Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Taliban Offer Question-and-Answer Service Online

Posted by samzenpus on from the dear-zabihullah dept.

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."

10 of 284 comments (clear)

  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 Issarlk · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
  2. 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 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

    2. 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."
  3. 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 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. 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?