. because no one expects the Spanish inquisition

    3. Re:Why ... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Mod parent "+1 I keel you!"

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:Why ... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      What holy book would we use to decide who is an infidel, though?

      Or maybe something more... fundamental? Spaces versus tabs? CapitalFirst or notCapitalFirst? That noise versus Using_Underscores versus smashy spike plate?

    5. Re:Why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?

    Probably big fans. It's pretty hard to have a proper Jihad against the infidel Crusaders if they don't arrive at a battlefield within convenient commuting distance of your favorite rugged hideout and start acting unsympathetically enough that you can keep up the PR campaign.

    While the supine American media in general have done a pretty good job of supporting exactly that, Fox has really gone out of their way to emphasize nationalist bellicosity with a sharp Christian edge. Far better foils then some centrist waffler would be.

  11. Not a good sign by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like a very good way to get yourself tagged as a 'person of interest' if you access it from any western country. Anyone want an all expenses paid holiday to some non-specific Caribbean island?

    I'm not sure that it's an encouraging sign when we are more afraid of what our government will do to us for accessing a terrorists' website than what the terrorists will.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Not a good sign by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Looks like a very good way to get yourself tagged as a 'person of interest' if you access it from any western country. Anyone want an all expenses paid holiday to some non-specific Caribbean island?

      I'm not sure that it's an encouraging sign when we are more afraid of what our government will do to us for accessing a terrorists' website than what the terrorists will.

      Honestly, just visiting that website will not get you flagged for anything. Do they monitor that website? Possibly. But unless you actively go to other sites, such as the al Qaeda training/recruiting forums or the websites that usually get beheading/propaganda videos, you would not show up in any cross referencing the government would do. A lot of the people that go to websites such as this have no connection with the Taliban. It could be academics, reporters, the curious, or hell even a few trolls (there's gotta be at least one 4channer that knows Pashtun). There's a lot of chaff they'd have to go through to get to any wheat, and their resources are limited. They can't monitor everyone that goes to the public-facing propaganda website of the Taliban. I think the OP was just trying to sound witty.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly, its standard slashdot paranoia.

    3. Re:Not a good sign by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's actually a few questions I'd like to ask them myself (won't bother, since I assume they only take questions in Farsi, or maybe Arabic as well, neither of which I speak). I can probably guess their answers, but hearing it straight from them, instead of indirectly through our own "expert analysis", would be... well, more scientific, I suppose. Direct observations are almost always more accurate and reliable than indirect observations.

      First, I'd ask "if you had the ability to eliminate every 'infidel' from the planet, would you?". Second, "if the invaders were to leave, completely, on the sole condition that Afghanistan become a non-Islamic, but non anti-Islamic, state, would that be preferable to continued occupation?"

      The first is sort of a "can we co-exist with these people? can they be reasonable?" If we were to leave them completely alone, would they keep to themselves, or would they remain a threat to our security? A classical Islamic state would tolerate 'infidels' even in their own country - during the Middle Ages, all you had to do was pay an extra tax, and *that* was mainly to get out of the military draft. It was illegal to *leave* the state religion (on pain of death, often), but for the most part, if you stayed quiet and obeyed the secular laws, the religious laws left you alone. However, a modern fundamentalist Islamic state probably would not be so... tolerant.

      The second is a "what do they care more about: being left alone, or being fundamentalist Muslims?" Because, undoubtedly, a fundamentalist state of any religion is generally bad. Even a fundamentalist atheist state would be oppressive and essentially *wrong*. So it is in the best interests of justice, of humanity, that Afghanistan not revert to a fundamentalist Islamic state, as the Taliban desires. However, I suspect that much of their popular support comes not from people wanting to be ruled by some theocrat, but by people who want the invaders out of their homeland. I can sympathize - I want our "invaders" out of their homeland and back in ours, as well. The question is, would their leadership accept not ruling Afghanistan themselves if it meant a free Afghanistan? It's not likely, given the past decade, but it's possible. And any possibility for a peaceful but beneficial resolution to war is worth entertaining.

    4. Re:Not a good sign by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      It's not. But isn't it interesting?

      Gives you that good ol' fuzzy Soviet feeling, where you feared your government more than your enemy as well.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Not a good sign by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I figure they had me tagged when I came here.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they're not actually looking at sites like that in the first place. . . I mean, why monitor dangerous radicals with fanatic religious beliefs who think they hurt people to get to heaven when you've got some peaceful domestic anti-war groups and activists to monitor and go after? Aint the war on terror fun? Oh wait. . . there's a boot kicking down my. . .AIIIEEEIEEEE! /bitter sarcasm.

    7. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell you what, Skippy... you go *over there* and try to exercise a lot of your rights and you will think twice about what to be afraid of. Just come out publicly and admit you're an atheist or a homosexual and the western world will look like Utopia to you in about 10 minutes.
       
      I'm not saying that this makes the degradation of our civil rights any better but you don't fear the terrorists because you're not within arms reach. When you are you'll give up all these fucking illusions people have around here of Islam and their tenets somehow not being as bad as the "Draconian Christian Right and Big Brother Obama."

    8. Re:Not a good sign by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe YOU are more afraid of the government than of the people who convince random people blow up other random people. I'm not.

    9. Re:Not a good sign by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Farsi is French for Persian. It's the language of Iran. Arabic is the Esperanto of the Islamic world. Lots of dialects, but generally mutually intelligible all over. Start with that, and move to Pashto, and then one of the many other other languages spoken in Afghanistan. Persian would not be the language of first choice, since Iran prefers to sneak around rather than make things obvious.

    10. Re:Not a good sign by Analog+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Considering that the official language of Afghanistan is Pashto, I doubt they'll take any questions in Farsi.

    11. Re:Not a good sign by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's reassuring. If I visit that website, Homeland Security will merely record my name and file it away in case I visit any other suspicious websites.

    12. Re:Not a good sign by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      Esperanto? I think the term you where looking for is lingua franca.

    13. Re:Not a good sign by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Weird, could have sworn Farsi (aka Persian) is the main language of Afghanistan.

      And Wikipedia seems to back me up: "Dari... or Farsi-ye Dari...As defined in the Constitution of Afghanistan, it is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan; the other is Pashto. Dari is the most widely spoken language in Afghanistan and the mother-tongue of approximately 50% of the population, serving as the country's lingua franca."

      In any case, I don't speak it.

    14. Re:Not a good sign by gman003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Farsi is French for Persian.

      No, Farsi is the Persian word for Persian. The French for Persian is apparently "persan".

      Citation

      And Arabic is not the Esperanto of the Islamic world - unless Arabic is the idealistic but extremely rare constructed language intended for auxiliary use but ultimately relegated to a small hopeful minority. Arabic is more the Latin of the Islamic world - the Holy Book is written* in it, so many people know it, even in areas where nobody speaks it historically.

      * Yes, I know the Bible was not originally in Latin, but the most common version, especially in the Middle Ages, was.

    15. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you might guess what their answer would be, because you put yourself in their place. I.e. pretended the taliban invaded USA and gave us a few choices.

      First, I'd ask "if you had the ability to eliminate every 'occupier' from the planet, would you?"

      Second, "if the invaders were to leave, completely, on the sole condition that United States of American become a non-free, but non anti-free, state, would that be preferable to continued occupation?"

      I for one, would fight only my occupiers and avoid others business I know nothing of, and I'd say, give me freedom or death! I'm guessing a lot of "extreme" people are like that and taliban are quite extreme.

