Slashdot Mirror


Another Afghan School Poisoned — 160 Girls Hospitalized

An anonymous reader writes "Back in April, we discussed news of an anti-education attack on an Afghani school, which poisoned 150 Afghan schoolgirls. Now, a hospital in the same province has admitted 160 more girls who seem to have suffered a similar attack. 'Their classrooms might have been sprayed with a toxic material before the girls entered, police spokesman Khalilullah Aseer said. He blamed the Taliban. The incident, the second in a week's time, was reported at the Aahan Dara Girls School in Taluqan, the provincial capital. The girls, ages 10 to 20, complained of headaches, dizziness and vomiting before being taken to the hospital, said Hafizullah Safi, director of the provincial health department. More than half of them were discharged within a few hours of receiving treatment, Safi said. The health department collected blood samples and sent them to Kabul for testing.'"

474 comments

  1. Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does this have to do with /.?

    1. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by jtnix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What does this have to do with /.?

      absolutely nothing.

      Proof that the original /. is dead and gone and all we are left with is this crap-pile of AJAX and bad design.

      --
      She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
    2. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hi there, you must be new here.

      Slashdot:
      News for nerds, stuff that matters.

      File this under the latter

    3. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by rullywowr · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points today, I would have modded you up. How does this relate to tech or IT?

    4. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the tagline "stuff that matters" is tounge-in-cheek as most of the news that we nerds enjoy doesn't really matter at all in larger context.

    5. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by jdgeorge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you've forgotten the old Slashdot slogan: "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". This kind of stuff was on Slashdot since before I had a Slashdot user ID.

      The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.

    6. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, when the opportunity arises, I think the Slashdot editors like to plant a nice racebait story to draw in all the jackasses for a bit. See, pretty soon this thread will devolve into a series of psychotic rants about how we should "kill all them goddam towelheads". That may seem like a reason not to post it, until you consider that for the next couple hours, the rest of us will be able to discuss the next handful of stories in relative peace, save for the blatant Microsoft astroturfing that will inevitably dominate the first posts.

      Can someone remind me why I still read the comments here?

    7. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I assume the education slant would appeal to nerds. Nerds should be pro-education and should be concerned about literally violent anti-education movements.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    8. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Geeks and nerds often care about education related issues, which 'we would rather kill our females then let them learn to read' falls under.

    9. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1, Troll

      /. was never meant to be just about tech/IT. In fact, these days, it's arguably more that way than it was as a baby.

    10. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.

      And foreign governments.

    11. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "... to draw in all the jackasses for a bit."

      I don't think the Taliban read Slashdot.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    12. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by virgnarus · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know what, I wholeheartedly concur. But before I extrapolate on your wisdom, let me first turn your attention to how I managed to successfully evade a viral attack with the help of an incredible product, MyCleanPC...

    13. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      /. was never meant to be just about tech/IT. In fact, these days, it's arguably more that way than it was as a baby.

      Someone should slap the parents of this "baby"

    14. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has to be the funniest thing I have read on here in a long time.

    15. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe some people who read Slashdot are interested in it? There are currently several stories on the front page that I have no interest in (especially the one with SlashCloud in the summary, a clear indication that at least one of the editors is dangerously rabid) and Slashdot comes with a very convenient feature to let me avoid them. There is a link next to the story that I am not interested in labelled 'Read the {some number} comments'. Using my pointing device of choice, I carefully move the cursor away from this link and don't click on it. Slashdot even provides a very convenient user interface optimisation here, by making not clicking on it the default! I suggest that you may wish to do the same thing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why would there be professional astroturfers on here today? Slashdots numbers have fallen on significantly in the past couple of years. This place is a ghost town compared to what it was 5 years ago.

    17. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Civil rights and stuff... nerds care about this stuff. go eat a bag of dicks.

    18. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I read Slashdot not because I don't care about the non-tech world, but because I don't care about the pointless drivel that fills most "news" sources. I don't care about the some bimbo's annulled wedding, or the color of a pop star's shoes, or the 12 most adorable breeds of puppies. I want to know news about my interests, and things that will have a lasting effect on the world I live in. I want news for nerds and stuff that matters. I read Slashdot.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    19. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Geeks and nerds often care about education related issues, which 'we would rather kill our females then let them learn to read' falls under.

      Yes, as a geek/nerd, I care about education issues, social issues, and civil rights issues. Most of the geeks/nerds that are in my social circles are also.

    20. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by jtnix · · Score: 2

      Perhaps you've forgotten the old Slashdot slogan: "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". This kind of stuff was on Slashdot since before I had a Slashdot user ID.

      I too was reading here back in the 90's and can't say I can recall non-tech articles of Fear and Loathing with any frequency.

      The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.

      This comment is of course a better answer to my comment above which has already been labeled as troll, which I suppose is deserved given it's brevity and offtopic closure. So, in light of that I will attempt to give a better answer why this article has no place on /. :

      This is not tech news, and does not 'matter' at all to the tech community, period. I can read this immediately on any other mainstream news source in minutes, including non-news sources like Facebook, Twitter, etc. so posting it here is not adding to my daily news experience. I assert this is obvious, so what use does this article have here?

      Simple. Articles of Fear and Loathing are like a train wreck that is impossible to not watch. It serves the purpose to engage and distract you from what you should / could be doing positively with your life. This is the primary objective of any mainstream media outlet, which /. has obviously become. Of course the Media says their motive is to generate discussion on how we might possibly 'solve' problems like this in the future, but in actuality all it does is anger or sadden most people and distract them from the positive things in their lives.

      I used to read /. regularly because they generally avoided nonsense like this in favor of genuine geek news topics. I have learned to get my informative reading from other sources, especially using a news reader of my own selection of curated bloggers who share my sentiments of mainstream media.

      --
      She blinded me with science, she tricked me with technology. ~ Thomas Dolby
    21. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, those girls are the geeks of Afghanistan. I think it's appropriate for /. readers to find out that somebody is trying to kill our female peers.

    22. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with /.?

      Clearly, it's because slashdot can't resist an opportunity for a nice flame war. See also: any thread regarding Homeland Security, or Climate Change, or President Obama. Simply mention one of these subjects, and regardless of the nerd/tech angle, you will have a 1,000 comment story by the end of the day. And so it goes, that the subjects that get huge responses (and huge traffic) get posted often. You need to ask, "why do /.ers read and reply to this with great fervor?"

    23. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MyCleanPC?!?!? How does it work?

    24. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by trevc · · Score: 2

      What does this have to do with /.?

      That's right - girls aren't important to you as they are not allowed in your mothers basement.

    25. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Fenis-Wolf · · Score: 1

      Yup. There was just plain old news on Slashdot long before even I showed up

      --

    26. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Hell, it fits in both. "News for nerds" does not require it to be IT or tech. Nerds can be and are interested in other things.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    27. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by niftymitch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I had mod points today, I would have modded you up. How does this relate to tech or IT?

      Well I have moderator points..
      What this has to do with /. is in a word "education".

      The foundations of tech is education and open knowledge.
      Those that wage war on education wage war on us all.

      In this micro slice of the world that is /. we tolerate a lot. We enjoy rants and debate.
      This article shies a light on a part of the world where intolerance is the norm and expected.

      Pay attention.... This is important.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    28. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by ppanon · · Score: 2

      Well, there was that whole series of "Hellmouth" articles by whathisname. News about bullying of nerds was pretty big on Slashdot at one time after a certain high school shooting. This is an article about girls being targeted in school because they're trying to get an education. Does it suddenly stop being news for nerds because it's about girls instead of socially inept boys? Does it suddenly stop being news for nerds because the perpetrators are adult religious conservatives instead of jocks and clique culture?

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    29. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GNAA is out in full force on this story. That's what.

    30. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Slashdot was a hub for information during the 9/11 attacks because just about every news site out there was, forgive the pub, slashdotted.

      What did THAT have to do with tech? Nothing... it was simply relevant.

      Seriously, I think the anti-science and anti-fact agenda touches us a little bit more than anyone else. The "nerds" are going to be first against the wall when reasoning is made illegal.

      If this burns Karma, so be it: there are parallel movements to the Tailban in the U.S. It's worth keeping an eye on.

    31. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Well... I read /. because I generally respect the median poster to be well above the median in other sites. I disagree with many of the opinions, and the 30th percentile can be pretty annoying, but it sometimes adds to the discussion.

      On this particular story, I expected to get some relevant input from people with similar intellectual capacity... But alas, all I ended up seeing is small-minded people and people berating the editorial decision to show the article. C'mon people... who still cares about Mono?! Yet we tolerate that collectively?

    32. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What does this have to do with /.?"

      It shows that Taliban tech is so backwards that even their poisoners can't kill a bunch of little girlies.

    33. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is now apparently the new pro-US military circlejerk.

    34. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

    35. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHY? Why consume PC resources running security software when a custom hosts file (properly maintained) will prevent any malicious infection? Even if malicious infection occurs, a properly maintained hosts file will block its attempts to phone home.

      Compute smart. Compute with a custom hosts file. And use Gamemaker, my friend.

    36. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2

      Also, we do have a variety people who bring new perspectives and knowledge to the group. I have never heard of certain concepts outside of Slashdot. If people recommend books during discussions, then I take those suggestions seriously.

    37. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by tizan · · Score: 1

      It has got to do with girls ...we male geeks who hang out on /.
      need geeky girls...and if they are getting killed...we have to take our
      laser guns and go and save them. No ?

    38. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wish someone would make a clone of Slashdot (but with some better coding), and do a better job in which stories are submitted, and in filtering out the really negative posters. The lack of civility here is appalling at times. It doesn't help that it's been so infiltrated by paid shills. And the intellectual capacity here isn't all that great either, and I believe has fallen greatly from the "glory days" 10+ years ago. There's a lot of people here who think they're smart, but they're really not and they have no critical thinking ability at all; this especially comes up any time a discussion veers into talk about America's imperialist actions or politics.

    39. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      ... or pro violent-education movements. Some people just learn differently.

    40. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem I see is that there's a big cultural difference. Here in the West, bullies are generally thought poorly of (although they frequently seem to get ahead in life, paradoxically). However, in Afghanistan, it's part of the culture there for women to not be educated, and those trying to educate girls are working directly against the local culture. If you support educating those girls, you're really saying that you think Afghan culture is inferior and needs to be changed, which is an extremely anti-diversity viewpoint. What's odd is the Westerners that are most upset about this kind of incident are also the ones who are usually praising "diversity" and "multiculturalism". They can't seem to figure out whether they really do like these other cultures, or if they want to force Western culture on these people and quash their local culture.

    41. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's no anti-education "movement" in Afghanistan; this is simply a normal part of their culture, and has been for many centuries. The word "movement" implies that there's some kind of change, or someone attempting a change. The only "movement" in Afghanistan is the attempt to educate women, and it's clashing with the local culture, where such a thing is taboo.

    42. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Shortly after Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban, they not only allowed female voters for the first time ever, but they elected female officials. I don't live in Afghanistan, but I'd be hesitant to suggest violent oppression of women is the predominant view, even if it was practiced by the Taliban previously. Sometimes a violent minority rules the masses, but does not reflect the views of the people.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    43. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is news for nerds. All of us, I would say, have been to school at some point in our lives. I had such a great time in school, between getting beaten up all the time and the pointless busywork, to stay in the educational system for an additional 5 years to get a degree (co-op)

      But for all the abuse I put up with -- that I would say most of us put up with -- we never got poisoned. These girls are our compatriots, being beaten up by a system that's set up to hurt them when all they're trying to do is get an education.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    44. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      This place is a ghost town compared to what it was 5 years ago.

      Hogwash. Five years ago I seldom saw topics with 500 comments, now there are usually several every day. In fact, if the story's been posted for more than a few hours it doesn't even make much sense to comment unless you're sure of at least a +3, because nobody will see the comment.

      Ten years ago it was really deserted, but slashdot still slashdotted sites (probably because servers were a bit more primitive then).

    45. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AaronLS · · Score: 1

      Quote from the About page where they claim to be exclusively about tech/IT, or STFU:
      http://slashdot.org/faq/slashmeta.shtml

    46. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      There are a number of anti-religious and anti-Islamic individuals here who will have a field day with news like this.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    47. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does this relate to tech or IT?

      It has everything to do with nerds and technology. It shows the perils of everyday life outside geekdom, and it should encourage anyone who would rather forget about the rest of the world to pay attention. It's like liberal arts in college; just because there isn't a 1st order correlation between what you do for a living and this information, doesn't mean you should be ignorant of the nature of the world at large.

      It also shows that if you go to school and drink the cool-aid, you might just get poisoned.

    48. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      I read Slashdot because I only want to consume one important story every hour.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    49. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Education->Science->Technology

      I think it's safe to assume that nerds would support efforts to educate people, and attempts to stop that education.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    50. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      Not it doesn't.

    51. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Well done, sir!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    52. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you lost me at "females." I mean, I've heard about them and even seen pictures of them on the internets. I hear they're great people and would love to meet one someday, but women as "stuff that matters" to the average slashdotter? Shirley you jest!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    53. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I don't understand... If you don't click the link you can't complain about it. Are you saying you are passively avoiding complaining? Why do you hate complaining?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    54. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      I wish someone would make a clone of Slashdot (but with some better coding), and do a better job in which stories are submitted, and in filtering out the really negative posters. The lack of civility here is appalling at times. It doesn't help that it's been so infiltrated by paid shills. And the intellectual capacity here isn't all that great either, and I believe has fallen greatly from the "glory days" 10+ years ago. There's a lot of people here who think they're smart, but they're really not and they have no critical thinking ability at all; this especially comes up any time a discussion veers into talk about America's imperialist actions or politics.

      I've been working on one... if you're in earnest,
      alienjuggernaut AT {google's mail} DOT com

      That goes for anyone, not just Grishnakh.

      Although I expect to work almost 100% remotely,
      if you live in Phoenix like he does, that helps.

      Definitely going to concentrate on timeliness.
      And I imagine we're going to have an interesting
      conversation on 'how the new site should stay on
      topic and what exactly those topics are."

      -AI

      Yes, the site will be in 80col... /s

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    55. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Tynin · · Score: 1

      ...filtering out the really negative posters.

      I agree with everything you say except this aspect. To do that would be to embrace censorship. We already have a moderation system that I believe is one of the better on the internet, but nothing is perfect. It is truly unfortunate that those who appear to be the most vitriol often have the most time to post. To that end I've had to stop myself from reading almost any /. comments on politics and climate change (excuse me, I do think I repeated myself) for a great many years now. But I do not think this is strictly a problem with /., indeed it seems to become ever more pervasive on all fronts of civilization the older I get.

      As the saying goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    56. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And they'll be properly moderated through the basement floor right into Hell, where they belong.

      Problem..fucking...solved.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    57. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Misogyny and violent oppression of women may not be a part of the overall Afghan culture, but it certainly is a part of Pashtun culture, and Pashtuns are the single largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (12 million out of ~30).

      Read this paper for some more in-depth look at the subject - while its topic is not obviously related, it does cover the issue of misogyny, and how it is perpetuated in the culture from generation to generation.

    58. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      I used to read /. regularly because they generally avoided nonsense like this in favor of genuine geek news topics. I have learned to get my informative reading from other sources, especially using a news reader of my own selection of curated bloggers who share my sentiments of mainstream media.

      And the timeliness. Let's not forget that news that appears
      here 5 days later than EVERYWHERE ELSE... is also,
      not news. At least nothing I'm interested in, anymore.

      As you said, a good news reader and sites of more relevance
      and you'll see every single story that appears here... just, when
      it happens.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    59. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Yup. There was just plain old news on Slashdot long before even I showed up

      Tits or gtfo

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    60. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's true that slashdot is a techie site, but...

      just once in a while, let go of your Asperger's responses and realize that there's a larger world around you.

      Said the waiter at the fine dining restaurant as they serve you a burger and fries.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    61. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Geeks and nerds often care about education related issues, which 'we would rather kill our females then let them learn to read' falls under.

      Yes, as a geek/nerd, I care about education issues, social issues, and civil rights issues. Most of the geeks/nerds that are in my social circles are also.

      And for that, I use a news service, such as Google News to aggregate
      the OTHER topics that I am interested in besides Tech News.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    62. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, you lost me at "females." I mean, I've heard about them and even seen pictures of them on the internets. I hear they're great people and would love to meet one someday, but women as "stuff that matters" to the average slashdotter? Shirley you jest!

      I don't ... and quit calling me Shirley.

      -AI(rplane)

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    63. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      I'm with you, right up until the MyCleanPC motherfuckers start spamming the forums.

      'Nuff said.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    64. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

      Well said, sir, well said.

      Plus, as another poster mentioned... If you don't want to read this article, or participate in the conversation about it, why the fuck are you then? GTFO.

    65. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Maybe some people who read Slashdot are interested in it? There are currently several stories on the front page that I have no interest in (especially the one with SlashCloud in the summary, a clear indication that at least one of the editors is dangerously rabid) and Slashdot comes with a very convenient feature to let me avoid them. There is a link next to the story that I am not interested in labelled 'Read the {some number} comments'. Using my pointing device of choice, I carefully move the cursor away from this link and don't click on it. Slashdot even provides a very convenient user interface optimisation here, by making not clicking on it the default! I suggest that you may wish to do the same thing.

      That is an excellent idea... in fact, I'm going to move my cursor all the way up to the lil x,
      in the upper right hand corner. It has more of a 'global effect' on these stories.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    66. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      MyCleanPc raped my dog and burnt my house down.

      Would not buy again.

    67. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 0

      Slashdot was a hub for information during the 9/11 attacks because just about every news site out there was, forgive the pub, slashdotted.

      What did THAT have to do with tech? Nothing... it was simply relevant.

      Seriously, I think the anti-science and anti-fact agenda touches us a little bit more than anyone else. The "nerds" are going to be first against the wall when reasoning is made illegal.

      If this burns Karma, so be it: there are parallel movements to the Tailban in the U.S. It's worth keeping an eye on.

      Wtf? You're comparing this to 9/11??

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    68. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies."

      Take a drink from the Firehose sometime and help flush them down the tubes before they make it to the front page. Seriously. It's there for this exact reason. Use it.

    69. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Genda · · Score: 1

      Of equal relevance, we have spent endless hours here cheering the creation of a $25 laptop in India and the Khan Academy in the Silicon Valley in the hopes of providing a future of enlightenment and self determination for societies steeping in ignorance and superstition. Here is the need, hand out, eye wide open. Perhaps this is the time and and place for people to say to those who would attack innocent girls for improving themselves, This is unacceptable behavior.

    70. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me, I rather exterminate the stupid, uneducated masses, than to bother to educate them. And I believe many of the stupids would rather die than be educated, at least in the US.

    71. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Somebody else indicated that that "culture" is a recent development from Western support of mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 80's, and that female education wasn't viewed in the same way previously. A lot of those attitudes also stem from the (relatively recent) exportation of Wahhabism and other extreme Salafist views, funded by petrodollars.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    72. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Most of the geeks/nerds that are in my social circles are also.

      ... duh. If they didn't care about the same things you do they likely wouldn't be in your social circle. I know plenty of geeks/nerds that I would rather part ways than hang around with because they like something I do not or believe in something I do not. I don't generally hang out with someone I don't agree with (with a few exceptions.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    73. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Tynin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I'm quite comfortable in saying that any cultural viewpoint that includes mental & physical abuse / poisoning / torture / death on those that seek knowledge, should be criticized at any and every opportunity. They can keep whatever culture they want, but the moment you start denying basic human dignities to any group of humans, is the moment you label yourself as having lost your humanity. A targeted group of people being poisoned is not in any way about acceptance of diversity and multiculturalism.

