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."
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!"
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?
"It is a demonstration of how far the insurgents' attitude towards technology has changed."
/b/tards discover when they engage Mr. Mujahid in a game of "Haram or Halal?"...
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
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.
Can we get that on Slashdot?
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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
...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?
I'd like to ask some questions....
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.
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.
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. "
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
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.
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
Be careful with that. "My hovercraft is full of eels." isn't much of an exaggeration.
[End Of Line]
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"
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.
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.
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.
Can I get a burka barbie? In pink??????
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.
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.
Is this some sort of April Fools joke?
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.
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.
they are going to get all kinds of flame , if anyone can find their web site that is.
They also have something else in common with AskSanta.com in that there is no Allah, either.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
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.
No surprise since American Muslims tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two" -- RFC 1925
No. The polite alternative for the person you are describing would be antitheist, as I previously mentioned.
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).
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.
Tides come in, tides go out.
Table-ized A.I.
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
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...
Fox news is a key supplier of intelligence data for them, and they get it for free. How could they possibly complain about that?
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!?
not if you're a woman though (although you might get in if you wear a fake beard)
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!"
Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.
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.
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.
By... not hating women?? Pretty sneaky.
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
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?
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
Slashdot is celebrating april 1st on april 2nd!
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
9. Have you sanitised your data inputs?'); DROP TABLE secret_terrorism_targets;--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
So, at worst, we get some lulz. Can't see a downside.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you can find one those. Too short of a half life.
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) 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/
#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.
Jimmy Carter!
Oh my has he been able to change his image.
I googled for that text, it's obviously not from the new testament. Any other "references" ?
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).
my original comment that you reply to merely highlights (using sarcasm) how hypocritical Christianity and Catholicism is, and obviously others agree
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
i'm not religion-ist... i detest all religions equally, including atheism.