    16. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Latin is a dead language while arabic is far from a dead language. You got 3 arabic lahja, msa, and fussha. Lahja is the spoken arabic and in several parts of north africa it's mixed with the foreign words of the colonialists. When arabic is written it's written in fussha, when you go to school you talk in fussha especially when you speak to your teachers, when you listen to radio you listen to fussha, when you watch your news you listen to people talking fussha, when you read anything written be it an advertisement, newspaper or a book it is written in fussha, same all accross the arabic and non-arabic world. MSA is "Modern Standard Arabic" it is a dictionary of definitions for modern things like "ham radio operator" and "beowolf cluster array" and "slashdot". So if you learn fussha and MSA (which you'd learn anyway by experiencing the world around you in arabic) say in china, indonesia, pakistan, afghanistan or any other place in the world outside of the arabic world you'd have no trouble talking to anyone educated or communicating by writing.

    17. Re:Not a good sign by ddtracy · · Score: 1

      Pashto is spoken by 50% of the Afghans. Maybe that changed after 10 years of war as most pashtun people are taliban.

    18. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, could have sworn Farsi (aka Persian) is the main language of Afghanistan.

      And Wikipedia seems to back me up: "Dari... or Farsi-ye Dari...As defined in the Constitution of Afghanistan, it is one of the two official languages of Afghanistan; the other is Pashto. Dari is the most widely spoken language in Afghanistan and the mother-tongue of approximately 50% of the population, serving as the country's lingua franca."

      In any case, I don't speak it.

      And once again we see the dangers of using the Wikipedia. Ignore what is written on that page, and follow the citation to the source material. The story it tells is a little different than what the Idiot-O-Pedia has. Most notably, Farsi and Dari are NOT the same thing to start with.
      Here are some excerpts from the actual source material:

      "The two major languages in Afghanistan are Pashto and Persian, known in Afghanistan as Dari. Both are Iranian languages."
      "Dari has always been the prestige language in Afghanistan. It is the lingua franca, the language resorted to when speakers of different languages need to conduct business or otherwise communicate. However, there are different pressures favoring the use of either Dari or Farsi."

    19. Re:Not a good sign by UltimaBuddy · · Score: 1
      "Now why on Earth did you access this terrorist website?"

      "For the last time, it's called trolling, you goddamn noob!"

    20. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, just visiting that website will not get you flagged for anything.

      Ah, to be so naive once more.

    21. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about using http://translate.google.com ?
      you can post your questions converted from english to persian and read back the answers converted to english again.
      Though you may want to carefully word your questions so that they do not lose their meaning in the process of conversion.

    22. Re:Not a good sign by dredwerker · · Score: 1

      "Now why on Earth did you access this terrorist website?"

      "For the last time, it's called trolling, you goddamn noob!"

      I am not sure I would be so brave whilst sitting in my orange jumpsuit.

      Might make a great Tango advert though. (tango the orangey fizzy drink not the dance).

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    23. Re:Not a good sign by Tom · · Score: 1

      won't bother, since I assume they only take questions in Farsi, or maybe Arabic as well, neither of which I speak

      I thought checking that was trivial - like, going there and having a look - and then it turns out that our news agencies are still deep within the middle ages. How can you write a whole article about a website without providing the URL ???

      Fortunately, we have Google. But it appears the site is slashdotted - at least it's slow:
      http://shahamat-english.com/

      but the site is in english, so I don't see why they wouldn't be answering questions in english.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re:Not a good sign by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Being afraid of the government should be both normal and encouraged.

    25. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Persian-Farsi and Persian-Dari aren't quite the same language. I used to be a Farsi linguist, and while I could pick out familiar words in Dari I wasn't actually able to speak or fully understand it.

    26. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are naive. The UK or US governments are not averse to making examples, now and again, out of some hapless patsy who was 'curious' . No real attempt to justify the heavy handed action will be made. Said patsy's life will be made utterly miserable before eventually being let off with some 'lesser charge' or none at all.

    27. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bother trying to explain this to slash-tards. Most here are incapable of fathoming how complex the data processing algorithms in use actually are. Because everyone here knows everything about everything, the government must only be using simple keyword searches and basic http access logs.

      So you end up with people going on about how they will be sent to Gitmo if they visit the site. You also get people listing words like bomb, washington, president, etc. in dumbassed attempts to spam the keyword filter.

      It never occurs to them that the algorithms are a tad bit more complex than that.

    28. Re:Not a good sign by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, around half the people basically think that keeping religion out of school and government is repressive. So, the question is loaded. And that's here, where basically everyone agrees on a certain cultural standard that includes things like not stoning adulterers, even though adultery is morally wrong. So, there's limited scope for a non-Islamic state to make fundamentalist Muslims happy. We observe in the US that it's even hard for a secular state with a proven track record of religious tolerance to satisfy fundamentalist Christians, where everything is lined up perfectly.

  12. Magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How Do They Work?

    I wonder if the Taliban have any insights...

    1. Re:Magnets by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Allah makes them work.

      Why do you think these fundamentalists have any more insight than ours?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Magnets by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Tides come in, tides go out.

    3. Re:Magnets by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.

  13. The real trick by dark+grep · · Score: 0

    It looks like the real trick for this topic will be for someone to make a post that doesn't get marked down. - off topic -1. Thank you.

  14. The only enemies of Islam by kimvette · · Score: 0

    The only enemies of Islam are the ones they created themselves. Unfortunately that list includes all non-Muslims, by their own words.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:The only enemies of Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like the Americans. If you are not American, you are against us!. I'm surprised they don't get along well together!

    2. Re:The only enemies of Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this why the USA is so fervently against Australia? Since the Australians aren't American....oh wait... you're just an idiot.

  15. 72 Virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So i understand the whole 72 virgins thing, but i'm not quite ready to pay the purchase price. What's the present value of the 72 virgins now? Could i take a loan against them like Steve Jobs did with his Apple stock. I'm ok with penalties and such, so how about if i just take 7 now and we can settle up later? Sincerly, Durkadurka Jihad Jihad

    1. Re:72 Virgins by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Think for a moment. 72 virgins. For all eternity. That's awfully few virgins in the long run, don't you think? I mean, even if you only use one per year you won't even last a century. And then?

      I don't know the details, but I guess Allah ain't much more keen on wanking than the bearded guy on his fluffy cloud.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:72 Virgins by EdIII · · Score: 2

      I don't think you just get to fuck them one time you know...

      The whole virgin thing probably came about because it was vastly preferable to sloppy seconds with a camel.

    3. Re:72 Virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is they don't stay virgin.

    4. Re:72 Virgins by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Hmm... what about virgin camels?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:72 Virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks to virginoplasty, while they tell you you get 72 virgins, what they forgot to mention is you really only get 1 'virgin', they just surgically 'revirginize' her 72 times. And what they fail to mention is she was an athiest prostitute who died of complications resulting from syphillus and being anally penetrated by a camel's cock.

      Gee, is heaven starting to feel a little warm, or is that just the syphillus kicking in?

      - vranash

    6. Re:72 Virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're that interested, give it a whack and let us know

    7. Re:72 Virgins by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can find one those. Too short of a half life.

  16. link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's the link to the website?

  17. Mod me redundant... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...or generally stupid, but where are the traditional April Fools' stories? Is this the dark side of the serious, corporate slashdot? Did we all grow up and I missed the boat?

    1. Re:Mod me redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They stopped most April 1 jokes after getting sued a few years ago. IIRC they have mainly been reporting on other site's jokes for a year or two.

    2. Re:Mod me redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They got sued for posting April Fool's jokes? Sounds like a bullshit excuse by the corporate douches that took over Slashdot.