      I think I just responded to a troll...

    74. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by couchslug · · Score: 0

      All violent anti-education movements after the Cold War ended are RELIGIOUS in nature.

      Superstition is the enemy of free thought because it is the enemy of critical thinking. The only folks who don't get that ARE superstitionists.

      I'll recant if anyone can PROVE (not fucking "faith" or "axioms", but cold hard irrefutable proof) their Sky Fairie exists and bow before their Deity's Noodly Appendage. Otherwise, all superstition merits scorn and contempt because it is not proven to beTruth.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    75. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot? Pro-US military? Somehow, your post crossed the barrier between this universe and the bizarro one.

    76. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's safe to assume that nerds would support efforts to educate people, and oppose attempts to stop that education.

      FTFY - I don't think you meant what you actually wrote.

    77. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I read slashdot because I'm a troll, you insensitive clod!

    78. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by psiclops · · Score: 1

      nerds would be interested by it and it matters.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    79. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Consider this, how do you get advanced technology and innovation without education?

      If you deprive an entire segment of your society of the right to an education, you deprive yourself of any innovations those people may have discovered.

      The only rational reason to suppress education is to suppress progress.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    80. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      ....and filtering out the really negative posters.

      Your post is basically you complaining about things. I'd regard this as negative, but I don't begrudge you posting it.

      There's a lot of people here who think they're smart, but they're really not and they have no critical thinking ability at all; this especially comes up any time a discussion veers into talk about America's imperialist actions or politics.

      Let me guess... These stupid people tend to be those with opinions different to yours?

    81. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC to avoid undoing moderation. The link to the paper seems to be broken, would you mind reposting it?

    82. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      And that's why I order The New York Sunday Times for local delivery. Whether it's reading up the latest world news, or attempting a mind racking crossword, there's never a dull moment with The New York Sunday Times for local delivery. To top it off, when I'm done reading on the john, my wife Bunny brings it into the kitchen and engulfs her self in the cooking section. Thank you The New York Sunday Times!

    83. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      You're allowed to like some aspects of a foreign culture and find other aspects batshit crazy.

    84. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by toriver · · Score: 1

      Clickbait.

    85. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by tqk · · Score: 1

      The only rational reason to suppress education is to suppress progress.

      The only reason to suppress education is to promote ignorance and superstition, and we shouldn't be considering that rational. I long wistfully for the day when we hear stories of females banding together into baseball bat wielding street gangs out to hunt these jerks down and teach them a lesson in civility.

      These guys' behaviour makes me ashamed of my gender. I imagine they're just so knocked up on the teachings of Muhammad, they're starting to think the girls are smarter than them, and they resent it. They're correct. They should resent it, but they did this to themselves. The girls are innocent.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    86. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geeks and nerds often care about education related issues, which 'we would rather kill our females then let them learn to read' falls under.

      How are they going to read if they are dead?

    87. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Well, a pair of attacks that have left more than 300 casualties in a country with 12 times less population than the USA that already have had several times more war dead in the last 12 years than the USA in 9/11, certainly it does make it comparable to 9/11 up to a point, but the best USA's analogy in my opinion is to compare this versus the Columbine massacre that was rightfully covered in Slashdot.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    88. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the offer, but I've got my own side projects already consuming all my time, but I do wish you well. I think the biggest challenge is how to stay on topic and keep out the shills and other such people, and honestly I have no idea how to do that. Maybe a more effective version of Slashdot's moderation system which lets you moderate and post in the same discussion, and also makes it so that the posts from people you mark as "foes" are completely invisible to you (and this is made clear to them, so they don't bother trying to respond to you and expect you to see it); this way, people who are "shunned" really are shunned and rendered ineffective. Of course, then you have the Anonymous Coward problem, where many ACs post crap, but sometimes it's a valuable way for people to post information they don't want to be personally associated with (e.g., "I work at XYZ corp. and I saw this happen, but I don't want to lose my job by posting this under my real name or even a handle that can be traced to me"). Perhaps true ACs should be disallowed, and only registered users should be allowed to post anonymously, and even then the system transparently keeps track of who they are so that people who have them listed as "foes" can't see their posts, even though no one can actually see the poster's username when they post this way. Anyway, just some ideas.

    89. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing it out. I love how the post has been broken for two days now, but got modded Interesting anyway :)

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/39111225/Pashtun-Sexuality

    90. Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 1

      Somebody modded this "Troll"? Good lord.

  2. Off topic, maybe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "More than half of them were discharged within a few hours of receiving treatment, Safi said."

    Why can't we get a figure for this rather than an inaccurate round-up?

    1. Re:Off topic, maybe. by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      Even a good (large) hospital will have problems dealing with 160 patients admitted simultaneously. Afghanistan's hospitals are hardly stellar (0.4 beds per 1000 people, according to google). It shouldn't be surprising that they don't keep wonderfully accurate records in cases like this.

  3. It's all relative, right? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

    Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:It's all relative, right? by busyqth · · Score: 1

      Well it will be a relief when the guys who did this take over the government of the country as then they will be able to simply ban the girls from school and take them at an early age as 3rd or 4th wives instead of being forced to poison them.

    2. Re:It's all relative, right? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Are you from a culture where everyone is insane?
      Not judging, just asking.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:It's all relative, right? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

      If you recognize that it's relative, then attempting to stop people who do things that you disagree with can be perfectly in line with your own views.

      Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

      Your conscience could say that 1 + 1 = 3, and it still wouldn't be correct.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:It's all relative, right? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Your conscience could say that 1 + 1 = 3, and it still wouldn't be correct.

      You have some other absolute standard you use to calibrate your morality by? Please do share.

    5. Re:It's all relative, right? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 0

      No. It appeared to me that he was trying to say that it wasn't relative because of your conscience.

      The first part appeared to be sarcastic, and then he said that.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:It's all relative, right? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 0

      How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

      Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

      The Fahrenheit, Celsius, Rankine and Kelvin temperature scales are all relative. Relative to Absolute Zero.

      Human behaviour might not be quite that precisely quantifiable, but we try. The American Founding Fathers believed in "Inalienable Rights". Most civilizations have certain general principles that they consider fundamental. Genocide is frowned on. Unsanctioned murder is a major offence. A stable society can only exist where there is a stable system of justice.

      There are also modifiers such as religion or patriotism, which often makes murder sanctioned so long as the victim is a foreigner or infidel, but the existence of a double standard doesn't mean that for at least some core group there aren't things that are considered "absolute" and those principles are generally pretty much the same for every core group no matter how different - or even opposed - they may be to each other.

      On a separate note, does no one else consider it ironic that schoolgirls are being murdered by people whose name for themselves is "students"?

    7. Re:It's all relative, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I am. So are you and everyone else here.

  4. Religious extreme by Spiked_Three · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what happens when too many people believe too literally in 1000 year old witch craft.

    And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.

    --
    slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    1. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50% of the US population is religious extremists? And even if they are, why would Santorum have to be President for this to be common? Radicals in the US need Presidential support before they'll act?

      As usual, there is little sense behind this fearmongering.

    2. Re:Religious extreme by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is what happens when too many people believe too literally in 1000 year old witch craft.

      And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.

      Let's break down your logic:

      Islamists poison schoolgirls, therefor, if Santorum were elected, he'd be like Hitler and lead the US to a 1938 style of Fascism.

      Did I get it right?

      The hatred is strong in this one. It has clouded his logic.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really think this type of shit will stop if you could somehow erase religion, I have some very expensive and crappy things to sell you....

      You are just as big an idiot as they are.

    4. Re:Religious extreme by black_fist · · Score: 1

      Wow, bashing religion and invoking Hitler in the same post! You, sir, are an epic flamer! Every time someone compares a politician to Hitler it diminishes the perceived badness of what Hitler did. Even with a complacent congress it is very unlikely that Santorum commit atrocities anywhere near what Hitler did.

    5. Re:Religious extreme by jythie · · Score: 1

      I think the frightening thing is, there are many people alive today that were around for when events like this WERE part of US history, and there are a non-trivial number of people who believe that things were better when women were property, minorities knew thier place, catholics and mormons were not christian, and the establishment clause outlived its usefulness and thus was ignored.

      Though no good is going to come Goodwinning this early... ok, not 'this early', ever.

    6. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Radicals in the US need Presidential support before they'll act?

      Of course not. After all, those little girls could still be saved. No, they focus on the irredeemable. Like abortion clinic staff.

    7. Re:Religious extreme by Psyborgue · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm Gay and i'd vote for Santorum. Why not? Obama is not going to let me marry. He says he supports gay marriage as a personal opinion but he quickly notes it should be left up to the states -- which is really no different than any of the republican candidates when it comes down to what will get done. When it comes down to it most presidents, regardless of party, will do pretty much the same things when they get elected. Plus. I'm sick of Obama sucking the cocks of our enemies and weakening our position on the world scale. I didn't much like the way Bush did things but I like Obama even less.

    8. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the maximum size recorded of the Nazi party was 8.5 million, and the standardized unit of evil is the "kilonazi" (KNz, and apologies to New Zealand for the similarity), it is very clear that Hitler's evilness is properly expressed as "8.5 meganazis." (8.5 MNz)

      In contrast, the grandparent post, despite agressive attempts to invoke the atheist Slashdotter portion's emotional response, ranks at a fairly pathtic 0.05 Nz. If it had been a competant flame, he might've ranked a bit higher.

    9. Re:Religious extreme by sribe · · Score: 0

      Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany.

      I was actually hoping he'd the nomination. I figured that he'd lose to Obama by such a huge margin, that it would force reform in the Republican party, pushing out the religious fringe. Now instead we have a halfway decent politician stuck having to pander to the wingnuts...

    10. Re:Religious extreme by haruchai · · Score: 0

      Which enemies is Obama fellating?
      He may be a long way from perfect but the US is much better perceived on the world stage with him in office than it was with Bush or would be with any of the current TeaPublican lunatics in charge.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    11. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of Obama sucking the cocks of our enemies

      Yeah! Like when Bush went in to Pakistan and killed Osama! Or Obama shut down Guantanamo and let all the terrorists go free!

      The only enemy getting any "action" is China, and no matter who we elect, they'll be investing in some knee pads for our most favored nation.

    12. Re:Religious extreme by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      So how exactly was it that this country did so much better than any other while the percentage of tolerant religious folk was well over 50%?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    13. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides are bad, so vote republican?

      You're completely delusional if you think they're the same "when it comes down to what will get done".

    14. Re:Religious extreme by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The problem with the whole Hitler thing is that it takes the blame from where it should be.
      All cultures have Hitlers running around. The problem is that the fucking Germans elected him to office and followed his bat shit crazy ass.
      Hitler would have been just another fucking nut no one gave a shit about had not an entire fucked up country followed him.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    15. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the US is much better perceived on the world stage with him in office....

      Proof that the world is full of idiots.

    16. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't have helped. They would have just decided that they weren't socially conservative (ignorant and bigoted) enough, and run an even nuttier crowd next time.

      As some of us smarten up, and leave religion behind, the folks that put their wacky beliefs before evidence just get angrier and more set in their ways.

      Republicans have disconnected from reality completely with the help of well-financed propaganda, and I don't know how to bring them back to sanity.

    17. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem grows in Finland and Denmark: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3080/finland-iranian-mega-mosque

    18. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has clouded his logic.

      I thought the cloud was the future?

    19. Re:Religious extreme by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0

      which is really no different than any of the republican candidates when it comes down to what will get done.

      That makes sense if you don't consider defending DOMA, or seeking to have it brought under judicial review for constitutionality, to be getting anything done.

      They may both say "it should be left to the states" which is true, strictly speaking. Yet they differ in the federal government's role in this decision -- specifically, whether states should be required to respect another state's decision to allow gays to marry, and whether federal employees can receive benefits tied to marriage.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theme is: "misinterpreting religious texts isn't just for backwater hicks anymore" when Rick Santorum has no problem pretending he is a presidential front-runner while making statements about how being gay is somehow the same thing as molesting kids or animals. Thankfully, Santorum's spread was short-lived.

      Do you want this guy to be president? http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/man-tattoos-leviticus-1822-that-forbids-homosexua He decided to read one part of Leviticus (or probably to have it read to him) and agreed pretty strongly with it. Too bad though, that no on read him Leviticus 19:28 before he came up with the money for the tattoo...

    21. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Gay and i'd vote for Santorum. Why not?

      Really? Then you are part of the problem and why Santorum is not in a mental asylum but runs as a viable candidate
      Yes, Obama won't let you marry. But Santorum would look for ways to make gay sex illegal. I am sure he'll make it a priority.

      I mean seriously -- I always wonder about the gay Republican community. But that someone gay might support Santorum of all people? The one who unabashedly states how unnatural and wrong he considers anything and anyone gay?? Why would you support someone who strongly dislikes you? At least go for Romney or something...

    22. Re:Religious extreme by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany

      Regardless of your political or other beliefs, unless you really believe that he had an intention to kill off several million of the population and start a world war, you might want to dial that rhetoric back a little bit.

    23. Re:Religious extreme by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      He says he supports gay marriage as a personal opinion but he quickly notes it should be left up to the states -- which is really no different than any of the republican candidates when it comes down to what will get done.

      No, it is different, and the fact that your position is "as long as I get what I want I dont give two craps about what the Bill of Rights says about state sovereignty" is part of the reason the federal government is such a monster today.

      Try to remember that there is a REASON we have separate states, rather than one gigantic collective.

    24. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      His point is that modern-day tea partiers / Republicans want the same thing the Muslims already have: Education as a privilege for the rich, and demonized and stigmatized for the poor, especially for females and ethnic minorities.

      All the Republicans who are anti-education are college educated. They wield that power of knowledge and don't want others to have it. They come around busting teachers unions, pushing charter schools, and doing everything they can to make education less accessible and of a lower quality for the poor.

      Modern day Muslims are living in the logical extreme of the current Republican dogma. He was complaining that our potential future could look the same, if Republicans get their way. It's not that far fetched -- Sarah Palin ran on a platform of stupidity and wholeheartedly embraced ignorance and being poorly informed. Republicans have already started their campaign of making "dumb" the new normal. The entire Tea Party is based on this, and they are throwing away all the political common sense we've amassed since 1776 for their "Stupid and Proud" campaign.

      Call me a troll, but with 30 years education I'm just telling you what I've seen and heard. Dems have plenty of shortcomings when it comes to education, but Republicans (like Muslims) really do want to destroy it for everyone but those at the top. It's easier to subjugate people when they are too dumb to know better. Sure Dems have things like ebonics and social promotion and endless tests that ruin how schools function, but in the end they are still pro-education.

      You really have to wonder about a party that is deliberately trying to make America stupid for their own gain. It's stunning.

    25. Re:Religious extreme by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      The Government is a "monster" today because people like you are not looking beyond the B.S. that is being put out there as rhetoric. The fact that you even make such a statement proves you're listening to right wing demagogs. These same demagogs scream out of their red faces about "size of government" and spending while at the same time they are absolutely fine with spending billions on every weapons system idea that can make it to a white board. They are also fine with yelling about spending when spending growth is actually down. They are also fine with yelling about bailouts when it was their own party that proposed them. They are also fine with "big lie" strategy.

      Demand that your representatives 1) listen to you and 2) have something close to a consistent philosophy that goes beyond "do what my corporate contributors want" and THEN let's talk about that monstrous federal government.

    26. Re:Religious extreme by ppanon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany had its economy crushed by the massive reparation payments imposed on it after WWI, primarily at the instigation of the French, as a part of the treaty of Versailles. Inflation and poverty in 20s/30s Germany was horrendous (people wore suits made from re-purposed paper because cloth was too expensive) and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.

      Understanding that part of history is why some people worry about increasing wealth separation/concentration within the US and other Western democracies. Some of the 1% appear to think that controlling information media allows them to control the message and direct the building resentment. Others see an increasingly dry plain and fear the spark and the lightning strike will eventually bypass the media firebreak.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    27. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weakening our position on the world scale

      O.. don't worry, you've been doing that for decades now.

    28. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw Santorum, Obama (supposed to be the good guy) is about to sign into law facism. Enjoy your right to due process while you have it. Under the new law, any american suspected of terrorism (very broadly defined under the new law), can be detained indefinately by the military and DHS and thrown into gitmo without access to a lawyer or a right to be tried by judge or a jury of your peers.

      Im afraid for our neihbors to the south. I fully support the surge of interest in local militias lately who *SUPRISE*, have been demonized by the media as whackjobs lately. They are taking away your rights and then carefully taking away your last line of defence against a runaway government by propoganda.

      Mark my words, if this keeps up, militias are going to be told to disband and your second amendment rights will be gone in a few years, followed by free speech

      Im rooting for you guys, I hope this gets stopped before it becomes un-salvageable.

    29. Re:Religious extreme by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 1

      You're gay and you'd vote for a man who equated gay sex to dog and child fucking? Are you serious?

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
    30. Re:Religious extreme by haruchai · · Score: 1

      And Anonymous Cowards

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    31. Re:Religious extreme by Spiked_Three · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No you break it down according to the way you want it to read.

      So let me try your way;

      Religious extremist poison woman, because their religion says women should not be educated.

      Christianity, while not as strongly, also says a women's place is behind the men.

      Rick Santorum was a viable candidate for president, supported by many.

      In general, the population of the US that supports 'returning to more bible like laws' is near 50%.

      Strong extreme christians, of which rick santorum was one, believe in returning to strong biblical laws. Death for homosexuals. death to adulterers. death to those that eat shellfish. death to all who wear polyester pants with a cotton shirt. death to those that might build a muslim mosk in tennessee. death to those that believe climate change could be caused by pollution. death to those that believe in evolution.

      I believe it should be death to those who believe in make believe.

      Am I clearer now?

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    32. Re:Religious extreme by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My Leviticus 19:28 tattoo is fearsome. No-one would dare get a tat after looking at it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:Religious extreme by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The problem here in America is that we keep edging closer and closer to doing something similar. No, Santorum's not as bad as Hitler obviously, but he's a step in that direction. If we elect Santorum now, and then someone even worse next time, pretty soon we're in Hitler territory. The big problem, however, with these comparisons is that even if we do go down that road, it's not going to look the same, just like Hitler and Stalin were both horrible, but in slightly different ways and with different actions. Whatever horrible fate awaits this country isn't going to be an identical copy of either of those cases, or of any historical parallel, so we need to be watchful for it, instead of saying "well we don't have concentration camps yet, so all these other actions must not be so bad."

    34. Re:Religious extreme by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I was hoping he'd win the nomination and the general election too. Then this would cause the country to collapse quickly, and hopefully I could move to one of the nicer parts that breaks away.

    35. Re:Religious extreme by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      oh yeah, the USA FASCISM Act. That one's a real stinker.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    36. Re:Religious extreme by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The fact that you even make such a statement proves you're listening to right wing demagogs.

      Your proof is faulty. At least 50% of my news comes from NPR, the rest from Drudge report. That combination is hardly what you would call a bastion of right-wing demagogues.

      Is it at all possible Im right wing and also not a huge fan of spending ridiculous amounts on defense? That possibly I have reservations about F22 fighters, when its very possible all we've done is do the research that a spy can carry back to their own country (considering there isnt much wartime use for such a plane right now)? That Im not a huge fan of bailouts at all?

      Nah, lets just paint all conservatives the same. Surely there isnt a legitimate reason for thinking government shouldnt run nearly as much as it does-- especially not the fact that it violates our founding charter.

    37. Re:Religious extreme by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      I mean seriously -- I always wonder about the gay Republican community.

      They're country clubbers..."wallet" republicans, not "church" republicans. They vote republican so they get lower taxes on their six figure job, so they can buy a nicer beemer or take a nicer vacation with their "special friend". It doesn't really bother them that they can't be open about their partnership, because they think they're money will protect them. They don't give a damn about poor gay folks, or minority gay folks or transpeople...the almighty dollar is their god.

    38. Re:Religious extreme by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I was actually hoping he'd the nomination. I figured that he'd lose to Obama by such a huge margin, that it would force reform in the Republican party, pushing out the religious fringe. Now instead we have a halfway decent politician stuck having to pander to the wingnuts...

      Let me guess, you also believe that the teaparty is full of racists who are out to blow up state legislature buildings, and that the OWS protestors are full of peace lovers who have been infiltrated by FBI plants. Never mind that the OWS have been running around raping their own, and trying to blow up bridges or anything.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re:Religious extreme by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Am I clearer now?

      No. You're making even less sense.

      Though I found the climate change comment funny, since the only one's calling for the death of people are those on the left.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    40. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That really doesn't answer the question. If there really are hoards just waiting to perpetrate this kind of violence in the US, why do they need a President who agrees with them?

    41. Re:Religious extreme by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Death for homosexuals. death to adulterers. death to those that eat shellfish. death to all who wear polyester pants with a cotton shirt. death to those that might build a muslim mosk in tennessee. death to those that believe climate change could be caused by pollution. death to those that believe in evolution.

      See, up until this point, I was about to type up a diatribe explaining that very few Christians are batshit crazy. I've never heard any church say that women were below or must be behind women. The closest I've heard is that women and men serve different roles, but even that's not all that bad, and frankly, it's true. Don't believe me? How many women play for the Dallas Cowboys? OK then.

      Either way, it's frustrating to read how many people truly believe that all Christians don't believe in evolution, think that the earth is 6000 years old, think that the Bible should be taught in public school, are anti-science, or that some other nonsense. Fact is, these are the extreme and do not represent the vast majority of Christians. Even the Vatican itself does not see evolution or science as a threat at all. I hear they have quite the observatory.

      Every church I've been to has preached love and forgiveness, not death. I'm Southern Baptists, by the way, but I've been to Pentecostal Churches so strict that don't allow make up or pants on women (it's funny watching my cousins buy makeup with sunscreen... sunscreen is legal). I've been to a church where the preacher's wife had her children, all four of them in the home with nothing to kill the pain whatsoever because that is supposed to be Eve's punishment for original sin. Of course, this was her choice and was against the preacher's wishes... she did it anyway... because, like I said, women are not below or behind men. My point is that I live in the very crotch of the Bible belt. I know what I'm talking about. I've met no one as batshit crazy as you believe we ALL are.

      But then you made it to the point I quoted you on. Once I read that I realized that it was not the Christians who are batshit crazy, but you. Even the craziest of the Phelps gang doesn't believe the "death to..." crap you believe all Christians teach. Rick Santorum is pretty hard core, but I've never heard him call for death to anyone. See, the Bible teaches that only God may punish for violations of God's law. But I can tell you Rick Santorum is no worse than Mike Huckabee, who was a governor of a state. Mike Huckabee killed no one for sinning.

      It doesn't matter what I tell you though. You are going to believe what you believe. You harbor the exact same hatred towards Christians, or all religious people that racists harbor against whatever race they hate. You are the same. Your feed your own hatred with the lies you tell yourself, which makes you hate more, which makes you believe more lies, which makes you hate more and so on.

      Proof? You think Christians are just as bad as Muslims, right? When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never. That's FACT, but even FACTs won't change your mind or make you hate any less.

      or this...

      I believe it should be death to those who believe in make believe.

      Congratulations! The qualities in Christians that make you hate them so much that you want them to die are also in yourself, except Christians don't really have those qualities... just you.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    42. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never.

      Strawman. Are you going to deny that Christians have ever killed innocent people of all religions?

    43. Re:Religious extreme by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      When was the last time Christians hijacked a plane full of Jews or Muslims and flew them into buildings full of innocent people of all religions? That's right! Never.

      Strawman. Are you going to deny that Christians have ever killed innocent people of all religions?

      Not in several centuries. The Inquisition, maybe? The Crusades?

      Congratulations. That makes moder day Muslims on par with 12th century Christians.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    44. Re:Religious extreme by manwargi · · Score: 1

      Modern day Muslim extremists. Much like the extremists giving Christians the reputation they have for enforcing biblical inerrancy. The extremists in all groups are giving their respective camps the image of being batshit insane.

    45. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me a troll, but with 30 years education I'm just telling you what I've seen and heard.

      If your post reflects 30 years of education, you didn't get your money's worth. That is just pitiful. But your rant about Sarah Palin makes sense in light of this:

      Sarah, She Wolf of the GOP

      Yes, stunning.
      Chris 'I Lost On Jeopardy!' Matthews: 'Palin's Briefing Papers Have the Weight of a Comic Book'

    46. Re:Religious extreme by Spiked_Three · · Score: 2

      I grew up in the washington dc area. and from that I would believe what you are saying about most christians. Then I moved to TN. Beating your wife is still considered ok there by many. Actually pretty much the hole town I lived in. I started looking harder and realized, no its not local, it is indeed the way MANY christians still believe. If you do not believe that you just haven't been around. I will agree with another poster, that more than half that say they are christian aren't and could care less. those are the ones supporting things like gay rights.

      I just had a 'discussion' with someone from tennessee. I eventually asked him the exact question; "so you believe homosexuals should be put to death?" his reply was that if we followed the bible, absolutely.

      my perspective is based on what I have seen, yours is based on what you have seen. Oh and just a tiny tiny bit of history and you WILL understand that the christians have in the past, been far worse than modern day muslims. The regular christian had no problem murdering entire towns, something the modern extremist muslim does not do. Isn't there a bible story about that? I know, your christian and never read any part of the bible you are not told to read :|

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    47. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mormons aren't christians, you fucking clown

    48. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it should be death to those who believe in make believe.

      fucking amen!

    49. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've never listened to a bunch of Christians go on about how they must bring the faith to people by force and that a woman's place is in the kitchen, you must be kind of sheltered.

      PS - When I was a kid, the pastor told all the other kids who went to Sunday school that they could secure their place in heaven by beating up the kids whose fathers did not come to church. As my dad was busy being dead, this lead to quite a bit of fighting and a number of children being put in the hospital. And then we went to a different church, and the pastor said the same thing. We eventually ran out of churches in the area.

    50. Re:Religious extreme by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Every time someone compares a politician to Hitler it diminishes the perceived badness of what Hitler did.

      I disagree. The outcome of Hitler's actions and policies are fixed in the public record. The only way for the perception of these data to be diminished is for the politician being compared causes/commits atrocities that exceed the badness of Hitler's.

      When an especially smart person is called (or compared to) Einstein, it doesn't affect Albert Einstein's accomplishments, or the effects those accomplishments have had.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    51. Re:Religious extreme by sribe · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you also believe that the teaparty is full of racists...

      I have encountered it first hand through acquaintances who are members; I have been absolutely shocked as they all allowed the vilest racist rhetoric and outlandish paranoid lies to be spread without a single one standing up to it. Not in public of course, but in their private email list (which I was off of in about 72 hours after a misguided friend added me), where apparently no one finds it objectionable to refer to the president of the US as a "filthy muslim kaffir" and the slightly over 50% of American voters who voted for him as "cockroaches" and so on.

      ...and that the OWS protestors are full of peace lovers who have been infiltrated by FBI plants.

      OWS disgusts me completely; it is the largest wasted opportunity of our generation. Outrage against bank misbehavior was a good thing, but it should have been channeled into focused demands for actual practical reforms, not into some diffuse movement that does nothing but gripe about everything while refusing (literally, refusing) to have any purpose other than attention seeking.

    52. Re:Religious extreme by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I wouldn't vote republican anyway. I'm just saying being gay isn't a reason to automatically vote democrat.

    53. Re:Religious extreme by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Yes, I would. Because his power is checked by other branches of government. I could care less what his personal opinions about me are so long as he is unable to legislate them, as much as he might like to. The things he would have power to legislate (economy, foreign policy, etc...) I would have no problem with.

    54. Re:Religious extreme by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Modern day Muslim extremists. .

      Modern day Muslim extremists who receive the full support and backing of modern day Muslim leadership.

      Much like the extremists giving Christians the reputation they have for enforcing biblical inerrancy. The extremists in all groups are giving their respective camps the image of being batshit insane

      Examples? Can you tell me of a single example of a beheading in the name of Christ by a group sanctioned by the Pope, Billy Graham, or other Christian leader?

      No? Then your argument doesn't really hold water does it?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    55. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is women being mens equal. Can you handle this? I'd have to say 90% of males can not(religious or otherwise..), and the dumb cunt in the video certainly can't either.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2HhTFQMOEU

      You are still an idiot.

    56. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unbelievably ignorant of everything having to do with Christianity. Unbelievably ignorant.

    57. Re:Religious extreme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont blame the witchcraft, blame the witch asswipe. men and women warp and pervert what they need to warp and pervert to fill their needs. there is nothing wrong with religions, just the practicers

    58. Re:Religious extreme by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.

      That, and he managed to gather up a private force to murder his opposition. His influence grew in the resulting vacuum of power.

  5. I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not anti-education.
    And that is why there are a bunch of hairy dudes cuddling each other in caves in the mountains instead of being at home cudling with their wives.

    1. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by sheph · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That should be encouraging. In another 100 years of no women the problem should naturally fix itself.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    2. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think it's both, but yes, this particular incident is more about being anti-girl

    3. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've not heard anything about them cuddling together in caves. But, there have been plenty of reports about rape and pornography (male on female). So, I would suspect this is pretty much an anti-education for girls thing as they're saying. They're fearful of what an educated woman would mean to their absolute control over them.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're not anti-girl, they're anti-empowered girls.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    5. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem won't "fix itself". They purposely use their women to create... boys. I read somewhere that they have a saying about "women to make children, boys for pleasure". I think the culture might have a degenerate form of Greek pederasty. There's exploitation, but AFAIK no mentorship, resulting in poor outcomes for the youthful victims.

    6. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, they generally don't kill women, they impregnate them, early and often. the problem that will grow is more muslims assholes who abuse women.

    7. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      No it won't.
      They still mate with women. They know they need to do this.
      That is why they keep women like property and cover them up and tell them to shut the fuck up.
      They do not want relationships with women they just want them to have babies and get the fuck out of the way so they can have man sex in caves.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    8. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by PPH · · Score: 2

      You can't condone rape unless you don't have empathy for the victims. For a few people, this is just an expression of sociopathy. But if an entire class of people is widely mistreated this way, that lack of empathy is often due to them being viewed as lesser beings then the abusers. In other words, you aren't troubled by male-on-female rape because women aren't people of the same status as men.

      Now, if you don't regard a class of people as equals, how can you have love relationship with an individual of that class? I mean, I love my kids and I love my dog. But its not the same as loving my wife, because she is my emotional equal.

      So all that leaves many people who subscribe to such moral beliefs is individuals of their own gender as true objects of love (the emotional kind). While many of these people can perform the acts deemed necessary by their society to procreate, that doesn't necessarily make it 'love'.

      Given Kinsey's research that places around 30% of the male population in a group that can seek sexual gratification with other men and their societies rejection of women as objects of mutual love and respect, I'd venture a guess that there's lots of male-male bonding (if you know what I mean) going on in those caves.

      But then I think that's true of many religions and other groups that marginalize women.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Nethead · · Score: 3, Funny

      So does that make it a bear cave?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    10. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      They must have Dell servers in those caves.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    11. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. They do generally kill females.. women are often murdered by their own fathers, brothers, and cousins.

      Look at this way:
      1) If a woman does not die during a forcible rape, then she has just earned eligibility for familial honor killing.
      2) ...Unless the rapist agrees to marry her, for which he may still demand payment from her family.

      It wasn't this bad 40 years ago, but after the Soviets invaded and the US adopted a policy of sending the best arms and training to the most fanatical mjuahadeen insurgents, all the moderates either got dead or packed up for London and Detroit.

    12. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Krigl · · Score: 1

      I'd venture a guess that there's lots of male-male bonding (if you know what I mean) going on in those caves.

      Dunno 'bout that "bonding" (BDSM being too much a thing of a debauched West, or at least much more normal societies in general), but there's lots of male-many_male involuntary fucking every Thursday when rookies arrive to the Afghan Army's barracks, according to soldiers who were stationed at the same bases. Guess the Taliban ain't a bit different - in culture where screwing a girl who's not your wife means death, the comrade in (your) arms might seem like a preferable alternative to a donkey.

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    13. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that they have a saying about "women to make children, boys for pleasure".

      Here (PDF) is the source for that.

      I think the culture might have a degenerate form of Greek pederasty. There's exploitation, but AFAIK no mentorship, resulting in poor outcomes for the youthful victims.

      Actually, no, it's quite similar to Greek pederasty in that there's also mentorship (it's also in that PDF). The problem is that it overlaps with misogyny. Greeks didn't view pederasty as the only pleasurable source of sexual intercourse, merely a valid one. These guys focus on it to the exclusion of everything else.

    14. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There a bunch of sub-human shit-skins and we shouldn't concern ourselves with them until they force us to turn their country into a glass parking lot.

    15. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the Muslim women who raise those little boys are full of suppressed hatred of the men, which they will take out on their little boys in numerous ways as they grow up, ensuring the cycle will continue when those little boys take out their anger on their mothers on the next victim.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    16. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "They're not anti-girl, they're anti-empowered girls."

      Racial version:

      "We don't hate niggers. We just hate uppity niggers."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    17. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really matter why they did it. The civilized world doesn't need vermin like the Taliban, they're a waste of resources and utterly without worth. They ought to be hunted down like pests and shot on sight wherever they turn up. If the Afghan people started making examples of these guys, instead of negotiating with terrorists, they wouldn't have these problems.

    18. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why there are a bunch of hairy dudes cuddling each other in caves in the mountains instead of being at home cudling with their wives.

      Are you describing the Taliban or the average /. reader?

      Oh sorry, you wrote cave not basement. My bad!

    19. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racial version:

      "We don't hate niggers. We just hate uppity niggers."

      Precisely. There's similar thing going on in India. Some upper-caste people want to sabotage efforts to empower the lower-caste people. For example, they steal raw materials from businesses of the lower-caste entrepreneurs or attack Christian churches that "illegally convert" poor children in their schools.

    20. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      There were a number of stories of man/boy issues as well and the problem is caused foreign servicemen and women.

      As in the culture has never had to advance so why should we be so shocked?

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    21. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why there are a bunch of hairy dudes cuddling each other in caves in the mountains instead of being at home cudling with their wives.

      Sheesh, anyone who is married gets just a little action as the Taliban does.

    22. Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was there a PARTICULAR reason you had to throw that in there? What purpose did that serve?

      I can easily guess that you're not black.

  6. Hopefully they will soon make the realization that by rs1n · · Score: 1

    even if they want a society in which women are subservient, they still need women. Even at the most basic level, you cannot have sons without a mother. It is a pity, though, that some people feel so threatened by others of different gender (or race, education, etc) that they must resort to violence.

  7. Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1, Insightful

    from the Religion of Peace (tm)

    1. Re:Another peaceful message by chemicaldave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a fine of example of "blame the tool and not the wielder"

    2. Re:Another peaceful message by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because of course a small number of evil bastards act with the full support of all of the billions of Muslims in the world. By your logic, guys like Anders Breivik and Scott Roeder act with the full support of all Christians.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, not at all. But study the Qu'ran. It justifies (in fact, demands) violence to convert non-believers to Islam.

      Just because all religions are bad doesn't mean some religions aren't worse than others. We see a lot more religiously-motivated violence from Muslims than from other religious groups; that's just a fact.

      Islam is a colonialist ideology whose goal is world domination. This is plainly stated in its writings.

    4. Re:Another peaceful message by Lithdren · · Score: 0

      I'd kindly request people not confuse the Talaban with any religion trying to issue a message of Peace.

      They're much like the Catholic preists who molested children and then got wisked away by higher ups trying to cover their own butts. They abuse the message for their own gain not in the name of the god they claim to follow, but for their own self-worth and warped ideals. The Koran, much like the Bible, are full of really good messages. They're also full of a lot of garbage.

      A distinctly human trait.

    5. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, you have your head in the sand. Read the Qu'ran sometime and some of the other Islamic writings. They demand that Muslims emulate Mohammed, and they go into great excited detail about how Mohammed massacred people who mocked him. See for example Sahi Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443 which describes a massacre in great and gory detail.

    6. Re:Another peaceful message by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Hate to reply to myself, but clearly I meant Taliban, not Talaban.

      I'm sure the grammar Natzi's will follow shortly with other issues in my post I'm not seeing offhand, this post included.

    7. Re:Another peaceful message by ewieling · · Score: 1

      from the Religion of Peace (tm)

      Christianity?

      People pervert religion to their own ends, regardless of which religion it is.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    8. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 2

      The Koran, much like the Bible, are full of really good messages. They're also full of a lot of garbage.

      Yes, absolutely. However, the garbage in the Quran is unfortunately peddled by a large number of religious authorities. Islam is structured in such a way that an observant Muslim is required to dedicate himself (it's always "him") to religious warfare and must be prepared to commit violence to expand Islam.

      You can ask any Islamic scholar about this. They'll either confirm it or dissemble, but the response will be obvious.

    9. Re:Another peaceful message by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell me something, between Christianity and Islam, which one of the two has committed nearly 19,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11? I'll give you a hint, it's not Christianity.

      To the mods now. Refute the point, and don't be an intellectual coward and moderate something because you don't like it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    10. Re:Another peaceful message by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Typically, i wouldn't bother responding to this, but i'm tired of hearing it.
      YOU should actually study the Quran, because it actually says exactly the opposite. It demands that you educate yourself (male and female) and demands that no one be forced to convert because that is not a true conversion. There is no more colonialism in Islam than in Christianity, so just stop. You're not helping educate anyone, you're just spreading more misinformation that furthers the divide of understanding between 3 billion people. Stop it.

    11. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you have your head in the sand. Although there are more Christians than Muslims, the number of religiously-motivated violent attacks by Muslims today far outweighs religiously-motivated attacks by Christians.

      Currently, there are religiously-motivated wars and attacks in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria. There are religiously-motivated bombings, suicide attacks, etc. in Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Thailand. I could probably think of 100 examples in the last year if pressed.

      On the Christian side, I can think of Brevik and the Oklahoma CIty bomber and maybe some attacks on abortion providers. Very small-scale indeed compared to Islamic religious violence.

    12. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another glib, laconic barb from harbingers of ignorance.

      How can I best explain to you how miopic and short-sighted you are? Perhaps I can try to relate it in terms your most likely to understand.

      Apply your logic to Star Wars. Follwoing your reasoning, all those who believe in the Force are evil, crazed fascists. After all, it was followers of the Force (Sith) who destroyed Alderaan.

      Or did I just blow your mind?

    13. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 2

      The Quran is full of contradictions. This is so that Muslims can pick and choose what to present to outsiders. (There are similar things in the Bible too, so it's not only Islam that's guilty of this.)

      There are at least a hundred Quranic verses extolling violence, not to mention many more Islamic writings. These are not abrogated by the token expressions of peacefulness.

      We see the consequences today. If you cannot recognize religiously-motivated violence when it blows up in your face, then I guess you can continue to deny reality.

    14. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you're saying, but by starting with the "Religion of Peace" line, people could easily mistake you for a brainless, teapublican, conservative christian. The line is very popular with that repulsive crowd.