      Synthtopia always has a decent April Fool's article, of course if you're not into synthesizers it probably won't mean much to you but on the off chance you do like synths check em out. Last year they did a fake preview of Logic Pro X (which still isn't out yet damn it!) but this years I got like 2 paragraphs in before I was like "oh duh", haha.

    3. Re:Mod me redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? By whom over what? Reference? Google doesn't say much...

    4. Re:Mod me redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the surprise this year. Sure fooled you! :-)

    5. Re:Mod me redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that makes me cry. +1 Die Infidel indeed.

    6. Re:Mod me redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Oh wait....haha, you got me...fuck you!

    7. Re:Mod me redundant... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I don't miss it. Mod me curmudgeon.

    8. Re:Mod me redundant... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I don't mind one or two clever, subtle April Fool's jokes, but in the past that's not what Slashdot has done - each editor has posted a couple, mostly astoundingly stupid and/or obvious.

      So no, I don't miss it either.

    9. Re:Mod me redundant... by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      The world is so fundamentally ridiculous, April Fools' Day has been deemed redundant and surplus to requirements.

      --
      -Styopa
  18. IDIOT post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why , they had a website even before sept 11 attacks LOLOL shows how daft the poster and all those involved are.

  19. Link Please by colsandurz45 · · Score: 1

    I'd like to ask some questions....

  20. Here's my question : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't you jihadist fuckers do a capitalist deal with some good old
    American oil and gas companies and put all this needless fighting to
    rest ? Look, the US is going to get your resources one way or another, so you
    might as well get paid for it rather than be killed because you were in the way.

    And by the way, most intelligent people from the US know the war is not about terrorism,
    only redneck morons believe that lie.

    1. Re:Here's my question : by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I must be a redneck moron then.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    2. Re:Here's my question : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am uncertain about which war you are referring to, but if it is the one in Afghanistan, reality kinda seems to disprove your arguments and claims. For instance, India and China seems to be the main benefitters of the natural resources in Afghanistan[1]. This doesn't fit at all with "Evil Americans plundering Afghanistan for resources", but it fits very well with the Americans wanting India and China to become economically invested in Afghanistan and therefore also in stability in Afghanistan. I can't imagine the Chinese wanting a civil war or the Taliban taking over if they have serious mining in Afghanistan, especially considering considering their energy- and resource-hungry industries.

      Ps.: I am not American.

      [1]: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/1228/China-wins-700-million-Afghan-oil-and-gas-deal.-Why-didn-t-the-US-bid

    3. Re:Here's my question : by ddtracy · · Score: 1

      What? You really think it's all about liberating some poor saps in Afghanistan that been that way for the last few millennia? Not even the soviets that could deal with heavy losses could take over Afghanistan, neither the brits with their strategies and mixed armies after nearly taking over quarter of the world. Even Alexander the Great avoided them. And now USA is there just of pure altruism? Stop watching fox news, talibans are not alqaeda. Iraq really needed that liberation so that USA and the brits could get all those nice contracts.

    4. Re:Here's my question : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan are 2 different wars. It is much, much easier to argue that the Iraqi war was (mainly or partly) fought for resources. Conversely, the resources in Afghanistan are now mostly going to India and China. And if the war was fought for resources, why would the USA let the resources in Afghanistan go to one of their main competitors, who hasn't really contributed anything to the war?

      It was quite brilliant of Al-Qaeda to base themselves in Afghanistan and then perform a terrorist attack to provoke the USA into invading Afghanistan. What better place would there be to bleed out (yet another) "evil" superpower? Hell, even though the invasion of Afghanistan was the "good war" compared to the Iraqi war, the Iraqi war was not lost but won, and won in shorter time than the duration of the occupation in Afghanistan. Of course, that may have had something to do with resources being pulled from Afghanistan to Iraq, but still, if the USA was and is rational in any way, Afghanistan would not be high on the list of targets in terms of wealth of resources versus difficulty of invasion.

    5. Re:Here's my question : by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Look at these two statements:
      1. "most intelligent people from the US know the war is not about terrorism,"
      2. "You really think it's all about liberating some poor saps in Afghanistan ..."

      The war is about terrorism and geopolitical gamemanship.
      The portion relating to terrorism can be split into
      1. find the f**ks who hit the World Trade Towers
      2. don't make the mistake of the 1990s and let a complete power vacume exist in Afghanistan
      3. Some people believe in nation-building (I completely disagree)

      Connecter btwn terrorism and geopolitics:
      1. Some people (Obama) felt this was the right war, that Bush had taken his eye off the prize with Iraq (internal US politics).
      Geopolitics
      The game of projecting force and influencing friends and enemies namely (Russia, China, Iran). I have no love and much disdain for geopolitics.

      You mention it's all about the resources and yet .... When and where did the US get any resources from Iraq and Afghanistan. It hasn't. The same canard was raised about Vietnam - that we were there for the resources. I don't buy this argument that we're there for the resources.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    6. Re:Here's my question : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You really are an utter useless tool. You also basically argued the parent's point there. The Taliban isn't Al Quaeda, and no one has ever taken over the place, so, maybe there's reasons outside your blinkered, blithering, autism fueled, ideological blathering?

    7. Re:Here's my question : by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      What's altruism got to do with it? That might be a fringe benefit in the long run, but we're not there to liberate the poor Afghanistanis from their backward fascist theocracy, and that was never lauded as the raison d' etre for the Afghanistan war. We went there to blow Al Qeada and any supporting Taliban the hell up for crashing planes into our buildings and killing thousands, and to try and prevent them from attacking again in the future.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  21. Watch out India and Pakistan! by WiiVault · · Score: 0

    There is a new call center start-up coming right at you and it is staffed with lots of "Bobs" and "Toms" trained in selective desert "service camps" that are gonna be available this Afghan spring to graciously assist me with my terrorism or other electronics support related inquiries. Just press one to disconnect from competitive offshored call-center relevance suckers cuz the big boys are here and they NEVER give up. No way you would guess in a million years who it is serious, guess! Well I suppose Pakistan would have known for quite a while by now and helped get them on their feet... But thats just ya know, some splinter groups..blah blah.

    Anyways sorry India we always liked you (wait scratch that), but it's a global economy now, and to the mighty nation of Afghanistan you are just one more empire between them and... oh fuck is it harvest season again?! Can we pick up advancing as a civilized in a few (months)? Open to talk about electricity but just forget about women going to school- that's just dumb. As a reminder time-out rules and all still apply ya know, I know I have that haddith laying around here somewhere- typical infidels trying to steal our ideas from our distant future minds- no wonder we will soon ascend to our rightful place and correct all the mistakes your disease of "free-thought" has done to plague our planet (yes OUR). You cheaters just won't accept it's really only the year 800 when you pull out the abacus and count out times we just wanted to chill and remove the poison of public education or hunt suspected homosexuals; which in Afghanistan it takes a long time to find anybody as many a lost martyr hunter has learned.

    Really gotta check to see the harvest dates though but thanks for the nice chat/ burn in hell for hiding Richard Simons from us for all these years after his many videotaped crimes. Not cool dude, you guys suck more than those few guys in the ISI who won't let us put them on our mailing list. live another day. See you next Spring so we can do this again.

    Hold that thought for a few or better yet smoke some opium, we are the masters of both and will never give into your many varied ideological debates spanning thousands of cultures and countries which all somehow secretly conspire to insult us by their mere existence. Now go snuggle with your filthy purebread dog, eat a BTL and let us know when our successful agenda to convert you to our "Crazy Mountain Brew" of Islam is complete. That title is trademarked and the patented formula will be pursued by our idelogical allies known to you as "lawyers". But BTW- remember that the next time you say we can't change with the times!