    15. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 2

      I don't see what your Star Wars analogy has to do with it. Consider:

      There are at least a hundred verses in the Quran that call for or justify religious violence. Many other Islamic writings do the same.

      There have been tens of thousands of religiously-motivated attacks by Muslims in the last ten years, greatly outnumbering religiously-motivated attacks by any other religious group.

      What is it you're failing to grasp?

    16. Re:Another peaceful message by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And when the priests were finally caught and sent to prison?
      Was the reaction the same as when we killed Osama?
      Did the Catholics decapitate anyone for saying bad things about the priests?
      Did the Christians kill people because they caught the people murdering doctors who perform abortions?
      No?
      Then there is a fucking difference.
      People get murdered for daring to draw a picture of Mohammad.
      No one got killed for "Art" that was a crucifix in urine.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    17. Re:Another peaceful message by john.r.strohm · · Score: 2

      Really?

      Sura 9 of the Koran, the last Sura dictated by the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh, and all that) and hence not subject to revision or qualification by later Suras, seems to call for killing of infidels, in pretty explicit language, repeatedly.

      I don't have time to dig out the exact quotes right now. Maybe tonight.

    18. Re:Another peaceful message by operagost · · Score: 1

      You really should look up the doctrine of abrogation. Muslims like to bring up the "there is no compulsion in religion" bit because they know it is abrogated by later passage that demand the unbelievers be subjugated, and lying to unbelievers is OK.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    19. Re:Another peaceful message by operagost · · Score: 1

      See, our media and the "liberal" rubes who speak for us have been bamboozled by the Muslims. If they actually cracked a book on theology, they would know the doctrine of abrogation and know that they are being lied to. Lying to unbelievers is also a tenet of Islam.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That number is terribly inflated and I could easily come up with the same or even a larger number for crimes committed by Christians.
      Really, use your brain.

    21. Re:Another peaceful message by operagost · · Score: 1

      The problem is that all the good messages of the earlier Sura are abrogated by the later ones. Because the Qur'an is organized by the length of the Sura, not chronologically, it is difficult for the infidel to discern which passages are considered relevant.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    22. Re:Another peaceful message by chemicaldave · · Score: 2

      Maybe the problem is people who take religious texts literally and not the tenants of the religion itself.

    23. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to Islam, the Quran is the ultimate authority and must be taken as truth. Other Abrahamic religions have their fundamentalist nutcases, it is true, but they have much less of a problem with people reinterpreting the religious texts than Islam does.

      Also, giving any sort of religious text a free pass because it's "not meant to be taken literally" is a dangerous game. It allows religious adherents to present their religion as moderate to outsiders while revealing its true and violent face to insiders. I don't think any religious text, whether it's Islamic, Christian or Jewish, should be viewed as anything other than hateful if it promotes violence, genocide, etc.

    24. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the Christians only did that whole Inquisition thing, and the Crusades.

    25. Re:Another peaceful message by houghi · · Score: 1

      That explains a lot about the Love-Thy-Neighbour-religion.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    26. Re:Another peaceful message by macraig · · Score: 1

      Maybe the problem is people who take religious texts literally and not the tenets of the religion itself.

      Fixed.

    27. Re:Another peaceful message by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Islam and Christianity are very different. Remember, Jesus was basically a hippie, preaching peace and love and forgiveness. He never massacred anybody. Unfortunately, his followers haven't been so great at following his teachings, and many seem to get caught up in Old Testament stuff too much (while ignoring other parts they don't agree with, like eating shellfish or getting tattoos). Islam, however, centers on its "prophet", who was a warlord who killed many, many people mercilessly. If you just look at who the most revered person in each religion is, it's plainly clear that Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion (though for many sects it obviously has failed, but it was far worse in the past under the Roman Catholic church than it is today), while Islam is not peaceful at all, and any such claims are obviously lies.

    28. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how many people has christianity killed off in the last thousand years?

    29. Re:Another peaceful message by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 1

      Because of course a small number of evil bastards act with the full support of all of the billions of Muslims in the world. By your logic, guys like Anders Breivik and Scott Roeder act with the full support of all Christians.

      Listen, we all WISH this was about a small number of evil bastards. But every poll done in the Muslim world bears out that a surprising majority of Muslims approve of extreme, violent measures that are oppressive to Muslims, gays, and religious minorities. See this Pew poll, for instance: Majority of Muslims Want Islam in Government. From the LA Times writeup:

      majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace. Muslims in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Jordan were among the most enthusiastic, with more than three-quarters of poll respondents in those countries reporting positive views of Islam’s influence in politics: either that Islam had a large role in politics, and that was a good thing, or that it played a small role, and that was bad.

      It's no coincidence that all of the world's roughly dozen countries with the death penalty for homosexuality or for converting to other religions are majority-Muslim.

    30. Re:Another peaceful message by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the Christians only did that whole Inquisition thing, and the Crusades.

      Okay, easy enough to counter. Let's go with the convert or die from Islam. Millions dead. Still outnumbers the total of the Inquisition. And the Crusades were a two point counter to the Muslims who'd spend ~200 years pillaging, raping and burning Spain. That wasn't actually what triggered the crusades. What triggered the crusades itself, was the muslims declaring that no christian shall have access to the holy land.

      That number is terribly inflated and I could easily come up with the same or even a larger number for crimes committed by Christians.
      Really, use your brain

      Incorrect, they're all sourced on the website via the media that reports it. Every, single one. Which means that there is a good chance that the number is lower.

      and how many people has christianity killed off in the last thousand years?

      Still less than Muslims have killed in the last 800 funny enough. And that takes some work. Remember, between the two religions, which one has the mantra of "Convert or die" useful tip, it's not Christianity. And which one has a central theme of "leave and we'll kill you."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    31. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair this could apply to just about any religion anymore.

      They all started out as kinda good ideas... 'don't be a dick'. And they managed to twist that around so much.

      Religion of ? Doesnt matter. I don't want any of them near me at all

      They're ALL a bunch of religious nut assholes so far out of control... people die for their made up shit. 2012 and killin ppl cuz their magic book said so. man.
      Except maybe the amish, and the buddhists, and the quakers. Never see too much about those religious nuts causin problems for everyone else.

      All the rest of you nutjobs fucking up the world for everyone else can DIAF tho. Yeah that includes you christians and other western nutbags. You're ALL fucking dangerously stupid.

    32. Re:Another peaceful message by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      but they have much less of a problem with people reinterpreting the religious texts than Islam does.

      That's because Christians and Jews have had reformations and decided to disagree with their good books, and they argue against the points themselves, in their own theological debates. And will call out other members of their own flocks on it. Jews though are probably the best at instituting their own rules, for their own and going on about their business. Unless they're a bit off the deep end and we do have them. But they're rare, and in general society, they're called out on it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    33. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think that which contradictions fits your mold is just picked and chosen at random.

    34. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, didn't take long for the Islamophobes to come out of the woodwork (was that the purpose of this posting?).

      Here are some reports as counterpoint:
          http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
          http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

      You're using Afghanistan to characterize Islam and Muslims? A country where there is no stable government, rampant corruption, GDP based on opium trade, lack of education all around (not just for girls), and an active insurgency? Are you a total idiot?

    35. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consider baptisms to be a form of terrorism. It scared the bejesus out of me when I was a little kid.

    36. Re:Another peaceful message by geogob · · Score: 2

      Which isn't unlike the Bible. But I've never seen anyone here stone their ex for cheating on them. Just like such actions do not happen in most Muslim countries (so, euh, most countries then). This is the action of a very limited group of people. Although I am not a good friend of religions, I nevertheless do not think it is fair to blame a religion for some actions based on a perverted and archaic interpretation of its scriptures by a group of deranged people.

    37. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To the mods now. Refute the point, and don't be an intellectual coward and moderate something because you don't like it."
      Give me a fucking break you pious cunt.
      Tell ME something dipshit...who killed the most innocent civilians since 9/11... Islamic extremist "terrorists" or your wonderful, "Christian" majority US government.
      I'll give you a clue...one measures in the thousands, the other we can only speculate because they don't give enough of a fuck to bother counting them, but could well lie in the MILLIONS.
      I love US Christians. So petrified of death they'll spend TRILLIONS of dollars every years hoping they'll be protected by the scary man. If you truly believe the shit you spout you would welcome death. That's the problem. You KNOW deep down your beliefs are SHIT.
      Enough nukes to end all life 10x over but more than enough hypocrisy to scream WMD to justify war.
      Don't even get me started on the history as to why most of these impoverished nations that remain in the stone age turn to terrorism and extremism in the first place.
      Fuck you Christian soldiers. Fuck you all the way to your hell.
      Ah...that felt good. I like this anonymous coward thing.

    38. Re:Another peaceful message by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I'll crack a Koran as soon as you crack a Bible. Also, see if you can pass one of the many Bible/Koran quizzes like this one

      You can find passages from both that are equally silly, equally bullshit, and equally abhorrent.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    39. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. This is Slashdot - where we hate and scoff at all religions equally. Unless it's the only modern religion whose current adherents have instituted rampant and systemic violence against half of their own society in the name of religion - then we LOVE us some Islam, and will argue to the death that this behavior is simply "not representative" of Islam - despite the fact that half a dozen cases of abortion doctors being shot at are enough to paint the entire Christian world as a bunch of nutcases.

      Yes, the Taliban is an extreme example. No, they are not the only example: women across the Muslim areas of the world are treated like something ranging from "second class citizen" down to "livestock." They may be allowed to get a basic education, but they're still subjected to ridiculous and arbitrary restrictions, constraints, and demands that would NEVER be permitted in any other modern society - can't vote, can't be out unaccompanied by a man, must be covered head to toe, can't talk to a man, can't do this, can't do that. It is a religion which seeks to infantilize woman and keep them dependent on men, and it is flat-out wrong. And until prominent and mainstream Muslim leaders start questioning these teachings publicly without being threatened with death, and begin addressing (rather than defending) the inherent flaws in their society, then they deserve to be treated as the nutcases and troglodytes they are.

      Perhaps you should go learn about the muslim world before you make excuses for them. Spend some time there, especially as a woman, and come back and tell us how awesome living under muslim laws was.

    40. Re:Another peaceful message by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      If they did, they would be idiots (as grammar Nazis typically are). Transliterations from foreign languages are inexact, and unless it gets adopted into English as an English word, and you are clearly using it in that sense, variation in spelling is normal. Taliban, Taleban (preferred by many experts), and Talaban are all acceptable approximations.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    41. Re:Another peaceful message by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you have your head in the sand. Read the Qu'ran sometime and some of the other Islamic writings. They demand that Muslims emulate Mohammed, and they go into great excited detail about how Mohammed massacred people who mocked him.

      Mind you, the same is true of the Old Testament and Yahweh.

    42. Re:Another peaceful message by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Ah...that felt good. I like this anonymous coward thing.

      Look on the bright side, it's the best you'll ever be. After all, I'm Jewish(and Canadian to boot) so I couldn't really care one way, but it's sure fun to what people make an ass out of themselves. Most innocent civilians since 9/11, oh that's easy. I'd guess somewhere between Africa and perhaps the Central Balkans.

      The rest of your post is full of nonsense.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re:Another peaceful message by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Tell me something, between Christianity and Islam, which one of the two has committed nearly 19,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11? I'll give you a hint, it's not Christianity.

      Well, it's not Islam either, because like Christian, Islam is a religion, and abstract ideas like religions can't commit any physical actions, much less "19,000 terrorist attacks". Maybe you meant followers of one religion vs. another? But then, even that starts begging the questions of how do you define a "terrorist" attack, whether the followers committing the attacks are doing them in the name of their religion or not, how representative the followers are of the religion by percentage, etc. One man's terrorist attack is another man's insurrection against a heavily-armed invader: for example, is hiding behind walls waiting for troops from an occupying force to cross a bridge and then popping up to catch them in a cross-fire ambush a terrorist attack? Or is it the actions of Revolutionary Minutemen against the British army?

    44. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, brother!

      (No pun intended)

    45. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell ME something dipshit...who killed the most innocent civilians since 9/11... Islamic extremist "terrorists" or your wonderful, "Christian" majority US government.

      Islamic terrorists, easily. The Islamic terrorists attacking Afghanistan have generally been killing five times as many civilians as the US in any given period of time. Most of the civilian deaths in Iraq were from Sunni and Shiite Islamic terrorists attacking each others' population base, so civilian deaths from Islamic terrorists outnumber civilian deaths from US attacks in the two theatres that the US is most actively fighting in. This does not include other theatres where Islamic terrorists are actively fighting, like Somalia, Kordofan, and Dar Fur.

      Some analysts credit the entire prewar-to-postwar difference in the general civilian death rate to the US on the grounds that the US invasion is the most proximate cause. This is how they can claim hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by US action when the number of direct deaths is in four or the low five figures. By the same standard, we can blame Islamic terrorists for all of the starvation and disease caused by their wars in Sudan and Somalia and other parts of Africa, Bosnia and Kosovo, the Lebanese civil war, the two Afghanistan wars in the 1980s and 1990s, and any increase in the death rate after the Iranian Revolution or the Arab Spring in which Islamic terrorists actively participated.

      tl;dr version: Muslim terrorists kill more people than the Americans. A lot more.

    46. Re:Another peaceful message by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      OK. From http://www.dar-us-salam.com/TheNobleQuran/index.html:

      Sura 9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

      (I do not think you can argue with the word "kill" here.)

      Sura 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

      (A case may possibly be made that "fight" here should be considered as "struggle", implying nonviolence. Given the apparent propensity of Islam for violent means, I tend to doubt that much credence could be given to such a case. And of course see Sura 9:5, supra.)

      There are also explicit commands against poisoning wells, and against killing noncombatants. Women and children are defined in the Koran as noncombatants, and off limits. However, these attacks are aimed directly at female children.

    47. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright, then lets round up and forcibly reeducate all the Muslims and Christians. In the interests of efficiency regarding stopping murders, we should start with the Muslims. When we get them sorted out, we'll move on to the Christians.

    48. Re:Another peaceful message by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Don't be an asshole.

      The world needs dicks, cause dicks fuck assholes...

      You can be a pussy, but if you get too full of shit then you just turn into an asshole...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re:Another peaceful message by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I see that you left out the bit that only 8,000 where interviewed. Interviewing implies those polled were the ones who wished to spend time giving their opinions of religion, this tends to favour those who are overtly religious. No information on how the interviewees were selected ie where people selected leaving religious buildings, were only males selected dressed in traditional garb for instance.

      So pointless poll based upon gaining answer the poll producers wanted. All those countries have governments, seriously with 80% want religious rule they have religious rule, baring having an autocracy in charge. Hang out at Baptist Churches in the deep south of the US and you can get equally stupid answers to interview questions that in no way reflect the attitudes of the majority of Americans.

      Liberals and progressive treat all fundamentalist religious types the same, largely ignore them, avoid pointless discussions with them and, when the prattle wild nonsense just point out the errors. It is no coincidence where liberals and progressives are in the minority religious morons screw everything up. The more religious morons and the fewer liberals and progressives the worse things are and straight up scale of stupidity versus intellect. Liberal and progressives also don't discriminate between religious fundamentalists lumping them all together. Christianity, woohoo, the inquisition and the crusades, there's something to be celebrated, 'NOT'.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    50. Re:Another peaceful message by Sociable+Scientician · · Score: 1

      I see that you left out the bit that only 8,000 where interviewed. Interviewing implies those polled were the ones who wished to spend time giving their opinions of religion, this tends to favour those who are overtly religious. No information on how the interviewees were selected ie where people selected leaving religious buildings, were only males selected dressed in traditional garb for instance.

      So pointless poll based upon gaining answer the poll producers wanted. All those countries have governments, seriously with 80% want religious rule they have religious rule, baring having an autocracy in charge. Hang out at Baptist Churches in the deep south of the US and you can get equally stupid answers to interview questions that in no way reflect the attitudes of the majority of Americans.

      Liberals and progressive treat all fundamentalist religious types the same, largely ignore them, avoid pointless discussions with them and, when the prattle wild nonsense just point out the errors. It is no coincidence where liberals and progressives are in the minority religious morons screw everything up. The more religious morons and the fewer liberals and progressives the worse things are and straight up scale of stupidity versus intellect. Liberal and progressives also don't discriminate between religious fundamentalists lumping them all together. Christianity, woohoo, the inquisition and the crusades, there's something to be celebrated, 'NOT'.

      Don't know where to begin answering your rambling post, but a sample size of 8,000 is considered pretty statistically representative. I don't know the ins-and-outs of Pew's polling methodology, but I'm sure they account for selection bias. I doubt they polled at mosques or whatever silly scenarios you're dreaming up. And I love how after discounting an empirical poll you come up with baseless speculation about what Baptists would say to those questions (btw, I'd wager you couldn't get 5% of Baptists in the US to say they want to KILL homosexuals, and you'd get close to 0% saying they'd want to kill converts/apostates). Either way, the reality of the polls is borne out in the laws of Muslim countries --again, where over a dozen have the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. ZERO Christian countries do. ZERO Buddhist countries do. ZERO polytheistic countries do....you get the idea. Nigeria, which is divided between Christians in the south and Muslims in the north, has the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality in the north but not in the south.

    51. Re:Another peaceful message by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Superstition is PRACTICE, the theory is nothing.

      All superstitions are based on lies. They cannot be proven, therefore they should be treated as nonsense and their adherents as delusional.

      Prove your Sky Fairie exists or piss off. Do it NOW. Here, in this thread.
      Lies and liars merit no respect.

      End the discussion forever by proving your Imaginary Friend is real.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    52. Re:Another peaceful message by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1
      I suspected you might be talking about 9:5 without mentioning 9:3 - 7.
      "Let me esplain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."
      9:5 is talking specifically about the Pagans (i.e. people who do not follow the religions of Abraham) who have violated their treaties with you.
      9:4 "the treaties are not dissolved with those pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught nor aided anyone against you, so fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term"
      9:6 "If one among the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it him...and them escort him to where he can be secure"
      9:7 "How can there be a league before Allah and his Messenger with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them"
      So you see, it's about fighting a war with those who betray you. And yeah, use a little shock and awe to use an overused phrase.

      There are also explicit commands against poisoning wells, and against killing noncombatants. Women and children are defined in the Koran as noncombatants, and off limits. However, these attacks are aimed directly at female children.

      This is an excellent point and I'm very glad you pointed it out! These people are not defending the faith, they're desecrating it. They are violating its tenets in almost every way possible with their actions.

    53. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but we managed to weed the nutbags who believe this, and the major churches are all essentially nonviolent (to a degree). I am actually beginning to worry about Islam. Imagine the us with 60% hardcore violent christian fundamentalists, 30% nonviolent fundamentalists who are fellow travellers with the 60% and accept the violence tacitly, 9% moderate nonviolent fundamentalists with some begrudging tolerance for others, who dislike the violent ones but are afraid to speak out, and 1% open minded, intelligent liberals. My first exposure to Islam was through Sufi writings, which in the form transmitted here is even a minority of the Sufi population. I am starting to feel like Islam is a violent cult which deliberately hides its true values so it can quietly undermine the west. our history of hostility towards them aside, this is a serious problem that no one can talk about without being labelled a right wing nut, which i am not. (more of a left wing/gnostic nut)

    54. Re:Another peaceful message by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      I hear this a lot, too. There is a core flaw in this statement which is that there are not "later" passages and nothing in the Quran "outweighs" anything else in the Quran.

      The Quran, much like a textbook, user guide, or repair manual, not meant to be read any particular order; though each Surah should be taken as a whole. The Surahs are, in fact, generally ordered from longest (Al Baqarah) to shortest (Al Nas) with the thought that the longer Surahs offer more contextual information and philosophy than the short ones, so they should come first. Truth be known, as humans, most of us start from the back and work up to the longer ones :) The exception to this is Al Fatiha (basically, the Our Father) which is the first in the Quran and is one of the shorter Surahs.

      As far as the "lying to unbelievers," that's really a cynical way to look at it. These are some of the passages I've seen sited:
      16:106 - Does grant a Muslim the right to deny their faith verbally to avoid torture and what not, so long as they keep the faith in their heart. Islam is strongly based around your intention and what is in your heart more than your specific actions.
      3:28 - Basically says, chose a Believer (follower of religion of Abraham) for a friend/partner/ally over a non-believer except where there is no conflict or there is some self-preservation involved.
      66:2 - Says you are absolved from an oath if it prevents you from doing good, making peace, or would require evil to fulfill.

      TLDR version: it's what's in your heart that matters, and don't get yourself hurt or killed for no reason.

    55. Re:Another peaceful message by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      I really wrestled with whether this was worth dignifying with a response, but I guess I just can't keep my fool mouth shut.

      First off, Allah is not my imaginary friend. That's Mr. Snookers. Second, obviously, I can't prove that my Sky Fairy (interesting spelling you chose btw) exists any more than you can prove he doesn't. There is simply 0 evidence one way or the other and until we can stick someone in an MRI, kill them for a few minutes or as long as it takes for the brain to settle down, then bring them back and chat with them about what they saw and match that to the hallucinations the brain produces as part of the whole death trauma thing, we won't ever know. Personally, I feel like there is a higher power, clearly you don't agree. And that's fine! It has no more impact on my life than my belief has on yours. And that's all I have to say about that. Oh! And Mr. Snookers says there's no need to be such a douche about it.

      Wow... I even took the time to format it.

    56. Re:Another peaceful message by petman · · Score: 1

      Thank you saveferrousoxide for that explanation.

      Quoting verse 9:5 without explaining the context is like telling the story of WW2 by talking only about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      Person 1: Hey, can you tell me about World War II?
      Person 2: America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killed around 200,000 people.
      Person 1: Wow! America did that? Surely there's more to it?!
      Person 2: No, that's all there is. America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan! America is teh evil!!!
      Person 1: America is teh evil!!! Death to America!!!

    57. Re:Another peaceful message by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Mind you, the same is true of the Old Testament and Yahweh.

      I think you're a bit confused. "Yahweh" is a name attributed to God, not a prophet. The people of Israel were expected to obey God's laws, not emulate a prophet. And what were they commanded to do?

      Old Testament:
      Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

      New Testament:
      Mark 12:28-34: One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;
      AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    58. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go tell it to the Iraqis.

    59. Re:Another peaceful message by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Then it failed and you might try repeating after some contemplation - it's supposed to help scare the bedevil out of you.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    60. Re:Another peaceful message by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      But then, even that starts begging the questions of how do you define a "terrorist" attack, whether the followers committing the attacks are doing them in the name of their religion or not, how representative the followers are of the religion by percentage, etc. One man's terrorist attack is another man's insurrection against a heavily-armed invader

      You're kind of flailing around, so why don't we go for the simple case: setting off a suicide vest / bike bomb / car bomb in a crowded market place. That is pretty cut and dried terrorism. That is the sort of thing that rang up enormous body counts of innocent people in Iraq, and it didn't really effect the international forces there helping to restore civil government and order in Iraq. Now, guess who?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    61. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're kind of flailing around, so why don't we go for the simple case"
      Yes lets, how about an unmanned drone exploding into a wedding. That is pretty cut and dried terrorism. That is the sort of thing that rang up enormous body counts of innocent people in Afghanistan, and it didn't really effect the Taliban forces there helping to restore civil government and order in Afghanistan. Now, guess who?

    62. Re:Another peaceful message by master_p · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you had drawn a crucifx in urine 500 years ago, you would have been burned alive.

    63. Re:Another peaceful message by master_p · · Score: 1

      Please read some history. The atrocities done by Christians in the last 2000 years are untouchable by any other religion.

    64. Re:Another peaceful message by master_p · · Score: 1

      You ignore almost 2000 years of Christian bloodshed, first by the Roman empire, then by the Byzantine empire and what was left of the Roman empire, then ny the Normans, the Saxons and the other Northern tribes, and later by 'civilized' countries like England, France, Spain and Portugal that slaughtered millions of American Indians, black people slavery, India occupation etc.

    65. Re:Another peaceful message by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Er...

      Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443:

      Narrated 'Aisha:

      When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

      Call me obtuse, but I can't seem to find the gory massacre in there anywhere. Maybe something got lost in translation?

    66. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      islam is what 500 years younger than christianity?

      i'm pretty sure christians of 1500 did some of that shiat. in fact im pretty sure while the conquistadors were getting their rape and pillage on down in south america the ottoman empire was busy taxing Christians and stealing their sons occasionally to put them in civil service jobs.

    67. Re:Another peaceful message by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Sahih Bukhari - Hadith No: 443

      Volume : 5
      Book : 59
      Subject : Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)
      Narrator : Aisha:
      When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

      You should check your numbers.

    68. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, how many civilians died from "Where shall we spread democracy this month?" military attacks? Don't you think that to them, destroying their country looks a bit more devastating then this silly terrorist attacks?

    69. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1

      If a religion's scriptures promote and extol violence, it is absolutely fair to blame that religion when its followers commit violence.

      Religiously-inspired Islamic violence is off the charts compared to any other religion. I don't see how you can deny the empirical evidence.

    70. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1

      The Bible does indeed talk about some pretty gruesome things. I'm unaware of any passage in the Bible that says we should emulate God or those who committed the gruesome things.

      I don't mean to give Judaism or Christianity a free pass here. But as of today, the empirical evidence is that Islam inspires far more religious violence than any other religion.

    71. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1

      That is the crux (so to speak) of the matter. Christianity has moved past those days. Islam has not, and I believe Islam is structurally incapable of reform in the way that Christianity was.

    72. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider: there are numerous proverbs of the Darkside which clearly state power is the only thing that matters in life and that one attains this power solely through committing acts of evil and moral turpitude. Is that enough to condemn any and all followers of the Force?

      My Star Wars analogy remains salient.

      Also, I don't know if you remember, but over the last ten years there was this crazy christian who invaded a country and started a war because the Lord told him to. So, no, christians still get to claim the covetted title of being responsible for the most faith-based attacks in the last ten years.

    73. Re:Another peaceful message by Necroloth · · Score: 1
      Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443:

      Narrated 'Aisha:

      When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

      wow... yeah... absolute horrific?

    74. Re:Another peaceful message by Necroloth · · Score: 1

      perhaps rather than quoting just selected paragraphs, why not give the detail, history and explanation of that chapter?

    75. Re:Another peaceful message by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Tell me something, between Christianity and Islam, which one of the two has committed nearly 19,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11? I'll give you a hint, it's not Christianity.

      To the mods now. Refute the point, and don't be an intellectual coward and moderate something because you don't like it.

      There have certainly been plenty of pro-christian terrorist attacks in my part the world (UK), but mostly in the years before 9-11. The IRA (terrorists) are fighting for a free Ireland but very much under the banner of catholicism. The english they are fighing are very much protestant and they have done their fair share of terrorist acts too.

      The reality is that religion has been used as a tool to motivate people to violence for centuries. Generally the people doing the motivating do not really believe in the religion though, they are just using it as a convenient route to power.

      Both Christianity and Islam recognise Christ as a profit / visionary / son of god / whatever and Christ had some very things to say about goodwill to all men, being merciful, and treating other as you would wish to be treated yourself. Think of how Christ commanded his disciples to not seek revenge on the Romans when he was crucified.

      People with hatred of another group of people often block those teachings out though as they are too set on vengeance for some wrong committed against them in the past.

      Do not blame Christianity or Islam for this though, blame the people who cannot forgive:

      You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV)

      In Islam you have:

      “In the Torah We prescribed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, an equal wound for a wound: if anyone forgoes this out of charity, it will serve as atonement for his bad deeds. Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are doing grave wrong.” (Qurn 5:45)

      That still implies to me that the ideal is to not take revenge for wrongs against you, especially if you have some "bad deeds" of your own to atone for (who doesn't?)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    76. Re:Another peaceful message by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      No, you have your head in the sand. Although there are more Christians than Muslims, the number of religiously-motivated violent attacks by Muslims today far outweighs religiously-motivated attacks by Christians.

      Currently, there are religiously-motivated wars and attacks in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria. There are religiously-motivated bombings, suicide attacks, etc. in Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Thailand. I could probably think of 100 examples in the last year if pressed.

      On the Christian side, I can think of Brevik and the Oklahoma CIty bomber and maybe some attacks on abortion providers. Very small-scale indeed compared to Islamic religious violence.

      This might not actually be down to religion of course, it might be that the countries you mention as being Muslim are also desperately poor, shit holes where life is cheap anyway. There would be a crap load more Breviek's in the west if we were suffering the mortality rate from starvation and disease that half the African nations suffer.

      Thankfully though we are far less likely to die of starvation, so we work hard and make our countries even richer with our ideas and thus benefit future generations even more. This is not because Islam is in some way evil though. Christianity was just as backward in its day but it learnt from the chronic fuckups like imprisoning Galileo and learnt to be more accommodating of new scientific ideas.

      Islam had the advantage initially of being more accommodating to ideas like the world being round to start with so has had less of a driver to change. Now the fact that it got fewer things so provably wrong initially though means that there is less of a driver for new interpretations.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    77. Re:Another peaceful message by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      How about you read the whole chapter in context. TL;DR version: If Christian/Jewish/Zoroastrian, then pay Jizya (tax until feel subdued) and live under humiliating Muslim rule as a second class citizen, convert, or die. If other (pagan/atheist/polytheist/buddhist/hindu), then convert or die. You're quoting bits out of context. Also, abrogation absolutely applies chronologically. Sura 9, the chapter you're quoting out of context, was the last book written and abrogates all others.

    78. Re:Another peaceful message by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Breivik wrote that religion was a crutch. He saw it as a placebo useful to stave off fear of death. Additionally, he saw Christianity itself as too peaceful for his goals and argued Christianity would need to be reformed into something more violent (something more like the Crusaders). Was he Christian? Depends on your definition, but he clearly saw Christianity as a cultural identity in addition to a religion in the same sense white supremacists do and the Nazis did. In his compendium he spoke of "athiest christians" and so forth. Hardly the fundamentalist some have portrayed him to be. He was simply insane. Nothing he did was in line with new testament teachings and I think even he would admit that.

    79. Re:Another peaceful message by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Also: McVeigh was an athiest.

    80. Re:Another peaceful message by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      You're quoting bits out of context.

      Well, i couldn't very well put the entire Surah up...
      I provided a wider context to the parent post. Your TLDR version seems a bit disingenuous though. It's too simplistic for you to really believe that sums up the entire Surah.

      Man, abrogation must have been the Word of the Day or something. The Quran only abrogated the previous sacred texts (Bible, Torah, and there's some indication that Abraham had a lost Book), not itself. The fact is that Al Baqarah is generally considered the most all-encompassing. While some muslim scholars do preach this concept, it really doesn't make sense and is only there so they can justify cherry picking to increase their own power. There are those ("scholars") that would even say the hadith, little more than hearsay AFAIC, can supersede the Quran; which is ridiculous from a religious pov. I honestly don't see contradictions in the Quran itself (stop laughing ;)) but rather clarifications. You can look at two passages and stop when you find contradiction or you can look into them and link them in a way that is not contradictory and find the synergy (to use corporate speak) between the passages. I choose the latter.

    81. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so we're ignoring the genocide of the native populations of the Americas are we?

    82. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I don't think most of your examples were religiously motivated. They were just motivated by pure greed.

    83. Re:Another peaceful message by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I got the reference wrong... oops. I was referring to the Massacre of Banu Quraiza. Info on Wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

    84. Re:Another peaceful message by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There have been a relatively small number of attacks against genuine wedding parties, and the number of casualties is also limited. There have been a large number of attacks against Taliban groups, some of which were later falsely claimed to be wedding parties. Those attacks against Taliban groups have caused them significant damage. The vast majority of people being killed in Afghanistan are being killed by Taliban road-side bombs, suicide attacks with bomb vests, car bombs, and truck bombs, and various other sort of attacks. The Taliban is fighting to impose a religious dictatorship on Afghanistan so I'm not sure that is really a civil government, is it?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    85. Re:Another peaceful message by master_p · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Islam is behind a few decades, but it quickly catches up. Give it a few decades, and I am sure it will catch up.

    86. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who's fault is it that their immune systems were not up to snuff? Smallpox was the biggest killer IIRC.

      You trolls are just full of those fantasy one-liners, aren't you...

    87. Re:Another peaceful message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Enough nukes to end all life 10x over...

      Credibility lost.

      Also, as the sole remaining world power, how would you expect them to act? Put another country in place of the US and let's see how they act.....my money would be on worse, much much worse.

    88. Re:Another peaceful message by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      A Century at least

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  8. Iraq redux by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Note to US: let someone else try and police the mess this time.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Iraq redux by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Who?
      Who do you actually have in mind this time?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:Iraq redux by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      How about no one? It's sad for these girls/women, but outsiders have been trying to impose their will on Afghanistan for ages, and it's never worked. The only rational thing to do is quarantine the place and leave people there to their own devices, perhaps with some assistance to those trying to do the right thing, but not with foreign troops.

    3. Re:Iraq redux by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Even if I feel for the girls, it is not US or anybody's place to police another country, especially in US usual way of invading, destroying and then losing interest and leaving the country to mend itself, usually worse than it was before.

    4. Re:Iraq redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about no one? It's sad for these girls/women, but outsiders have been trying to impose their will on Afghanistan for ages, and it's never worked.

      Outsiders did a bang-up job of imposing their will on Afghanistan as recently as 1994. They're called the Taliban. You may have heard of them.

      And if it weren't of all of the recruits invading the country from Arabia and Pakistan, the Soviets would have been able to impose their will on Afghanistan during the 1980s.

      So yes, conquering Afghanistan can be done given sufficient manpower and competent execution. The US has neither. That's why they're losing the war.

  9. Solution by Hentes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Make the schools coeducated. The Taliban will be pissed but hopefully they wouldn't attack boys.

    1. Re:Solution by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that would not be culturally acceptable to most of those presently sending their girls to school.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    2. Re:Solution by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Not every Afghan is an extremist. When the alternative is having their girls poisoned, I think many would view it as a lower risk.

    3. Re:Solution by bhlowe · · Score: 2

      Hmm, except that would make the whole school eligible for the death penalty:
      From this week's news... :" Four women and two men have been sentenced to death in northern Pakistan for singing and dancing at a wedding, police said yesterday. Clerics issued a decree after a mobile phone video emerged of the six enjoying themselves in a remote village in the mountainous district of Kohistan, 176 kilometres (109 miles) north of the capital Islamabad." Source.

    4. Re:Solution by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Make the schools coeducated.

      This would alienate many of those who are willing to accept girls going to school in the first place. It would be somewhat analogous to trying to solve the problem people had with blacks receiving an education at all in the Reconstruction era by forcing integration 80 years early. In trying to stymie your foes, you've only succeeded in multiplying them.

      Basically, the situation is more complicated than complete backward asshats willing to poison girls just to punish them for trying to become educated, and equality-of-sexes feminists.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Solution by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Their culture is inhumane and should be replaced without qualm or concern. Problem solved.
      Aside from that, the protocol is simple, build two identical schools on each side of town, each morning flip coin and heads the boys go to the north school, tails the girls go to the north school. Ditto the delivery of water trucks (like last incident) etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:Solution by fnj · · Score: 1

      I believe that it is evident that continuing events, allegiances, and beliefs in the region are at odds with what you think (and perhaps what I would like to think), although I suppose the absolute number could be "many" and the proportion still be a very small minority.

      Obviously not "every" Afghan is an extremist, but it is at least arguable that a large majority owe allegiance to an extreme philosophy in the form of Islam as understood in the region, judged by that particular Islam's own definition; i.e., the way Islam defines itself by its regional practicing hierarchy.

    7. Re:Solution by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Basically, the situation is more complicated than complete backward asshats willing to poison girls just to punish them for trying to become educated

      How exactly is it more complicated?

    8. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their culture is inhumane and should be replaced without qualm or concern. Problem solved.

      Unbelievable that an intolerant and ignorant idiot like you is modded up.

    9. Re:Solution by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The possibility of killing boys is obviously not going to slow them down. Virtually every mission they organize involves sending men to certain death. Sure they need a supply of boys, but a uterus is worth several of those.

    10. Re:Solution by vlm · · Score: 1

      Hmm OK I'll extend my protocol. Everyone in afghanistan gets EWTN on their TV for one hour per person attacked... every time it happens, even if its during a soccer game or whatever. Or maybe an hour of USA top 40 music on all radio stations per person attacked. Its a cultural attack. We don't like the way their culture treats female people worse than farm animals, we will see how much they enjoy having our culture jammed down their throats every time they act like savages. Either they civilize themselves on their own (preferable), or we subvert their culture with a superior one, that being our own. Either way, as long as we control the transmitters, we win.

      Or we could keep doing what we're doing, which results in nothing more than dead brown people and rich defense contractors. I can guess how this is going to turn out.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:Solution by vlm · · Score: 1

      I'm intolerant of inhumane behavior, sure. As if thats a bad thing?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just nuke them to hell and be done with the eyesore.

    13. Re:Solution by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Mostly by the fact that the various camps in this conflict do not fit neatly into the simple dichotomy that we in the West -myself included, much of the time- find it all too easy to draw. There is a spectrum, and the various groups fall into various points among it.

      I agree with you that people should never be barred from education on account of gender, but note that I used the word never: a word I think you would also be willing to use. That's an extreme term, in the sense that there's no way to go further, and that puts us solidly on an endpoint of the spectrum. This isn't a bad thing, but we need to acknowledge where we are, because it means that we have a question of idealism versus pragmatism to consider.

      In a place like Afghanistan, support for our side therefore depends in large part on which groups we are willing to accommodate and which we are not. If we accommodate only those which agree with us in total, we will never get anything done. The pragmatic way takes longer, but it is less likely to be pulled out from under us in one stroke by the likes of the Taliban. If this is worth doing -and I think it is- then it's worth doing in a way that will stand up to the next hundred years of conflict.

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

      Why wouldn't they poison both to make their point? They're terrorists.

    15. Re:Solution by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      How exactly is it more complicated?

      By people who fall into neither group, as I just finished explaining.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Solution by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The other alternative is not sending their girls to school at all. Since the alternative you provide is offensive to many of them, if they must choose they will choose the option the Taliban is trying to force them to choose.

      Just because they're not extremists doesn't mean they've fully embraced women's lib, as I tried to explain in the other post.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Their culture is inhumane and should be replaced without qualm or concern. Problem solved.

      Last who tried that in Afghanistan were Soviets during DRA.

      You know one of the many reasons Islamist insurgency started back then? Soviets sent their doctors to deal with diseases and such, and many of those doctors were men. Some were Afghanis who studied in Soviet medical universities to become doctors.

      And said male doctors would then inspect women to diagnose them. Inspect. Women! Without a burqa. Sometimes even naked. Ewww. Damn infidels.

    18. Re:Solution by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Everyone in afghanistan gets EWTN on their TV for one hour

      Afghanistan? TV? Everyone?

      I'd be surprised if 10% of locals had a radio set, much less a TV.