    1. Re:Watch out India and Pakistan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, why leave for Afghanistan when Israel has summer boot camps for foreigners. For those who wish to google it themselves keyword is: MARVA and GADNA

      The British children who train to fight in Israel

      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=k_aatIlgcmI
      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7tDiIzIHk
      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=909xamDTsz4

      mahal-idf-volunteers.org/

      http://www.alternet.org/world/64100/

      Let Israelis Show You Israel Web site reads. "The program includes military content such as: navigation, field training, weapons training, shooting ranges, marches and more, as well as educational content such as: Zionism, Jewish Identity, history and knowledge of the land of Israel. All of this is taught in Hebrew in an intensive eight weeks."

      Also if you are non-jewish you can join the israeli army in all corps except the elite ones. You will fight side by side with the israeli pretty much what taliban does when they invite foreigners to fight side by side with them. Google is your friend on how to join these programs. And no there is no comparison to the french foreign legionnaire as they are distinctly different army under french command and you become french after 3 years of service and have high honor, ethics and moral which can be seen by their almost 200 years history.

  22. God is great and made of marshmallows by caffemacchiavelli · · Score: 2

    First we have an old guy who talks to an invisible man explain to us how Marxism is unrealistic, now 21st century tech is used to teach us 7th century philosophy. I think I'll be starting a new religion which proposes that we're in fact living under bizarro-God who delights in random acts of chaos and irony and the real one is in charge of another universe.

    1. Re:God is great and made of marshmallows by Bonobo_Unknown · · Score: 1

      You don't need to start a new religion to practice those beliefs: have a look at Gnosticism, which is essentially that, it's probably the most sensible branch of Christianity that ever existed. Of course there aren't that many left these days, after the massacres etc... wikipeida has a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Nature_and_structure_of_Gnosticism

      --
      We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
    2. Re:God is great and made of marshmallows by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      First we have an old guy who talks to an invisible man explain to us how Marxism is unrealistic

      Whoa, way too abstracted. That could mean anything from the Judeo-Christian realm to the ending of Mass Effect 3.

  23. Original website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anybody ever seen the original Taliban machine, now viewable only from the Wayback machine? It was hosted on ummah.net, and would give one a real insight into their fanatical views!

  24. They also have a funny article on nappy wearing: by sammcj · · Score: 2

    http://shahamat-english.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14632:diapered-us-soldiers&catid=3:articles&Itemid=5 "I'll let you into a little secret though; some press release has even revealed that the US-NATO forces uncontrollably pee in their pants during the fight with Mujahideen, or for the fear of attack by Taliban. "

  25. Not too difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Not too difficult by IonOtter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Be careful with that. "My hovercraft is full of eels." isn't much of an exaggeration.

      --
      [End Of Line]
    2. Re:Not too difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop your panties Achmed, I cannot wait until lunchtime.

    3. Re:Not too difficult by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      So, at worst, we get some lulz. Can't see a downside.

  26. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?

    Probably big fans.

    Actually, they hate Fox, and are big MSNBC fans. The same piece in the Washington Post also said that they were bummed when Keith Olbermann was fired.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  27. Ooh, Petitions Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's next, a section where you can submit petitions to the Taliban?

    Get 25,000 signatures and they'll respond within 30 days!

  28. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Great recruitment channel. If you weren't pissed on the West, you sure are after watching it for a while.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Dear Mullah Taliban by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    Should infidels who blaspheme believers with "April Fools" jesting be forcibly circumcised before the mujaheddin behead them in the name of Allah? -- Konfused in Kandahar

  30. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1
    Misdirection is the intent of propaganda. I'm sure Tokyo Rose had her "favorites", too. And there is the final paragraph of the piece you cite:

    The al-Qaeda spinmeister didn’t like Fox News (“let her die in her anger”), but it’s hard to understand why. Surely Rupert Murdoch’s network, with its saturation coverage of the war on terror, did more to elevate bin Laden’s profile than any other news outlet.

    I would concur with that analysis; Murdoch and Fox News elevated a mad dog into a war fighter.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  31. Re:It's a trap!!! by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    And here I was, thinking that this was TV's duty.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

    Maybe they're pissed Murdoch's guys never returned their agent's calls.

    "Look baby, I'm telling, Rupert and my boy, we can make things happen. Osama on O'Reilly. It's dynamite, baby. Dynamite!"

    Christ, those dirty bastards at N.I. didn't even try to hack al-Zawahiri's cell phone. No wonder al Qaeda's so pissed.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Can I get a burka barbie? by Ponies_OMG · · Score: 1

    Can I get a burka barbie? In pink??????

  34. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by doston · · Score: 1

    I am curious of what they think about Fox news ?

    Probably big fans.

    Actually, they hate Fox, and are big MSNBC fans. The same piece in the Washington Post also said that they were bummed when Keith Olbermann was fired.

    They must be as dumb as most Americans, who haven't figured out that they're all corporate propaganda outlets and are all unreliable news sources.

  35. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Given that their epistemological gold standard is "I read in a book that a dude said god told him...", it isn't a huge surprise that media literacy might not be among their strengths.

  36. April Fools? by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Is this some sort of April Fools joke?

    1. Re:April Fools? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I think maybe no. It looks pretty ... I don't want to say "legit" but it's stupid enough to be believable.

      There are lots of things I would like to ask, but I can't expect any answers I would like to hear. The fact is, they are of the mindset that the world should change for them rather than they find a way to get along with the rest of the world. That's where the conversations should probably end. But then again, the rest of the world probably thinks that about the U.S... you know, with all the copyright and other intellectual property laws being exported?

      At work, there were some light conversations about the various ways one could achieve forgiveness from god. The Jews have a day for that. The Catholics have a process as well. The Muslims? According to what I have heard, there's no such way. So, how does their god feel about the beheading of unarmed infidels and showing it on TV/the internet? I'm pretty sure that's a kind of murder that isn't justifiable by their holy book. Just goes to show that religion is just a tool to get what people want. And when religion gets in the way, religious law is simply ignored, twisted or fabricated.

      Would there be such hell on earth without religion? Maybe... but it would be a LOT harder to justify.

  37. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by doston · · Score: 1

    Given that their epistemological gold standard is "I read in a book that a dude said god told him...", it isn't a huge surprise that media literacy might not be among their strengths.

    Sad but true. And since Afghanistan's citizens are educated by the likes of the US financed 'Ministry of Education' and the American inspired and financed 'Lincoln Learning Centers', it's really no wonder. They probably teach creationism.

  38. if this isn't a joke by issicus · · Score: 1

    they are going to get all kinds of flame , if anyone can find their web site that is.

  39. Probably pretty tame stuff, mostly by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    I doubt it's much different from the "ask the mullah" pages on less radical Islamic sites. They're usually about some really mundane stuff, though the subjects probably seem pretty odd to non-muslims. Lots of questions about ritual ablutions (washing up) and what sorts of things make you "ritually unclean" again.

  40. No such thing as fundamentalist atheist by jbov · · Score: 0

    Great post, with the exception of your use of term "fundamentalist". There is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. It is a derogatory term fabricated by secular people. You may be referring to antitheists. Within various religions, fundamentalism is not always synonymous with intolerance and violence. It merely means the person adheres to the fundamental beliefs of the religion. For example, fundamental Christians believe the bible has no errors and was inspired by God himself.

    Since you stated it is illegal to *leave* the state religion. I'd also like to ask, "Would someone who doesn't want to be Islamic be allowed to leave the country under his or her own will?"

    1. Re:No such thing as fundamentalist atheist by J+Story · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's the polite alternative for "asshole". There are atheists who are very nice people and don't really care what other people believe or don't believe, such as Sir Terry Pratchett. Then there are the other kind.