    19. Re:Solution by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      I'm intolerant of inhumane behavior, sure.

      And that is the exact stance "they" take, just for a different definition of "inhumane".

    20. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What made the western societies recognize that women were just as human as men? What made them recognize that they were just as worthy of respect and self ownership? Was it some scheme to trick hostile men(and women) into not attacking those courageous ladies who pushed past their assigned roles? No. Such things do not get solved until the underlying evil of the violence is exposed. That is an intergenerational change in popular opinion which comes from the rigorous reasoning of thinkers, brilliant exposition by professional second hand dealers in those ideas, and finally disseminated to the masses by the efforts of millions of unnamed amateur advocates.

      These problems will not be solved by trying to deal with the effects. The source must be addressed; once peoples have in general accepted that such treatment of women is evil, then there becomes no evil to fight. Humans recoil from evil whenever it becomes exposed as such. Very few have to be told to not do bad things, instead we just need to be shown that something is bad and that is all it takes(I'd even argue that the remaining violations are themselves most often a result of failures to fully address other source problems, such as our opinion and treatment of children and opinion and treatment of other people distant and abstract from us... but that is another argument). In the west, it simply took repeated and passionate insistence that women were people. Once that sunk in and spread, no one had to be told not to beat their wives; that was a given. When a man does mistreat a women, it is kept secret. Even he knows it is wrong, and fears ostracism if he is found out. It will be the same with the middle east. Trying to stop people from poisoning women won't solve this problem. The effects of the source issue will just spring up in a different form. The problem is the public opinion of women.

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

      Their culture is inhumane and should be replaced without qualm or concern.

      LOL

      They make the same statement and argument as you do. Irony.

    22. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume they care if they poison people they didn't specifically target.

    23. Re:Solution by Americano · · Score: 1

      I think the more likely alternative is the parents of the girls would keep the girls home - no risk of attacks, and no risk of inappropriate attention or interactions with young men. And that's precisely what the fundamentalist types want: uneducated women, dependent on and subservient to men.

      And it's likely that in an attack like this on a co-ed facility, they would:
      1) Kill any young man trying too hard to intervene;
      2) Coerce the remaining young men to participate, or stand by and do nothing;

      Or perhaps most monstrously, some of the young men may participate willingly because they subscribe to the same bankrupt ideology of the fundamentalist attackers. "Send your daughters to school with a bunch of men" is not a solution that would deter attacks. At worst, it would *invite* attacks, and at best, it would make no difference. It sounds nice, but it has no legitimate chance of success in a country where the rule of law is so tenuous.

    24. Re:Solution by Americano · · Score: 1

      That's a rather curious definition of "humane," if it says that the prevention of education of women and girls through violence (up to and including murder) as well as physical and verbal intimidation of the women and their families counts as "humane."

      Is black also white? Is up also down? Have these humane soldiers always been at war with Eastasia?

    25. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a rather curious definition of "humane," if it says that the prevention of education of women and girls through violence (up to and including murder) as well as physical and verbal intimidation of the women and their families counts as "humane."

      After all, we know that OUR definition of humane is the REAL definition. Just say you want to stop torture and be a man about it being your personal desire instead of trying moralize as if there's the ONE TRUE MORALITY.

    26. Re:Solution by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We are doing more or less what you describe. But Afghanistan will be one of the last places. Simply too poor to afford an 18 inch dish to get MTV middle east for their kids.

      We will own their children's minds. Perhaps grand-kids for the Pushtun.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:Solution by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The only fool is you. The others understand the cultures are at war. Only one will survive.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Solution by Americano · · Score: 1

      After all, we know that OUR definition of humane is the REAL definition.

      I'd say that Merriam-Webster's definition is a reasonable attempt at a "REAL" definition:

      humane: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals

      Are you really suggesting that it's possible to have a *functional* morality (i.e., one that functions as any sort of reasonable foundation for a non-moribund society) that includes inhumane behavior like violence against innocent people as "good" behaviors? That inhumane treatment of another innocent human being can defensibly be called a moral good?

      Tell me more, I'm fascinated by this new horizon in morality, and may wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

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

      I'd say that Merriam-Webster's definition is a reasonable attempt at a "REAL" definition [merriam-webster.com]:

      You don't even realize how dumb that was. *facepalm*

    30. Re:Solution by Americano · · Score: 1

      Read: "No, that's not really what I was suggesting, I'm really just spouting off to hear myself type. I love them keys clacking."

  10. Islam strikes again! by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

    Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826

    And this is hardly the instance of this in Islam.

    1. Re:Islam strikes again! by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

      Exodus 21:7

      And this is hardly the only instance of this sort of sexism in Judaism and Christianity. What's your point?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:Islam strikes again! by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Oh, please.. As if the Bible is that much better?

      Remember who gobbled the apple?

      There are so many bible verses that I'll just link to some web pages:
      First page

      Second page

      Third page

      Yes, the new testament was generally better than the old testament, but there's lots of fun wackiness in both.

      Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 is also a fun read :)

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    3. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point is that all you religious people are equally nuts. Why don't you get off our planet?

    4. Re:Islam strikes again! by blackfrancis75 · · Score: 1

      'The Point' is that any sect of Christianity that takes the Old Testament literally is as misguided as the Taliban.
      We're saying Sharia Law is looney - we're not making exceptions for people think Leviticus was or is a template for our society either.

    5. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the next verse:
      [quote]If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.[/quote]
      indicating it's more like marriage than slavery, albeit forced marriage.

      This would be ensuring the woman would be taken care of in a society where men earned the wages, and you're ripping bits out of context to suit your point.

    6. Re:Islam strikes again! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Why don't you get off our planet?

      Because our faith-powered rockets keep failing! I blame Joseph. He's seemed pretty doubtful that it could work, with his fancy-schmancy physics degree. His lack of faith is disturbing our rocket!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That both religions are flawed, and have connotations of repressive ramblings within their allotted texts.

      Which frankly, is why I'm anti-religious. No discernable text from which to proselytize from, which then only the speaker and their ideas can be characterized as flawed.

      p.s.. for the morons out there, that doesn't mean I don't believe in god

    8. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only solution is to turn your nose up at ALL religions.

    9. Re:Islam strikes again! by operagost · · Score: 2
      The Law is not for Gentiles, so while many Jews became Christians it is misleading to claim that the whole of the Law is "Christian".

      You do make a valid point, but I am dismayed by the fact that cherry-picking mods passed over all the valid, similar criticisms of Islam to mod you up.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Islam strikes again! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      And the next verse:
      [quote]If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.[/quote]
      indicating it's more like marriage than slavery, albeit forced marriage.

      This would be ensuring the woman would be taken care of in a society where men earned the wages, and you're ripping bits out of context to suit your point.

      And right there you've proven his point. Really? Buying a girl from her father against her wish is ok, as long as you don't resell her? That's like a marriage, because you're stuck with her for eternity, huh?

      If you're forcing someone to live with you against their wish, it's slavery. Even if you treat them extremely well besides that, a gilded cage is still a cage.

    11. Re:Islam strikes again! by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      Try to imagine the context of the ancient near east culture and what life would be like for those women without those provisions. Women can be free in a society largely influenced by Christianity which tells people not to rape and pillage and to treat women as being full persons.

      You may be an atheist, but my guess is that you are a Christian atheist.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    12. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to criticize religious texts, start With the bible my friend. What about god's command to give him 100 foreskins? What about the man who was killed because he didn't impregnate his brothers wife? The list goes on. When god said "turn the other cheek", he didn't mean "only focus on the bits that make me look good, not like a nutjob".
      As a westerner, I have as much time for the bible (god said even though your master beats you, you must go back to him) as the Koran.

    13. Re:Islam strikes again! by pitchpipe · · Score: 2

      What's your point?

      That myths should not be taken literally.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    14. Re:Islam strikes again! by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      They don't follow it. I don't hear about any Christians stoning people to death or poisoning entire schools.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    15. Re:Islam strikes again! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      And right there you've proven his point. Really? Buying a girl from her father against her wish is ok, as long as you don't resell her? That's like a marriage, because you're stuck with her for eternity, huh?

      It's like marriage in the majority of places and times throughout history, regardless of culture or religion. Sad but true.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Islam strikes again! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      OK you lost me at that lat sentence there. You do bring up a good point about these documents being written for the societies in which they were conceived and a *lot* of the stuff in there simply is no longer relevant. Of course, a reasonable person of *any* faith can read their holy texts and pick out the bits that might not apply to them, but unfortunately the more we attack each others faiths, the further away from any sort of reason we go.

      That, and I am fair certain that the world didn't need Christianity to tell people not to rape and pillage. Morality doesn't need to stem from religion. The sooner we can get religious people to understand this, the sooner we can get over our fear of people of differing (or no?) faiths.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    17. Re:Islam strikes again! by irenaeous · · Score: 3

      In fairness to the ancient Hebrews, you should read the whole passage:

      2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

      5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

      7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

      A female servant is a concubine and is to be treated as one of his wives. She does not go free after seven years as it is with men because she is regarded as married. To be redeemed means to be sold back to the father. She has certain rights that if not honored means that she is to go free. Feel free to judge them by our modern standard of ethics that our modern ways afford us, but judge them fairly at least.

      Frankly, Hebrew laws regarding "servants" or "slaves" seems human when compared with American slavery in the old south where people where essentially regarded as being a type of cattle and where treated as such.

    18. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how whenever someone cites the Quran to show how bad Islam is, someone always assumes the person doing it believes in the Bible. Kind of a nonsequitur.

    19. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's yours? What does what the Bible says about women have to do with what the Quran says about women?

    20. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But even Christians who CLAIM to believe the literal word of the Bible actually don't (do they observe all the rules in Leviticus, e.g. 15:19?). Societies that were historically Christian aren't poisoning and stoning women, but Islamic ones are.

    21. Re:Islam strikes again! by Americano · · Score: 1

      That's AWESOME. Except, many of the Old Testament "rules" - such as those in Exodus 21 - have been considered not applicable by Christian theologists at least since the time of Thomas Aquinas - that is, 1250 AD, give or take a few years. Most mainstream Christians today would rightly view anybody arguing for Old Testament law to be as loony as they consider people arguing for fundamentalist Islamic law to be. (See: New Covenant versus Old Covenant, esp. the abrogation of Old Testament laws by the New Covenant.)

      "Although Christianity affirms that the Pentateuch is part of Scripture that is inspired of God, Christian tradition, in this case similar to Jewish tradition, denies that all of the Old Covenant still applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which parts, if any, still apply." (Source)

      "Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature; ceremonial precepts, which deal with forms of worshipping God and ritual cleanness; and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into existence only with the Law of Moses, and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ". Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind, and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin." (Source)

      You might want to cherry pick a quote from something actually relevant to Christianity today. I can't speak to the accuracy of Quilas' comment above, but if it's accurate, it sounds to me like he's suggesting that there's a pretty strong argument even today that the initial passage about the deficiency of a woman's mind is considered fairly orthodox by many mainstream Muslim theologians.

    22. Re:Islam strikes again! by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Try to imagine the context of the ancient near east culture

      I've got no problems accepting that cultures changes, but you can't attack another religion's texts for one thing, and then defend your own when it does the same thing by using that argument. Because your defense applies to them as well.

      Women can be free in a society largely influenced by Christianity which tells people not to rape and pillage and to treat women as being full persons.

      Not in Lot's time, when he was offering his daughters up to be raped in order to save his guests. I'm not objecting to his defense of his guests, I'm objecting to his solution.

      I really have nothing against religious folk. I know plenty of Christians who I know that if they were placed in Lot's situation, they would die defending the guests in their homes. They would most certainly die defending their daughters too. Which is really my point. You don't judge people by their religious texts, you judge them by their actions. Some Christians are bad people, most are great people I'm happy to associate myself with.

      You may be an atheist, but my guess is that you are a Christian atheist.

      I don't understand what that means.

    23. Re:Islam strikes again! by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      The Law is not for Gentiles, so while many Jews became Christians it is misleading to claim that the whole of the Law is "Christian".

      Which can lead back to the question of whether you can only be a Christian if you'vet converted to Judaism first. Given the Apostles didn't unanimously agree on the point and the subject seemingly only came up after Jesus was gone.... And let's not forget just how much of Paul's writings are taken as canon law for whatever reason--even though he may or may not have been an actual ordained Apostle--basically as The Law for Gentiles, which makes the whole situation rather messy...

      You do make a valid point, but I am dismayed by the fact that cherry-picking mods passed over all the valid, similar criticisms of Islam to mod you up.

      "How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye." Now, it can obviously be said that not everyone in the Slashdot community believes those words, but as a general rule to live by, I think it mostly sound advice. In the end, after all, the problem isn't that Islam has bad or immoral advice any more than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc have bad or immoral advice. The issue is that some people are willing to enact their will upon others, often using their religion as an excuse to justify their wants*, in a violent fashion, and there either doesn't exist the structure in their society to uniformly condemn those people or they've convinced enough people to overlook or override those structures in the wake of fear, self-doubt, etc.

      Having said all that, attacking the tool or the messenger is unlikely to be any sort of answer. So, I'd understand if your complaint was the tit-for-tat response trying to show the fallacy of the complaint instead of addressing the real issues and how mods are quick to mod up the snarky counter reply. But, the best reply that can be made? I don't really known. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was right about the need to spill blood for liberty. But, in the end, that was merely the catalyst for change. It required that people like Jefferson existed in the first place with the power to spill blood and set a new course. And even in places like Pakistan, which seem willing to make that transformation, it's very unclear to me that they're willing to accept a civil war as a solution since it's almost seem like trying to kill people over the ideas/beliefs they hold, when in reality it's about how those beliefs are translated into action upon people, and then the worry is how any government can seem effectively neutral when it can be defined as immoral/a sin not to act. :/

      But, then, I digress. :/

      *Oh, and a side point, but Republicans/Libertarians in the US do the same thing with the free market/free enterprise/taxes. So, it's not limited to religion. And yes, Democrats do it as well with trying to justify abortions as some sort of "right of the woman" ignoring that doesn't magically usurp "right of the child" nor explain "obligation of the sperm donor/'father' for child support". But, then, it's hard to sell people on pragmatism when it sounds incredibly immoral; or the whole issue is simply overlooked, like with things like civilian deaths by the military to fight a whole country and separate group, the Taliban, when a specific group, al Quaeda, is your enemy and for which an outright war seems unjustified--not that I'm really kosher on how the CIA/KGB/etc operate[d], but how is a war better? Well, that's enough hot-button topics for my rant, so I'll just end my rant now. :)

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    24. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is a substantial portion of the Islamic world actually actually uses the Koran's writings as justification to make laws marginalizing or worse women, and to act beyond the law. That's frightening, and definitely should not be allowed to spread, at the very least.

    25. Re:Islam strikes again! by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      We take on the beliefs and assumptions that Christianity has given the Western world, even if some of us are atheists. The world without Christian and Judaic influence would be horrific.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    26. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, just inciting hatred and violence toward gays and women's clinics, poisoning themselves and their children or refusing to take them to the doctor or accept modern medical treatments including vaccines, beating and "excommunicating" children from their communities for questioning town elders (I'm still talking about Christians in the United States), sending them to brain wash camps where their wills are broken until they submit to believeing in gods or whatever their parents are paying for, and much, much, much more.

      The combination of your post and handle is hilarious.

    27. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is hardly the instance of this in Islam.

      You accidentally the whole rant!

    28. Re:Islam strikes again! by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Who gives a fuck. Christianity and Judaism is full of bullshit too... but Christians and Jews aren't flying planes into buildings. They've learned to ignore the barbarous, sexist, and homophobic aspects of their religions. Islam has not.

    29. Re:Islam strikes again! by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Then burn the bible too. Only Christians won't kill you for doing it.

    30. Re:Islam strikes again! by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Funny how we're not seeing an article every other day of some Christian atrocity. Yes, the Bible sucks too, but all religions are not equally bad. Some are worse than others. Listen to Sam Harris.

    31. Re:Islam strikes again! by jupiter_uranus_2009 · · Score: 1

      Of course, who else could have though of Inquisition just to name one contribution. How do we know there was no such influence for slavery, Nazi ideology and colonialism. Jesus saves us so we can do whatever we want, occupy whatever we want. What is today's america?

    32. Re:Islam strikes again! by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      You are missing the forest for the trees.

      Human nature, being what it is, didn't not get obliterated when Jewish religion spread. But the historical record is clear. Jewish religion (primarily Christianity) is what has made this world civilized.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    33. Re:Islam strikes again! by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      No... The spread of Christianity may have lead to the current version of civilization in the world, but to claim that the world would be an uncivilized and horrific place without it is absolutely absurd. The historical record is *quite* clear that there were many quite civilized cultures in the world before and after Christianity. I could argue just as well that current Western civilization has more to owe to Roman or Greek culture than it does to Christian ideals. I could also argue quite well that Europe became far *less* civilized with the spread of Christianity and the fall of the Roman empire.

      I sense you're under the impression that anything un-Christian is uncivilized. If that's the case - that is exactly the source of fear so many people have of Islam and other cultures that in reality are quite civilized (and have been since long before Christians came on the scene).

      --
      +1 Disagree
    34. Re:Islam strikes again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's planet? Remember, you set the precedent here, that makes you worse. Perhaps the world would be better off without you.

  11. Re:Hopefully they will soon make the realization t by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh I don't think you get the import. This wasn't an attack against random women, it was an attack against women seeking an education. They are aware that they need women. They would rather those women stay at home and spit out then take care of sons rather than seek to better themselves.

    The message is: Women who seek to become educated will be targeted with violence. Remain at home, weak, ignorant, and dependent. Then there will be slightly less^W^W no violence.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  12. Christian Nation? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.

    Most Americans do not really believe in religion, and only identify with Christianity because they think they should, and the certainly are not Muslims.

    The truth is that while many people are vaguely âoespiritualâ, most people no longer attend church regularly if at all, and only a small percentage of so-called âoeChristiansâ in this country can tell you anything at all about the Bible, old or new.

    There are people who bleat about this being a âoeChristian Nationâ, but statistically, factually, it isnâ(TM)t so. I donâ(TM)t think it can even be proven that we are a âoecertainly not a Muslim nationâ, either.

    We are mostly agnostic.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Christian Nation? by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

      my belief prevents me from believing your statements.

    2. Re:Christian Nation? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Well, gallup polls would disagree with you. Go argue with them.

    3. Re:Christian Nation? by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      Well, I did find this statistic on Wikipedia. "In a 2010 Gallup survey, 41.6% of Americans said that they attended church or synagogue once a week or almost every week." That seems fairly significant to me.

    4. Re:Christian Nation? by zlives · · Score: 1

      my belief prevents me from believing in gallup polls.

    5. Re:Christian Nation? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Well, gallup polls would disagree with you. Go argue with them.

      What people tell a pollster (because they think they should) is often completely diffiernt than what the actually practice.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:Christian Nation? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Sure. When a pollster calls, of course that's what they say. Is it the REALITY? Probably not

      Except in the Bible Belt, church antecedence is the lowest ever.

      Seriously, 42 percent? Get real.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:Christian Nation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Christian Nation? by Gogo0 · · Score: 2

      ex-christian here, so i sympathize with you, however if the basis of your argument relies on the dismissal of contrary evidence as personally not-believable, then you have no argument.

    9. Re:Christian Nation? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      In this case it also happens to match church attendance stats and any anecdotal evidence about the average person's knowledge of what they claim to believe.

  13. Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

    Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

    Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.

    Your lax definition of a 'Conscious' be damned, begin the escalation of political pressure then economic pressure then physical pressure.