    2. Re:No such thing as fundamentalist atheist by jbov · · Score: 1

      No. The polite alternative for the person you are describing would be antitheist, as I previously mentioned.

    3. Re:No such thing as fundamentalist atheist by ddtracy · · Score: 1

      I doubt someone would stop you to leave unless you apostate while they can stop you leaving. Ever heard about those SMART asylum seekers apostate when reaching their future host country and not before leaving their home country. I.e. that saudi reporter or whatever that was taken down by interpol. He had no problem leaving the country, his only problem was that he decided to apostate while he was still in saudi arabia, and very publicly so when he did it everyone knew it, so they took him down while he was en route to his safe destination (NZ/AU).

  41. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by luke923 · · Score: 1, Informative

    No surprise since American Muslims tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

    --
    "Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
  42. Looking at the site by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK, so they have a web site. It's hosted in Malaysia, runs Joomla content management, and uses Gmail for replies. They have Facebook and Twitter links. Their videos are on Youtube, and they have a movie site to provide a front for them. The video isn't too useful without translation.

    "The Afghanistan Of Islam Rejects Pollution of Western Democracy" is interesting reading. It's a good summary of the theocratic position, and gives some insight into why this is such a tough war to end.

    1. Re:Looking at the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see someone other than myself let their curiosity get the better of them; there's a lot of insightful information there. I don't necessarily agree with it, nor do I need to, but suddenly an entire side of the debate that was absent is visible.

      Interestingly, look at the contact us link, then go to the domain listed under the contacts name, its for sale-- I can't make up my mind whether thats on purpose or not, but I wonder how much oversight it has considering in theory it should be violating an assortment of FTO related legislation.

      Also, I have to admit, there is a bit of propaganda about NATO forces having to wear diapers because they can't get out of the armor and now they face a diaper shortage apparently, I have to admit it made me giggle a little.

    2. Re:Looking at the site by hamanaka · · Score: 1

      A Joomla website that badly needs updating. :)

  43. First Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Dr.

    Why is it, with the exception of September 11, do jihadists kill more of the faithful than infidels in each attack?

  44. GOP Taliban or Afgan Taliban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we talking the GOP, extreme religious, fact denying, woman hating nutters? or the Afganistan extremely religious, fact denying, woman hating nutters?

    I'm confused.

  45. gmail by Tom · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure they get the irony, but their contact person has a gmail.com e-mail address.

    So a) anything he receives or writes probably gets copied to the NSA in realtime and b) he's supporting the US advertisement industry.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  46. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity, did that percentage happen to surge since the 2002 midterms?

    Considering the hateful garbage the GOP has rather unabashedly spewed out about them in the past ten years, it's kind of hard to be surprised...

  47. Big Brother is watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After yesterday's news about the UK government monitoring our Internet activities, I dare not visit that site. I rather like NOT having my door kicked down in a dawn police raid.

  48. GOP & Taliban both hate women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both are religious extremists, both GOP and Taliban hate women, believe a God created the world 5000 years ago.

    Listen to Santorum's anti gay bashing, or Muller Rush Limbaugh calling women prostitutes and its like your actually there in Afghanistan.

    It's a pity you're in denial about it really. Shouldn't you hate filled extremists stick together?

    1. Re:GOP & Taliban both hate women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats hate women too, they just go about it differently.

    2. Re:GOP & Taliban both hate women by dave420 · · Score: 1

      By... not hating women?? Pretty sneaky.

  49. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by crutchy · · Score: 1

    Fox news is a key supplier of intelligence data for them, and they get it for free. How could they possibly complain about that?

  50. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by crutchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given that their epistemological gold standard is "I read in a book that a dude said god told him..."

    oh my goodness there are christians and catholics in the taliban!?

  51. Re:It's a trap!!! by crutchy · · Score: 1

    The web site will repeatedly play a loop of an extremist shouting "Alaho Ackbar"

    that's "Admiral" Ackbar you fucking pratt, and in any case you forgot "I like your balls!"

  52. islam is disgusting, other religions are not by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You just gotta love the moral equivalence argument. By this logic you should blame your neighbor for slavery, not just in America, but blame him for the paedophilic prophet's selling of slaves' children for sex, or himself buying a child specifically for paedophilic sex. Or blame him for cannibalism. Or communism. After all some portion of humans once did that, they're human, so they're guilty, right ?

    Just so you know, Christians believe first in the New Testament. You know, that little book that mentions Christ. You may have heard of it.

    And while Judaism certainly has some bad rules, the basis of our law system is ~90% Judaic law (with a number of major corrections coming from Christianity). Do you honestly think it's worse or somehow equal to what the taliban are "proposing" ? Judaic law is far better than islamic law in that it's not racist, does not demand eternal war, does not have slavery (it does have 7-year unbreakable employment contracts, which come somewhat close, but nothing like islam's buy and sell women, then rape them or rent them out for others to rape them, or the paedophile prophet who demanded slaves work for camel urine, then when they refused tortured them to death).

    Let's get some perspective here. Islam is a disgusting abomination, that's true. That does not mean that every religion is the same level.

    What I truly wonder is how muslims justify believing that a paedophilic racist abomination and thief like the islamic prophet is somehow worth more than an execution and a huge apology to all his victims. I of course, sadly, know the justification given in islamic text. Because he won military battles and his tactics will supposedly give his followers military domination over everyone else. That does nothing but make islam even more disgusting in my eyes.

    1. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians believe first in the New Testament

      And in it, their god is still a homophobic tyrant...

    2. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, where exactly is that reference ?

      Even in the old-testament, while gays are convicted, it's not quite as black and white as is often put. In the story about Sodom & Gomorra what is really said is that the Sodomites lose themselves in their own pleasures, which include gay sex, drugs, smoking, some sort of ball game and beating up whoever has any comments about consequences, as a result they ignore the real world's dangers. Then "they are destroyed". If our civilization is destroyed by climate change, something similar could probably be said and it would be right on the money (and I don't just mean denialists, there's plenty of people with their mouths full about "something must be done" who do nothing themselves).

      Frankly if you visit the region where this supposedly happens, this is a very believable story. There's steep mountains there, and it's extremely dry. But at the foot of the mountains you will find destroyed houses, roads, ... What happens is that once every decade or so a huge amount of rain will fall in a matter of hours. This generates mudflows down the mountains that destroy everything in their path. There's only one place where you're safe : at the top of the mountains, or far enough on the plain, IF you maintain a deep gulley around your settlement. At the top of the mountain is a bit of a problem, since that top shifts around, and you really have to be at the top. So how about : the Sodomites knew perfectly well what would happen if they didn't prepare, they didn't prepare because they didn't care, and were destroyed as a result.

    3. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, interpret away things that you don't like. The old testament is even worse. Women, homosexuals, and various other things are looked down upon in it.

      Honestly, people are trying to hard to not notice things that are there. In the case of the new testament, they just "interpreted" some of the bad things away. How very convenient! Anything you don't agree with? It wasn't really meant that way!

    4. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by chrb · · Score: 2

      it's not quite as black and white as is often put.

      "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

      This isn't black and white enough for you?

    5. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reference? Old testament or new?

    6. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      I googled for that text, it's obviously not from the new testament. Any other "references" ?

    7. Re:islam is disgusting, other religions are not by chrb · · Score: 1

      Even in the old-testament, while gays are convicted, it's not quite as black and white as is often put.

      "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

      I googled for that text, it's obviously not from the new testament.

      Reading skills are useful.

  53. Age of consent in Vatican is 12... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the GP's questions was "Can I marry an 8-year old? How about 12? Or 16?". Did you know that the vatican is the only place in Europe where age of consent is 12 years old? (Sure, it was that in Italy when they "separated" and vatican just didn't want to change that when Italy did... but I don't think it makes things any better)

    So I agree that comparing most western churches to fundamentalist islamists isn't that clever but I can't keep a straight face when people who are fine with the catholic church call islam a religion of pedophiles or something along those lines.

    1. Re:Age of consent in Vatican is 12... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's a load of crap. Facts are overrated. My faith forbids them and the political party that I am affiliated with have promised to repeal every single one of them when they have the House, the Senate, and the White House.

    2. Re:Age of consent in Vatican is 12... by MrKettlePot · · Score: 1

      That's a load of crap. Facts that disagree with my worldview are overrated. My lack of faith forbids them and the political party that I am affiliated with have promised to repeal every single one of them when they have the House, the Senate, and the White House.

      FTFY. Look at that, you've completely avoided his post and started talking about Catholics. Debate team victory!

    3. Re:Age of consent in Vatican is 12... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Nancy, you've done had your chance.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  54. Women hate women too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women hate women too,

    Yours
    Every Republican Candidate

  55. If you are going to troll them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible to post links in the questions?
    If so home many goatse links do you think will be there in a few days. Possibly ask a question if the following page is appropriate for a good Muslim to view, or if that is correct behavior for a good Muslim?

    --posting anonymously to preserver mods--


    Learn to take care of your car

  56. Judaic law by chrb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Christians believe first in the New Testament.

    A lot of Christians also believe in the Old Testament.

    the basis of our law system is ~90% Judaic law

    No... The basis of U.S. law is English common law, which followed rulings made by the King's judges based English tradition and legal precedent. There was influence from some other legal systems, including the Roman one where Christianity was the state religion (as it was in England), but no direct link to Judaic law. Some laws developed that were heavily influenced by religious views - the death sentence for blasphemy and homosexuality being two obvious ones (see Thomas Aikenhead, John William Gott). Both of those were argued from Christian religious perspectives, primarily based on passages in the Bible.

    Judaic law is far better than islamic law in that it's not racist

    613 mitzvot: Wipe out the descendants of Amalek (every man, woman and child). Genocide of another ethnic group is inherently racist.

    There are plenty of others, for example, there are explicit passages that mandate setting a Hebrew slave free after 7 years, whilst Canaanite slaves must work forever.

    And more recent racist religous law:

    Say no to rabbis’ racism: Back in 2010, some 50 of Israel’s most prominent rabbis issued a religious edict against Jews renting property to gentiles, "Leasing land to non-Jews blasphemous, anyone violating ban may be ostracized, rabbis say" Thirty-nine of those rabbis are on the government’s payroll, although their opinions vary drastically from the State of Israel’s official laws and ethos. After this incident, no rabbi was fired or brought to court for incitement.

    Killing Non-Jewish Infants is Permitted: "There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directled mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers."

    King's Torah splits Israel's religious and secular Jews: "Rabbis Dov Lior and Yacob Yousef had endorsed a highly controversial book, the King's Torah - written by two lesser-known settler rabbis. It attempts to justify killing non-Jews, including those not involved in violence, under certain circumstances."

    does not have slavery

    It does, it is even explicitly permitted for a father to sell his pre-pubescent daughters into slavery as a "last resort" to get money. Judaism and slavery: "Judaism's religious texts contain numerous laws governing the ownership and treatment of slaves."

    I of course, sadly, know the justification given in islamic text. Because he won military battles and his tactics will supposedly give his followers military domination over everyone else.

    As opposed to the religious law that you apparently support, where the complete genocide of every living thing in a city is ok when "ordered by God"? Where followers are instructed to Wipe out the descendants of another tribe, To burn a city that has turned to idol worship, To destroy idols and their accessories (y

    1. Re:Judaic law by MrKettlePot · · Score: 1

      The most popular tactic for argument here seems to be, ignore something major someone says then respond to one line taken completely out of context. When the phrase Judaic law was used it was meant to refer to the Christian Old Testament, more specially the Torah, the first 5 books of the old testament (books shared with a few major religions). This, taken in context with the New Testament, has nothing to do with anything you've written. Not sure who you are speaking to here...Israelis?

    2. Re:Judaic law by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Are you really this ignorant of history ? You cite three additions to law, two of which were "argued from the bible" ... great, but those things are little more than corrections to the tax code today. They're relevant, don't get me wrong, but they're hardly the basis of our law system.

      The precedent thing turned out to be very, very important, so at least that one is somewhat relevant. It's not nearly as important as Judaic law or Canon law though. As you know English law descends from French law, which was essentially almost directly Canon Law. Canon law's basis is Judaic law (e.g. the basic principle of civil cases is "an eye for an eye", but that's hardly the only principle) corrected with what's in the new testament (essentially, revenge is outlawed. The purpose of law is to right wrongs, not enforce law itself. It is perfectly A-okay to violate 99% of US laws as long as no-one gets hurt (feel free to walk around in public places naked where no-one sees you, feel free to shoot in public streets if nobody's there. You can only be convicted for crimes if someone complains)). Canon law has equality : with the exception of the state (the king) everybody has the same rights and duties (e.g. no slavery), with reasonable exceptions (like convicted criminals having less rights, but only for a while), and even has equality of the sexes. I'm not saying that was always true in practice under canon law, far from it. Although that principle has always influenced Christian societies. Law has always applied to both men and women, and even in the worst places for women's rights there have always been cases where a man gets convicted in a case started by a woman. To give an example, women are explicitly denied access to the legal system in islam, and this only changed at the point of a gun during colonization.

      Yes there are big differences between Canon law and English common law, e.g. the incorporation of legal entities, the legal entity status of the government (in Judaic law the government can do whatever the hell it wants, including killing people for no reason and can't be sued), the principle of advocates (which was introduced by the inquisition, incidentally) ...

      Don't get me wrong, I do not support religious law, of any kind. I would not support direct application of Canon law (I kind of like the tax rate), although I'd prefer it over direct application of Judaic law, which again I'd massively prefer over sharia. That does not change the fact that the basic idea of our legal system is Canon law (rectifying wrongs, not revenge), and making up for what you did wrong ("an eye for an eye", you break someone's car, you pay to have it unbroken. You destroy someone's house, you fix it/pay for fixing it, ...)

      In effect, all law systems worldwide are based on religious law and it is a very good thing that ours is based on Canon law.

      (and frankly the slavery thing leaves out several important details btw. first, those "slaves" are slaves for a seven-year term, after which they're free. Second they get paid, and there's even a minimum wage, if the "owner" can't pay that, they're free, and they get food and shelter. A slave remains legal standing, and an owner can no more force a marriage, for example, than an employer can today. I'm not saying it's a-okay, but you're neglecting that this isn't 'slavery' as understood today with unpaid forced labour, where owners can legally kill slaves, or with raping female slaves, which is islamic in origin. What people don't understand about slavery is that there are many different interpretations of slavery, and that what we consider slavery, with killing slaves and raping slaves and torture only ever was allowed under islamic law)

    3. Re:Judaic law by chrb · · Score: 1

      English law descends from French law

      No it doesn't. The first treatise on English law was the Tractatus of Glanvill in 1188 (law predating that is legally defined as "time immemorial"). England was subject to Norman Law since 1066, but Normandy was a Duchy of Viking invaders and settlers, and the Kind of France didn't conquer it and unify it into France until 1204. The common law of England is geographically distinct - the rest of Western Europe uses civil law.

      those "slaves" are slaves for a seven-year term, after which they're free. Second they get paid, and there's even a minimum wage...