    Sort of on topic, from your signature:

    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

    The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it. And we should not allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. Communism, on the other hand, is a counter case. We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war. If you think communism has been "ended" and that it has been "ended" by war and not inherent corruption that it can't seem to shake -- you and I must be reading different books by very different authors.

    To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Sparticus789 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it.

      I would have to disagree. After Pearl Harbor, U.S. declared war on Japan, Japan declared war on the U.S., Germany declared war on the U.S. Then the war machine started cranking and the Allies took back Europe. Allies stumbled across concentration camps, and the world learned how evil the Nazis really were. We didn't enter WWII because they "violated human rights." We entered because the Axis attacked us.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    2. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      We entered because the Axis attacked us.

      Here's a hint: USA didn't save the world from the Nazis. They just shortened the war.

    3. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, Germany wasn't defeated in WWII because so many Germans detested their own countries government. If you need any further proof of how much they were in it for the long haul you need look no further than the happenings during the battle of Berlin. These weren't a people who go upset, laid down their arms and walked away. They fought to the bitter ends of it all.
       
      And as for Vietnam? So you would have shrugged off the concept of a first would country languish while other uninvested non-national forces determined their future without any regard to their own freewill? Yeah, you're an asshat.

    4. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights...

      Tell that to the surviving members of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. I dare you!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by john.r.strohm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes and no.

      The US was planning to enter World War II, and advance preparations were well underway, long before the Japanese carriers launched their airplanes. This is obvious from reading the popular press of the time.

      Pearl Harbor pulled the trigger. At that point, a contingency plan for fighting simultaneous major wars in Europe and the Pacific was pulled off the shelf and put into operation. That plan called for fighting holding actions in the Pacific, winning in Europe, then winning in the Pacific. Perusal of the history books will reveal that this strategy worked.

    6. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...

      Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.

      Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.

      To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.

      So where does denying education sit in your mind?
      Is it wrong to use force to prevent people from getting educated?

      Is it okay to do so if it is a form of political protest?
      For example there is currently a protest in Quebec where they are keeping people from class to protest a tuition hike (of $250/yr).
      Is denying education for financial gain ok?

    7. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war.

      Not true. To quote from Marx's Communist Manifesto:

      [The Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

      In other words, the only way to establish a Communist society is through violent revolution, which inherently infringes on others rights to life and/or freedom. The entire Manifesto is riddled with calls to violent revolution against the existing social order, and every communist society since (that I know of) has begun that way: through violence and bloodshed.

      And I'm not even going into the question of whether property is a Universal right (which I believe it is, or at the very least a necessary prerequisite to freedom), which Communism absolutely inherently opposes by its very definition.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify [un.org] what should be regarded as Universal rights.

      .......

      If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.

      The problem you will always run into is that there is ALWAYS someone who can object that your "universal rights" are arbitrary and essentially a reflection of your personal (or collective) values and beliefs. Religious folks (like myself) will appeal to a higher standard, and of course that can be and is objected to on the same grounds, but do not be deluded that you can somehow escape the issue by trying to rule religious beliefs out-- if anything you end up making the problem worse (it is more arbitrary).

      See for example recent attempts to get internet access added to the list of universal human rights-- as if that somehow meets the criteria of being universal when its not even historical.

      At the end of the day what your internal moral compass says IS important, and you just have to accept the fact that everyone's moral compass may differ by varying amounts.

    9. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0, Troll

      These weren't a people who go upset, laid down their arms and walked away. They fought to the bitter ends of it all.

      Okay, let's say you disagree with everything your government is doing. Imagine you hate that the government isn't just standing back and letting the medical industry force you to buy the managers new Jaguars, and imagine that you hate that the government is letting women go around with their heads uncovered and own property and stuff and even think they have the same rights as men, and allowing schools to teach that evolution is fact and creation is not. Imagine, in short, that you're a pretty typical right-wing "Christian" American.

      Now we invade you. Fucking thousands of deeply warlike Scots, and we are going to take your damn country apart - and you know we could. Once we win, we'll let you shape your government any way you damn well please, but we are taking your country now.

      Are you going to fight, or lie down?

    10. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Advanced preparations are always underway. That's what our generals do. Plan out future conflicts. Right now, US troops are training in war games to invade Iran, and probably many other countries, including the US.

    11. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      That's not even remotely close to communism.

    12. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That means communists don't believe in limiting themselves to passive action.

      Since my own state endorses a similar sentiment, I cannot hold it against them.

        1. Powers of people

      That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

        2. Doctrine of non-resistance

      That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

      You seem to be adopting a position that such calls are de facto an infringement. Whereas my state strongly disputes your claim. And if you consider the repression of the time, you might even be more understanding.

      As for property, property is often used to destroy freedom. A fence can become a prison.

    13. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by john.r.strohm · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between contingency planning (and wargaming, and practice) and cranking up the War Machine in earnest.

      By the middle of 1941, the US was cranking up the War Machine, for real, to go into Europe. What I read in "Popular Science" from that period didn't indicate whether they also expected trouble from Japan in the same timeframe.

    14. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0
      "You are dictatorial." My dear sirs, you are right, that is just what we are. All the experience the Chinese people have accumulated through several decades teaches us to enforce the people's democratic dictatorship, that is, to deprive the reactionaries of the right to speak and let the people alone have that right.
      -- Mao Zedong

      "The students are nuts if they think this handful of people can overthrow our Party and our government."
      -- Wang Zhen, Chinese Communist official, May 1989, before the Tiananmen Square Massacre

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    15. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The Cultural Revolution was about communism. It was about equality via denigration of wealth and confucianism. That was the entire point of the revolution! To say otherwise is not ignorance, but blatant historical revisionism!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Sparticus789 · · Score: 3, Informative

      First, there are hundreds of officers that sit around and create potential scenarios for war from basically every country you can imagine. So in that sense, we are "always" preparing for some sort of armed conflict. Now those guys are borderline paranoid-insane, the stuff they come up with is amazingly detailed and would make for some great movies.

      Second, perhaps my definition of "war machine" was a little vague. U.S. officers were fighting for the British Air Force as early as 1938 (maybe 1939?) in an unofficial capacity. When I say war machine, I mean every factory started making bullets, the draft started, Freedom gardens got planted, etc. In other words, everyone in the country knew we were at war and were focused on that single task. We were doing a lot of that once everyone realized Hitler was a power-hungry maniac, but ordering Americans into harm's way didn't start in an official capacity until post Pearl Harbor.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    17. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it.

      The Nazis were stopped because they picked a fight with everyone in sight and bit over more than even they could chew, internal resistance was not a major issue until long after they had lost the critical battles of the war. Had Hitler stopped in May 1941, consolidated his forces and concentrated on blockading the UK while holding against the Soviets - who'd be totally crazy to attack - things would be very different. The US like to play up their part in WWII but the Nazis took 80% of the casualties on the Eastern Front, not the Western. Around ten million Soviet soldiers died in desperate defense of Moscow, Stalingrad and the oil fields to the south as well as an extremely harsh winter, that's what broke the Nazi army. You'd be surprised to know how many like racism as long as they're the superior race, and the inferior were quickly silenced.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Now we invade you. Fucking thousands of deeply warlike Scots, and we are going to take your damn country apart - and you know we could.

      "Thousands" of Scots are going to take apart America? How do you figure? Can you name a single city that the Scots could capture without the population shooting at them from "behind every blade of grass?"

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    19. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Communism absolutely inherently opposes ...

      Technically Marx opposed wealth and leverage. However if one owns something, one also owns the wealth and leverage that thing creates. That's why one of his ideas was partnership or equity ownership. That is, the employees own the business, like accountants and lawyers already do. Since then, another solution has appeared; socialism, where the wealth produced is consumed by the government, on a sliding scale. It is a clever idea the USA has been moving away from for the last 50 years and and such movement was legitimized by Ronald Reagon.

    20. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      You understand the difference between a philosophy of society, and a specific document delineating the views of specific people on how to achieve a certain set of social goals that somewhat match certain tenets of said philosophy, yes?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    21. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and after some time working for the military, I realized that this is what we _pay_ them for. They don't (necessarily) like drawing up plans like "if one third of our naval forces die in a Chinese attack on our Japanese harbor...", but making plans and being prepared is the value that they give in exchange for being paid (by all of us).

    22. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also America put its own Japanese citizens into concentration camps during WWII.

    23. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      The Cultural Revolution was about communism. It was about equality via denigration of wealth and confucianism.

      Communism is not about "denigration of wealth", and it most certainly not about Confucianism.

    24. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by idontgno · · Score: 1

      So, you're claiming that Karl Marx wasn't authoritative on the ends and means of World Socialism? He only invented the damn thing.

      Yeah, I suppose there were a lot of people who didn't believe Mein Kampf either.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    25. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      You're confused. The Cultural Revolution was based on spreading Communism. That in of itself was about getting rid of confucianism and the denigration of wealth. The Cultural Revolution was a "reboot" of Chinese society to be ruled and controlled by Mao Zedong and his supporters (CCP).

      Communism, everywhere is it's ruled has been (and continues to be) and abject failure. It's pure evil. It must be fought and defeated whoever it tries to infect a society. Thermonuclear fallout be damned! The aftermath provides salvation for human dignity and freedom above and beyond the oppressive nature of communism.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    26. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      "Thousands" of Scots

      You're right, of course. Make that "Hundreds". The rest are too busy saving American lives in Afghanistan.

    27. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by fredprado · · Score: 1

      And you do understand that there wasn't a single example of communist regimen that worked in the real World, don't you? Maybe you need to ask yourself if communism is really a pure and benevolent philosophy that has been corrupted by poor implementation or if it is indeed what the results of the attempted implementations show.

    28. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they pretty much did (save the world...) without the USA, Britain would have run out of food and other material. Very likely the Axis would have taken over Europe unopposed, and eventually they might have even been able to win against Russia if they weren't fighting a war on two fronts. That would have left China and the USA as their only opposition...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    29. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      A couple hundred soldiers from anywhere wouldn't even be able to capture Witchita, let alone get there.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    30. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example there is currently a protest in Quebec where they are keeping people from class to protest a tuition hike (of $250/yr).

      Please do not reduce the movement to a grotesque approximation of what you think it is. First, your facts are incorrect, and second, people are definitely not marching in the streets to protest against just that.

    31. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Modern day China is not even remotely close to communism.

      Apologies for having to spell it out for you.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    32. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even though Rand herself does not think so; the most salient arguments against it I have ever read are in "We the Living", it was her first, about something she actually knew and is nothing like her other books. I highly recommend everyone read it, especially if they vehemently dislike her other works such as "Atlas Shrugged." You will probably enjoy it and learn something about the nature of men under communism.

      The problem is not communism, its probably a fine political and social system for some space aliens some place else in the universe. It does not work well humans though. It simply exchanges one system of class and privilege based on monetary wealth, birth, or both for different one. Society must be run by people therefore there are politics. Under communism where and whenever its tried men turn political clout and favor into first a new form of currency which they then use to get more of the old form of currency. Within half a generation you move for the prospect of a future "workers paradise" like Marx describe to an authoritarian regime. Some people are lucky enough to be born (back to by birth) into good communist families and groomed to be future leadership everyone else becomes members of an under class.

      With the added tragedy that production and resources (human and natural) are almost always badly allocated; corruption assures this even if don't believe the invisible hand is the most efficient system of allocation. At least with capitalism society is crudely steered in the vague direction of meritocracy.

      Communism is evil and it should be opposed whenever it is proffered as a solution. We must not be naive though. We have gotten along okay for about 2 1/4 centuries but there are problems with our system. Our freedoms and equality really are being eroded by corruption as well.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    33. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by scot4875 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Religious folks (like myself) will appeal to a higher standard

      Yeah, the one that tells you to kill anyone who works on the sabbath and not wear clothing made of two different fibers? Some standard.

      Also, I think you're confusing "higher" with "imaginary."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    34. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I assume that you'd characterise the US Declaration of Independence the same way? It, too, was a call to violent revolution, in the name of establishing the rights of the people against the tyranny of god-given monarchs.

    35. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by cavreader · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also don't forget the the US provided Russia with trucks, ammunition, food, fuel, and other war related items until the Soviets got their war production up and running. They also had to hunt down quite a few of their key scientists and engineers who had been sent to the Gulags to design and build their own armaments. Russia's initial strategy was to hope the Germans ran out of ammunition before Russia ran out of people charging the guns.

      England would have fallen without US supply convoys. Before the US declared it's official entry into the world quite a few US merchant marines were killed while trying to send supplies to England while Congress dithered and did nothing. FDR was actually counting on the Germans attacking US merchant ships to give him a reason to enter the war. And the Germans tried to avoid firing on US ships but they made a few mistakes which provided some motivitation from the US public to try to do something. As it was FDR made a mockery of the US Congress with his lend-lease and safe zone expansion. If the US had not been successful in the war he would have been impeached. He also blatantly defied the US Congress ban on domestic spying looking for German agents. Right after Congress passed their law he just issued a Presidential memo to the justice department telling them to ignore Congress. FDR blatantly violated the US constitution with his actions but I saw a documentary where Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all agreed there are times when breaking the rules are justified and they would have did the same type of things that FDR did. Carter's response to this question was the most unexpected. Of course Lincoln also violated the Constitution during the Civil War as another example of a President trying to help the country regardless of the political BS involved in running a war.

    36. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism is not about "denigration of wealth".

      Yes, actually, that's exactly what it is about. Communism is about being communal and NOT having private property. Marx & Engel talk about this pretty specifically.

    37. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war.

      Ask a Vietnamese refugee community about that. Personally, I consider it to be a violation of Universal Human Rights to kill someone because they are a teacher not under Party control, which makes them a competing source of public influence. When the VC went into a new village they would gain the community's trust by helping with the harvest and then kill the teachers, mayors, and community elders, the people of influence, and take over their positions. It was their standard tactic used throughout the war.

      You should study how Communism was implemented during the 20th century before you keep talking about how well Communist states respected human rights. For one thing, simply disagreeing with the government could get you shot. I'm not talking about agitation or sedition, I'm talking about someone being overheard in the street mentioning that they don't like the latest economic policy. For another, in one of China's great experiments, they forced everybody in the country to wear the same style of clothing.

    38. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      College philosopher profs are like mafia lawyers. They have a huge incentive to try finding ways of explaining why stealing from people to fund their tenure is right. It was an embarrassment to even attend lecture with some of these contradictory thieves, who sought to get our approval for their misdeeds.

      Universality of rights is a very simple thing to figure out, provided you aren't just trying to reason away beliefs acquired prior to or in the absence reason. It is unfortunate, because it is very difficult to reason someone out of positions they gained through non-reasoning. Childhood indoctrination and trauma in examples such as religion turn into life long pursuits to find justifications ex post facto. That is not something one can deal with by reasoning usually; it requires addressing their lack of self knowledge about the arbitrary culture that was inflicted upon them before they could reason.

      To those who can reason however, rights(or really ethics, since rights don't exist and talking about rights as some tangible thing always strikes me as misleading) can be narrowed down pretty well by simply recognizing a few things: Ideas do not exist in reality, so when discussing ethics, one can only talk about the truth value of propositions. The truth qualifier describes how close an idea reflects reality. Truth requires several conditions, among them are internal consistency and universality when describing rules(arbitrary exceptions are exactly the opposite of ethics). So, any proposition that contradicts itself like 'humans do not act' is not true. Any proposition that is limited arbitrarily like 'all rocks fall in the presence of gravity except pink ones' is similarly not true. So, this lets us refute a great many ethical propositions right away. For example, the claim that 'rape is ethical' is not true because it contradicts itself. Rape is a specific form of violence initiated upon another. It requires an aggressor and an unwilling victim. To say that 'rape is ethical' is to say it is good that some human perpetrates rape and it is good that some humans oppose rape. This violates any possibility for universality of the ethical rule. It ultimately becomes either 'it is ethical for some arbitrary humans to rape and it is ethical for some arbitrary humans to oppose rape' or 'it is ethical for all humans to rape and for all humans to oppose rape'. Either way, consistency or universality is violated so you can know with certainty that such a proposition is not true.

      That example is a pretty simple template to follow for all violence. Any argument for the initiation of force against another is similarly contradictory. This does not yet prove the non aggression principle, but it does show that any argument in favor of committing violence against people can be dismissed. There is a pretty decent primer that goes into more rigorous detail on the subject called 'Universally Preferable Behavior'. It does a great job of cutting through the relativist crap and all the other ivory tower nonsense that academia uses to obscure and cast into doubt what is right and what is wrong. I strongly recommend it and you can get it for free too so if you have even the slightest interest in ethics not derived from prior prejudice of tax payer sustained academics, it might be worth checking out.

    39. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      universal human rights? that's not why world war ii was fought. i bet you believe in social progress also.

      my suggestion to you is to not do anything political, since social progress towards recognition of universal human rights is inevitable.

      the first openly gay president was james buchanan. before social science idiots decided that their simplistic view of evolution proved that homosexuality was an aberration, and churchfags joined them in denunciation.

    40. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Here's another hint to the historical illiterates who modded the above post "Flamebait":

      "The Eastern Front."

      Have some numbers:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II#Wartime_Statistics_Compiled_by_German_High_Command

      The US did great things in the ETO and with Lend-Lease aid to the other Allies, but the Red Army destroyed far more of the Wehrmacht.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    41. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The entire Manifesto is riddled with calls to violent revolution against the existing social order, and every communist society since (that I know of) has begun that way: through violence and bloodshed.

      Are there any soceties that didn't begin through violence and bloodshed? We don't really know the origins of all societies, but of those that we do, I can only recall stories of invasion or rebellion.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    42. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Colonized by wankers.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    43. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A thought provoking discussion of multiculturalism, etc....a very, very old idea...:D
      http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/neil_macgregor_2600_years_of_history_in_one_object.html

    44. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Well at least they didn't put them in furnaces or work camps did they? Different eras means different decision making and this was just one of the more bad ones when reviewed after the fact.

    45. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Japan was the alternate target for the Atomic bomb.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    46. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any proposition that is limited arbitrarily like 'all rocks fall in the presence of gravity except pink ones' is similarly not true.

      If that's how the universe worked, then it would indeed be true. It doesn't matter whether you find it "arbitrary" or not.

      You assume arbitrary means "wrong." Nonsense. That's just a non sequitur.

      'rape is ethical'

      Then rape would be accepted according to society. That's all that statement implies.

      cast into doubt what is right and what is wrong.

      Those subjective words...

    47. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.

      Eh, nope. UHR assumptions are based on a couple of objective points, thereby making it an objective ethical stance - albeit one that does not define where it's objective view of 'right' originates from.

      It doesn't transcend relativism in any way - it sits alongside it as an internally logical world-view. But there is nothing inherently 'better' about it, unless your specific conscious strongly identifies with the definition of 'right'. But since by your own definition, your rights don't trump mine - you have no ability to tell me that my own conscious should also agree with this definition of 'right'.....

      As it happens I do subscribe to the enlightenment era theory of UHR, and view Milton et all as great minds that we sorely lack today - however, I do not think in any way that this is the 'right' way, or the only way to live a 'good' life. I hold to relativism because it allows me to follow my conscious while living amongst god-fearing mobs, yet doesn't force me to condemn them, nor ride roughshod over their rights or ideas.

      Please don't try to twist such a noble pattern of thought into an excuse to bash anybody who doesn't agree with us. Just live your life as you would - and let others do the same. Maybe we'll get lucky and 'Karma' or $deity will smack down all the wrong-doers (in our opinion ofc :P), but probably not - they'll probably continue to be dicks until the end of their long lives - but at least you and I can do our bit to prevent bad things by keeping ourselves in check.