      Only true for Jewish slaves, who were more like servants. The majority of slaves were non-Jewish, and could be worked without pay until death.

      with raping female slaves, which is islamic in origin.

      Judaic law gives slave masters the right to rape the wife of any of their slaves if the slave was sold into slavery by a court of law.

      killing slaves and raping slaves and torture only ever was allowed under islamic law

      Actually it was allowed in many places: "A major touchstone of the nature of a slave society was whether or not the owner had the right to kill his slave. In most Neolithic and Bronze Age societies slaves had no such right, for slaves from ancient Egypt and the Eurasian steppes were buried alive or killed to accompany their deceased owners into the next world. Among the Northwest Coast Tlingit, slave owners killed their slaves in potlatches to demonstrate their contempt for property and wealth; they also killed old or unwanted slaves and threw their bodies into the Pacific Ocean. An owner could kill his slave with impunity in Homeric Greece, ancient India, the Roman Republic, Islamic countries, Anglo-Saxon England, medieval Russia, and many parts of the American South before 1830." - Encyclopedia Britannica

      The Holocaust was legalised under German law that gave Hitler's orders legal power. The establishment of slavery in the colonies, concentration camps, hunting Aborigines for sport, these all occurred under Western legal systems. Islamic law does not have a monopoly on abuse.

  57. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by poity · · Score: 1

    Something to ponder: if examples were reversed, and fuzzyfuzzyfungus had been pointing out ill-reason in bible thumpers (in pushing creationism for instance), would a post that responded with something like "oh goodness there are muslims on our public school boards?!" be modded so highly or would it be labeled flamebait/troll/off-topic?

    Slashdot needs to decide once and for all, is shifting focus in response to fair criticism welcomed or unwelcomed?

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  58. I think I have it by bytesex · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is celebrating april 1st on april 2nd!

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  59. Little Bobby wants to know... by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

    9. Have you sanitised your data inputs?'); DROP TABLE secret_terrorism_targets;--

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:Little Bobby wants to know... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      At least post the link, instead of just teasing and/or confusing everyone:
      http://xkcd.com/327/

    2. Re:Little Bobby wants to know... by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      At least post the link, instead of just teasing and/or confusing everyone: http://xkcd.com/327/ [xkcd.com]

      Yes, God forbid that 99% of people should be allowed to "get" a joke without having it helpfully explained for them because 1% might experience the trauma of not getting it.

      Given that the "Bobby Tables" cartoon strip is pretty widely-known and referenced here, I didn't see the point in spoiling what was (meant to be) funny by explaining the damn thing, patronising the audience in the process and taking away the pleasure they'd have got from understanding the joke and spotting the reference for themselves :-/

      See, even my explicitly spelling out the implicit social understanding that underpinned my joke in this analytical way is quite unfunny.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  60. I've always wondered that one by Quila · · Score: 1

    Democrats promote abortion, homosexuality, equality of women, and tolerance of all religions. These are anathema to Islam.

    I have a pretty much non-practicing, but fairly conservative, Muslim in the family, and he still can't figure out how all his Muslim friends can vote Democrat. He's given up talking with them on the subject.

    Maybe they figure they have a better chance of taking over and imposing Shariah if the Democrats are in charge, promoting the weaker enemy, or basically making them "useful idiots" since the Democrats seem to embrace anything Muslims do in this country. It's kind of how the Soviet government was campaigning hard for Mondale to win in 1984 -- they knew he would be the softer opponent.

  61. Their respect for women is conditional by Quila · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A liberal woman receives full support. Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant. I don't agree with the term "slut" in any case, but here at least it was in context.

    Compare to the left's treatment of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann (for the record, I like neither of them). Downright vile content is constantly spewed at their mere mention.

    • Bill Maher has called Palin a "dumb twat" and "cunt." He called Palin and Bachmann "two bimbos"
    • Laura Ingraham gets called a "right wing slut" by Ed Schultz, and he called Palin a "bimbo."
    • Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick."

    That's just a small sampling.

    And they even go after their own when that woman is out of favor. Hillary Clinton received some pretty sexist remarks for challenging Obama for the nomination.

    Where's the outrage? It won't be there among the left. They don't have principles when it comes to women. Respect for women is conditional upon whether they agree with that woman politically. If they don't, they make Limbaugh's comment look downright benign.

    1. Re:Their respect for women is conditional by Dr.+Gamera · · Score: 2

      Rush Limbaugh called a 30 year-old law student a slut because she wanted her insurance to pay for her birth control -- which she is probably on so she can fuck around and not get pregnant.

      On no occasion in her testimony did Sandra Fluke use herself as an example for why she felt insurance should cover hormone pills. The examples she did use were of women with polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis; in none of her examples was prevention of pregnancy the purpose of the pills. Rush Limbaugh appears to have been sexually attracted to her, which is fine; what is not clear is why he needed to express his fantasies about watching her have sex to the world at large.

      Read the transcript of Sandra Fluke's testimony here: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

    2. Re:Their respect for women is conditional by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      mmmmm, you're treating the political parties as a single entity. A party isn't going to have a unified view on a subject that's distasteful but in-line with their views. A percentage of every party are douches.
      Same for both sides.
      Where the two sides differ is that the GOP didn't come out in unified outrage and preach respect for women in the above cases.

      Statistically, portions of both parties hate women. The trend is greater with conservatives, probably due to their stance on some issues with women's rights. Abortion rights, women's pay in the workplace, affirmative action, etc.

      And by no stretch of the imagination can you make Rush Limbaugh "look downright benign". The guy's a shock jock. It's his job to make people angry.

    3. Re:Their respect for women is conditional by Quila · · Score: 1

      Where the two sides differ is that the GOP didn't come out in unified outrage and preach respect for women in the above cases.

      The Democrats are the ones who are taking the supposed moral high ground here. The Republicans are merely pointing out their hypocrisy right to the top. Is Obama not representative enough for you? Why does his PAC keep Maher's dirty money? I guess respect for women has its price.

      The trend is greater with conservatives, probably due to their stance on some issues with women's rights. Abortion rights, women's pay in the workplace, affirmative action, etc.

      Abortion rights? Republicans want to stop abortions. Remember, half of abortions kill women. Democrats want to keep it easy to kill millions of future women each year. Which one's more for womens' rights? Affirmative action? Oh yeah, let's have everybody at the office look at all the women and get to rightfully think "She only got the job because she's female." Way to be pro-woman there. Equal pay? We're going to start from a federal level dictating the pay of each employee in the country? That sounds familiar...

      And by no stretch of the imagination can you make Rush Limbaugh "look downright benign".

      You haven't listened to Bill Maher much, have you? The guy's whole act is shock, only his targets are conservatives and religious, so he gets a pass.

      Of course the difference is Bill Maher is funny, and Rush Limbaugh isn't. Yes, I admit, I'm a Maher fan, been so for a long time even though I don't always agree with him. But this shock stuff is his job, just like Rush. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.

      The problem is not really in him or Rush, but in how the Democrat/liberal establishment shows its hypocrisy when dealing with them. The supposedly pro-woman party all high and mighty about words directed towards women by conservatives is willing to let any level of vile rhetoric towards a woman slide as long as its suits them.

  62. So Rush was wrong, won't be the first time by Quila · · Score: 1

    Now onto the subject, the vile rhetoric directed towards conservative women by liberals that does not provoke an outcry about how these liberal woman-bashers are anti-woman. Not only are they not calling for a boycott of Bill Maher, they are gladly accepting his political donations.

    But as for the testimony, are you honestly expecting me to believe that most students attending law school are taking birth control for reasons other than preventing pregnancy? She's picking out the few to distract from the majority.

    I loved this one, "... conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what
    did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school" and her response, "We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally."

    She's properly labeled as a fucking idiot, not a slut. I have no relation to anything Catholic, and even I expect that the school wouldn't willingly pay for something that is firmly against their religion. Yes, this isn't fair to women. Hey, welcome to Catholicism! Note, most of the world's major religions aren't fair to women. That's why our secular state is such a good idea.

    Maybe they should choose a non-Catholic school if they have problems with the tenets of Catholicism instead of joining the school and bitching about it.

    1. Re:So Rush was wrong, won't be the first time by Dr.+Gamera · · Score: 1

      Sexism and ignorance are wrong. They are wrong regardless of the sources, be they Democrats, Republicans, or Slashdot commenters who get called out, but then try to change the subject while neglecting to apologize.

    2. Re:So Rush was wrong, won't be the first time by Quila · · Score: 1

      Sexism and ignorance are wrong. They are wrong regardless of the sources, be they Democrats, Republicans

      Looking at the media, you'd think it was only Republicans, where prominent Democrats clearly have them beat on the level of sex-based vitriol.

      Slashdot commenters who get called out, but then try to change the subject while neglecting to apologize.

      True, the poster who tried to change the subject away from the Democrats' selective (and therefore not sincere) support of women has not yet apologized. Oh wait, that was you.

    3. Re:So Rush was wrong, won't be the first time by Dr.+Gamera · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. I know my basis for considering the term "bimbo" offensive, but what's yours?

      Also, what criteria do you propose for the returning of a donation being a moral necessity?

    4. Re:So Rush was wrong, won't be the first time by Quila · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. I know my basis for considering the term "bimbo" offensive, but what's yours?

      Raised with respect for women. However, I do also have a sense of humor.

      Also, what criteria do you propose for the returning of a donation being a moral necessity?

      They demonize Rush for "slut" yet take $1 million from a guy who has called conservative women far worse on a regular basis. That makes it a moral necessity to avoid being the hypocrites they are.

      If they had said nothing, or if they equally applied their outrage towards those who denigrate women, then there would be no problem.

      But they don't. IMHO the reason is that they do not sincerely support women. They support their own political power, and women will receive support based on whether that support will enhance that power.

  63. Mujahideen Sir by kokoko1 · · Score: 1

    1) Why Americans start calling freedom fighters a Taliban? The same folks were called Mujahideen when they were fighting the USSR
    2) Is fighting against americans is bad and why fighting against USSR was good?
    3) Why America/NATO with all the modern weapons struggling to control Afghans even spending 10 years they can't leave their barks without an air support :)
    4) why American/NATO looking for way out of Afghanistan?

    --
    http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
  64. Context by Quila · · Score: 1

    #1: Santorum is talking about mankind, not just Christians. It's a very old saying.

    #2: Like most Muslims, the Ayatollah believes in complete freedom -- as long as it follows Islam. For example, this means freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anything against Islam. It means democracy, as long as your choice is limited to those approved by the Muslim leadership. IMHO, it's not freedom or democracy.

    #3: Ties into the above, they do not tolerate the existence of that which is unacceptable to them. Remember, they "don't have homosexuals in Iran." Because they execute them.

    #4: Quite true. Rather than say it's right for a woman to choose her path, radical feminism says the choice to be a wife and mother is wrong. I find that wrong.

    #5: In a sense, yes, two religions fighting for dominancy. Only one of them believes in the bloody eradication of the other -- Islam.

    #6: The "people" are Muslims. Everybody else is an enemy. They will be destroyed or subjugated.

    #7: I don't understand this one, don't really care.

    #8: Yes, the leadership has been hammering hatred of the Great Satan into the people for three decades.

    How did I do? I got every single one of them right.

    I also dislike both Santorum and the Ayatollah for their religious fundamentalism. I'd actually vote for Obama over Santorum, and that's saying a LOT. However, I'm smart enough to realize the huge difference between what it means for either to be in power. Santorum might try to make it illegal for a single girl to get an abortion, while the Ayatollah would have the girl executed for having extramarital sex in the first place.

  65. Let's not forget whose plan that was by Quila · · Score: 1

    Jimmy Carter!

    Oh my has he been able to change his image.

  66. Re:Age of consent by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    It's funny. At least the original post you're replying to has some weak mention of history. You just make a meaningless rant about it. You can do the same with atheism (e.g. do atheists rape if they know they won't get caught ? Well since atheism essentially advocates profit-loss calculation instead of "absolute" morality, the answer can only be yes, can't it ?)

    There is no age of consent in Vatican city, the concept doesn't exist in Canon law at all. All sex outside of wedlock is outlawed. The reason the "age of consent" is declared to be 12 is that people can be married, IF given special permission when under 16, at age 12 (the law does explicitly require both partners to be 'reasonably' close in age, and both older than 12, and both have to give permission for this to a priest. This permission first has to be given without anyone but the person giving it present, and a government official. Not exactly "rape away", is it ?).

    By the same standard, the age of consent in the US is 14 (procedure : go to Alabama, get permission from both your parents and a judge, and pay $2000).

  67. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by crutchy · · Score: 1

    my original comment that you reply to merely highlights (using sarcasm) how hypocritical Christianity and Catholicism is, and obviously others agree

  68. What a bullshit article. Where is the link??? by Sean · · Score: 1

    Where in the link to the site? Why are stories about a site on the internet that fail to actually give us a link to the subject of the article taken seriously at all?

    Traditional media outlets never provide source documents even though they are easily distributed on the web.

    AFP's word is like a dollar. It's not worth much and it's worth less and less every day.

  69. Yeah... no... by DeadTOm · · Score: 1

    While I'm quite interested, in a morbid curiosity kind of way, I won't go anywhere near this website out of fear of my own, ridiculously paranoid government.

    God Bless America.

  70. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by poity · · Score: 1

    Pointing out hypocrisy in Christian/Catholic institutions would make sense in the context of this thread if those people and institutions were using the Taliban's online presence as a point of argument to lay criticism on their extreme flanks, or to create a moral distinction between them and Christians. If Catholic/Christian members had used this opportunity to speak out against the inconsistency in Islamic teaching, then I would agree with the desire to point out hypocrisy. Yet, that wasn't what happened. Christians/Catholics weren't part of the story at hand, and pointing out their hypocrisy, however deserved that may be, in a story about the Taliban is just as out of place as pointing out Muslim hypocrisy in a story about, say, Westboro Baptist Church. (imagine a story about WBC boycotting a soldier's funeral, and someone makes a post about the cruel treatment of gays in the Islamic world. I imagine that post would be regarded as a troll or off-topic)

    Now, you might get the impression that I'm pro-Christianity here, but that's far from the truth. As an atheist, I want clear and unhindered criticism of all religions. Unfortunately, the degree of self-flagellation and extreme cultural sensitivity among Western atheists makes the act of criticizing Islam much more complex and hazardous than the act of criticizing Christianity.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  71. The parties aren't a single entity by Quila · · Score: 1

    I've seen this thinking before, especially with the two recent protest movements. When the Democrats do something wrong, it's a few bad outliers. When Republicans do something wrong, it's party policy.

    When the Occupy movement trashes their locations, commits various crimes on the protest grounds, and even does racist things, it's protrayed as conservative disruptors or people "not really" part of the movement.

    One person makes an off-color remark or holds a possibly racially unsensitive sign during a Tea Party protest, that's reflective of the whole movement.

  72. Re:I am curious of what they think about Fox news by crutchy · · Score: 1

    i'm not religion-ist... i detest all religions equally, including atheism.