    48. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by cffrost · · Score: 1

      "Thousands" of Scots are going to take apart America? How do you figure? Can you name a single city that the Scots could capture without the population shooting at them from "behind every blade of grass?"

      How could we open fire on Scottish infiltrators if we're unable to differentiate between friendlies and true Scotsmen?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    49. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point of my post. Your own moral standards are as arbitrary as you accuse mine of being.

    50. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we invade you. Fucking thousands of deeply warlike Scots, and we are going to take your damn country apart - and you know we could.

      "Thousands" of Scots are going to take apart America? How do you figure? Can you name a single city that the Scots could capture without the population shooting at them from "behind every blade of grass?"

      Las Vegas. Theres not much grass there. :)

    51. Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Communism, everywhere is it's ruled has been (and continues to be) and abject failure. It's pure evil. It must be fought and defeated whoever it tries to infect a society. Thermonuclear fallout be damned! The aftermath provides salvation for human dignity and freedom above and beyond the oppressive nature of communism.

      You sound like a violent fanatic. I'm sorry, I don't discuss politics with fanatics. They tend to be too single minded and stuck on their emotional appeals (like "communism is pure evil") to be reasoned with.

      FYI, I grew up in a "communist" country - my passport says "Place of birth: USSR". I've seen it myself, and I almost certainly know what it is much better than you. It's not inherently evil. There were many, many things done wrong there, and a few done right, and overall I much prefer today over what was back then. But "pure evil" is bullshit.

  14. Mass Hysteria by smugfunt · · Score: 2

    The conclusion jumped to is that this is a Taliban attack. However, this is actually quite a common - though unexplained - phenomenon: Mass Hysteria.

    1. Re:Mass Hysteria by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a terribly implausible conclusion, given the prior history of school attacks, and the fact that getting your hands on reasonably noxious(though generally not lethal except in quantity) toxins is pretty damn easy in agricultural areas, especially ones that haven't exactly had OSHA breathing down their necks...

    2. Re:Mass Hysteria by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummm, except this is hardly the first time school girls have been targeted with poison, or acid, or fire, or gunshots.

      It's not like we need to come up with alternate explanations because poison is implausible here -- this is straight out of the Taliban playbook.

      Are you asserting this or things like this haven't happened? I'm not sure why you're suggesting we need an alternative explanation which implies this didn't really happen.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Mass Hysteria by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Agreed, these are fairly typical symptoms of mass hysteria (although I don't much care for the term). I wouldn't be surprised if the blood tests show nothing. And given that a number of the girls have already been released, if it was actual poisoning, the perpetrators don't seem to have used enough to have done serious harm, which doesn't really sound like the Taliban. I wonder if the previous event was genuine? In that case, some of the girls were reported to be in critical condition, but I haven't heard whether they recovered.

    4. Re:Mass Hysteria by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they publicize the campaign to make sure girls' parents get the message? No need to be coy like the US is about drone killings; they are open about their beliefs and methods.

    5. Re:Mass Hysteria by IDtheTarget · · Score: 1

      Because the average rural Afghan doesn't even have a radio. You tell the village elders what you're doing, you don't bother putting it on TV. The stuff on the Internet and TV are for us, not the people that the Taliban want to rule.

    6. Re:Mass Hysteria by smugfunt · · Score: 2

      Ummm, except this is hardly the first time school girls have been targeted with poison, or acid, or fire, or gunshots.

      Granted.

      Are you asserting this or things like this haven't happened? I'm not sure why you're suggesting we need an alternative explanation which implies this didn't really happen.

      I like explanations that are true. The article offered no actual evidence for a Taliban attack. Any conclusion that so neatly fits our prejudices should be subject to special skepticism.

    7. Re:Mass Hysteria by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I like explanations that are true. The article offered no actual evidence for a Taliban attack. Any conclusion that so neatly fits our prejudices should be subject to special skepticism.

      Fair enough. So, from the Article, an Afghan spokesman said:

      "The Afghan people know that the terrorists and the Taliban are doing these things to threaten girls and stop them going to school," Aseer said last week. "That's something we and the people believe. Now we are implementing democracy in Afghanistan and we want girls to be educated, but the government's enemies don't want this."

      The Taliban has offered this explanation:

      But earlier this week, the Taliban denied responsibility, instead blaming U.S. and NATO forces for the poisonings in an attempt to "defame" the insurgent group.

      So, we have two possible answers ... one is plausible because it's already happened and they've already taken credit for it ... the other, well, who knows anymore?

      I agree we can't claim either of them as factual. But given that this kind of thing has happened enough before ... it's hard to discount it as a likely theory.

      Hell, I find it fairly likely that someone who did this in the past with the Taliban just went ahead and did it on their own on the assumption that if it was a good thing to do then, it must still be.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    8. Re:Mass Hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not a terribly implausible conclusion..."

      Mass hysteria? Or, it could be the CIA setting up the Taliban for bad publicity. Or, it could be a ploy by the schools themselves, in an effort to garner education funding. Or, it could be one, single crazy-fuck doing this all on his own (why not? we've bred worse here at home). Or, it could be Karzai trying to keep the US in-country, spending money.

      Slippery slope, my friend.

    9. Re:Mass Hysteria by EdIII · · Score: 1

      An alternative explanation may be required because the Taliban is claiming they did not do it.

      That I find interesting because it's not like the Taliban has a problem with taking credit for stuff like this. If they say they did not do it we might want to explore alternate explanations.

      Personally, I don't believe it was mass hysteria either. More than likely somebody not affiliated with the Taliban, or acting without orders from higher ups. Religious extremism is rampant in that country and the Taliban probably organizes only a fraction of it.

  15. So wrong by Wingfat · · Score: 0

    I know that there are bad people around the world. but this has to be stopped. The whole religion holding down the masses in any country is upsetting. USA was founded on freedom of Religion (I am a minister of UCL, subdivision of Norse Gods) But they don’t want me to start churches for it ;-) hehehe. What we really need to do as /.ers is find evidence of Alien life that they cannot dispute, end all religions and start over with something more fitting like a “Book of How to be Chivalrous”.

    1. Re:So wrong by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      ...and start over with something more fitting like a "Book of How to be Chivalrous".

      From an anonymous FaceBook wall:

      Post: "Chivalry is dead!"

      Comment from friend: "Who?"

      And some people I know wonder why I don't have a FB account. :-)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  16. Obviously flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Santorum would have women barefoot and pregnant, Muslims/immigrants/gays in concentration camps.

    1. Re:Obviously flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a downside?

    2. Re:Obviously flaming by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Santorum would have women barefoot and pregnant

      What, all of them, simultaneously? I must have missed that speech.

    3. Re:Obviously flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, who's going to pay for all this!?

  17. Re:This is all part of Romney's war on women! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

    locally grown unicorn

    See, it's true! The Democrats are anti-trade, meaning that they are anti-capitalist! Joe the Unicorn Importer is going to be earning less under Obama's policy!

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  18. A note for naysayers by Quila · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826

    The "Sahih" in this means that the source and the chain of narration of the Hadith is considered to be trustworthy. Of all Sahih Hadith, al-Bukhari is considered the most trustworthy. This means that to the average Muslim, there can be no doubt that Mohammed said this, and therefore that it must be true.

    There is a very small minority of Muslims who reject all Hadith, believing only the Quran is authoritative and that it actually bans following texts such as Hadith. Mainstream Islam considers them to be apostates. Too bad, you remove Hadith, you remove much of the backwards, nasty stuff about the religion.

    1. Re:A note for naysayers by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      The apostate is strong in you today.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    2. Re:A note for naysayers by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So, is the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?

      And if yes, is that because of the deficiency of a woman's mind?

    3. Re:A note for naysayers by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Exactly

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    4. Re:A note for naysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm. How about financing their churches to get where the Christrian churches are already?

  19. NOW We Care... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but when it was the Russians, in the 1980's, instead, we just funded this sort of behavior.

  20. Let's refer to the Afghan people correctly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's an Afghan school, not Afghani. Afghani is their currency.

    1. Re:Let's refer to the Afghan people correctly... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      if that's true, would still be accurate as one form of currency there is women

    2. Re:Let's refer to the Afghan people correctly... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Actually, they prefer young boys.

    3. Re:Let's refer to the Afghan people correctly... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      some do. there are short-lived youtube movies via night vision by our troops of those that prefer cattle, goats apparently being popular

  21. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They catch a cow, and they make manure-bombs out of it. They get a hold of cleaning-supplies, and they use it to poison little girls.

    Somebody better call the Ghostbusters before they get their hands on a marshmallow.

    But seriously though, fuck'em.

  22. The strange irony of Afghanistan circa 2012 by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    It used to be a rather progressive nation in terms of women's rights. I recall a figure that about 60% of doctors there were women at one time. Now, we can directly and indirectly blame the mess that country has become on 30 years of foreign intervention.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  23. Re:Hopefully they will soon make the realization t by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    muslim population is growing. cultures that abuse women have increasing population rate. you'll notice cultures that have more freedom for women have shrinking population. Given a choice and education and opportunity and prosperity, most women have less than 2.1 children

  24. Maybe you should READ more by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MAYBE if you actually read a book you might learn WHY Muslims have such high need of FEMALE doctors. That is because female patients have to be seen by a female doctor or not at all. The statistic sounds so nice but underneath it is a regime of segregated care where QUALITY of care was of no importance whatsoever.

    And 60% of doctors also tells you nothing of the total number of doctors available OR that women (childbirth) need doctors a LOT more then men.

    Careful with your statistics young one, they can be tricky things and easily be used to fool you.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Maybe you should READ more by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      QUALITY of care was of no importance whatsoever.

      So you're saying that women make bad doctors, and that men are even better as ob/gyns?

    2. Re:Maybe you should READ more by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I was citing the doctors number as one example of how much their society has changed post-Soviet invasion. Now, how do you reconcile women not even being able to learn to read with your assumptions that Muslim societies must have female doctors because of gender separation?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Maybe you should READ more by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      QUALITY of care was of no importance whatsoever.

      So you're saying that women make bad doctors, and that men are even better as ob/gyns?

      No, he said that quality was orthogonal to the issue. It simply did not factor in.

      Are you being purposefully obtuse, or did you just read GP comment too quickly?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:Maybe you should READ more by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      You do realize of course that 87.6% of all statistics are completly made up on the spot.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    5. Re:Maybe you should READ more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is so backwards that they're more concerned with female modesty in hospitals than maintaining hygient. Women nurses have to wear long sleeves which get contaminated and end up infecting patients.

      Maybe one day Islam will get its own Frederick the Great and will relax its deathgrip on the minds of the muslim masses. The West is a success because it embraced science and rational thought and put religion in its place, over there, too the left and out of the way.

  25. No, you didn't get it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster did not use "Islamists poison schoolgirls" as a premise.

    The poster did say that santorm was like hitler, and a nutcase, but these applied whether he gets elected or not.

    So the argument is more of the form:

    When crazy-like-hitler religious nuts come to power, terrible things (like the poisoning of schoolgirls) start to occur.
    Santorm is crazy, like hitler.
    therefore, if santorum were elected president, this sort of thing would happen in the US.

    This argument is still pretty weak, as it lacks evidence that Santorum's political agendas match those of Hitler's, fails to consider that the other half of the US population would resist and protest enough to prevent this sort of thing, and also that the powers of the president, however broad, are still checked and balanced by the other houses of government.

    But, weak as this argument is, it isn't as backwards as the straw-man you presented.

  26. Conscience, not conscious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conscience is an internal perception of right and wrong.
    Conscious is the state of being awake and aware.

    (Conscientious is what you call someone who acts according to their conscience.)

  27. Re:Hopefully they will soon make the realization t by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

    Examine the average American co-ed for the effect of education. (SAFETY REQUIREMENT: Latex gloves, face shield).

  28. So you tolerate the poisoning of young girls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the cultural environment (segregation) that makes that type of attack more likely?

    Do a search on "separate but equal"

    Interesting type of tolerance, based on intolerance, you espouse.

  29. No, your stupidity strikes again by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    This hadith has nothing to do with education or with poisoning girls. It's about witnessing in court.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  30. Send Afghan women to my mom's house for lessons. by Bigsquid.1776 · · Score: 2

    My Scotts-Irish mom would teach them how to mash balls and turn men into meek church mice.

  31. The perfect response to a wildly irrelevant post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women aren't people period.

  32. This isn't science news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I come to science.slashdot to read about the latest scientific findings, more and more articles are creeping in with a science tag about humans being crappy to each other.

    Is there a crappyhumans.slashdot page this could be put in?

    Could be just me, maybe other people come here to read about the latest findings from CERN and also catch up on the latest terrorist attacks, I'm willing to concede that.

    If you're not reading this article from science.slashdot I'm sorry to have clogged up your comments with this.

  33. pulled the troops out too early. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pay attention Democrats and other Liberals:
    we went to war to kill the perpetrators of stuff like this.

    the onus of all the girls that die like this are on your stupid heads.

    1. Re:pulled the troops out too early. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Pay attention, politically and historically ignorant AC:

      We went to war to get AL QAEDA.

      There was never a prospect of turning Kabul into San Francisco.
      We cannot make Muslims convert to free-thinking.

      What happened was "mission creep", and it cost the US dearly. Unlike Iraq, A-stan has Pakistan for a neighbor and the "Pakiban" government hate our guts as they take our money to arm against India.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  34. They were also anti-education from day 1 by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Look up a bit of history on the Taliban. When it started they had death squads roaming around the refugee camps in Pakistan killing anyone with enough education to be considered a potential political threat. To sustain rule by the mediocre you have to remove or contain anyone that exhibits more ability to run the country than yourself. Other places do it by the mediocre banding together into large well financed parties, but the Taliban did it with bullets.

  35. You take chances... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the chances you take when you stop making sammiches and leave the kitchen.

  36. Since when... by bmo · · Score: 0

    Since when has it been socially acceptable for people like the Stormfront types in this thread to spout their uninformed bullshit?

    2 Billion people, all terrorists. Right.

    Go back to where you came from, assholes.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Since when... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      A Communist enables all Communists by being Communist, and so does a Superstitionist enable all his/her fellow Delusionals.

      Religion, ALL of it, is based on lies. No Sky Fairie can be proven, and therefore there is no reason to treat belief in such fantastic absurdity with other than contempt.

      The modern anti-education movements are ALL religionist.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Since when... by bmo · · Score: 0

      1. I am a soft atheist Teapot Spotter.
      2. You're not helping
      3. That's a mighty small island you're standing on.

      --
      BMO

  37. The effects of an ill conceived plan by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 0

    On July 3rd, 1979, Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, providing training, weapons and financial support to the Mujahedeen (precursors of today’s Taliban and Al-Quaida). So, without Jimmy Carter’s actions, all this wouldn’t be happening. We would not have had the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, 911 nor all this rubbish right now. And he got a Nobel Peace Prize. What a waste!

    1. Re:The effects of an ill conceived plan by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The Cold War utterly dwarfed the current Al Qaeda/Talisquabble, including 9/11, and cost far more casualties.

      While the 1970s have passed from living memory, in those ancient times the world was racked with contention between great nuclear kingdoms. They waged "proxy wars" because Mutual Assured Destruction preserved the world from nuclear war as it does now....

      Part of wearing down the US was entangling it in the Viet Nam conflict, and part of wearing down the Soviets was wearing them down with an equally worthless set of local clients in Afghanistan.

      The US then made the mistake of trying to teach a pig to sing (which never works and annoys the pig) and must now extricate itself from a trap baited with American hubris.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  38. Without generalizing by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Anyone that would poison a bunch of young women for having the audacity to want to get educated has clearly already been infected themselves by a toxic mind-virus. (in this case some hopelessly perverted sub-cult of islam presumably.)

    Seriously, can we just stop navel-gazing about slashdot rules and acknowledge that there is some seriously f*cked up behavior going on here by some maladjusted maniacs, who are probably just miffed that educated women would never consider dating them.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  39. Re:Hopefully they will soon make the realization t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm smiling as I think about imposing that on the arabs, persians and the 'stans. Even better if fusion or solar sends them back to camel herding.

  40. Re:The perfect response to a wildly irrelevant pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just JPEGs, right?

  41. Re:The perfect response to a wildly irrelevant pos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    theyre people with boobies

  42. Very Likely a POTUS Secret EX-Order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama's hatred of grils is long-standing.

    Since becoming POTUS he has near unlimited material and money resource to attack young females worldwide and expecially in Afghanistan and the USA, being the USA females are his greatest potential enemy, according to a top secret FBI assessment.

    The CIA on the other hand has a super top secret assessment indicating that the day-to-day threat to POTUS stems from Wall Street CEO cocaine addicts like the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America and a shit load of other low lifes.

    The NSA on the other hand has a superduper top top secret secret assessment clearly and finally fingering the CIA cocaine addicts as the root of the problem.

    Yet again the Treasury Dept. has a term paper, not classified as secret, nor top secret, nor superduper to secret, nor top top secret secret but just plan old ascii text (the CIA, FBI, NSA, WH and most of the gov server and desktop machines cannot decode ascii text) that states that all personnel of the WH, CIA, FBI and NSA are fucked and will be out-of-job cum Novermber 2012.

    Lordy lordy Halaluya ! Fuck'n Good News at Last. Like when Elliot Ness said when asked to comment on the passage of the ammendment to repeal prohibition, "I'll have a drink to that!".

    LoL XD

  43. Hysteria by Udom · · Score: 2

    Mass hysteria is most common in schoolgirls, especially in strict environments. Reports of incidents go back hundreds of years occurring in many countries, 12 schoolgirls in LeRoy New York last December, 85 schoolgirls in a school in Blackburn, England in 1965, 600 schoolgirls in Girls Town school in Mexico in 2006, etc, etc. One clue in Afghanistan is that the teachers don't get sick. There are other forms of mass hysteria, including contagious laughter and dancing, (Eijanaika in Japan)... In Nigeria, Congo, Thailand and Singapore there have been outbreaks of penis theft mass hysteria, where adult men believe they have been robbed of their pride and joy by magic. There are lots of articles about the phenomena and various books... Most striking here is that so many Slashdot readers just swallowed the story without thinking.

    1. Re:Hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most striking here is that so many Slashdot readers just swallowed the story without thinking.

      but but but...this is NEWS FOR NERDS!! Only nerds post here, and everybody knows nerds are the smartest people EVAR!

      That was too easy. =\

  44. Clinic bombers, IRA terrorists, African warlords, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serbian war criminals.

    I could go on.

    But you will never accept the truth.

    ironic captcha: airtight

  45. Re:Clinic bombers, IRA terrorists, African warlord by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    Serbian war criminals.

    I could go on.

    But you will never accept the truth.

    ironic captcha: airtight

    OK, so you've stated that there are bad people that are not Muslims. Are any of these groups Christian based and supported by Christians world wide? Do they receive the approval from Christian leaders like Billy Graham or the Pope?

    Didn't think so. Try again. This time provide a list of CHRISTIAN terrorists who have perpetrated acts in the name of Christ that are comparable to 9-11 or even the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

    Until then, I'll gladly accept the truth when you provide it.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  46. now now by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Shitheads will be shitheads.

  47. You put it too easy by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    1.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War

    2.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoist_Spain

    3.- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army

    4.- http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations/northern-ireland-loyalist-paramilitaries-uk-extremists/p9274

    And for the support for this morons in modern times, I can only say that the current president of Mexico is the son of a cristero courier founder of a political party that in WWII was close to Nazi Germany, and also supported by a catholic extremist organization called "El Yunque", "The Anvil" with strong presence in Mexico and Spain. Their predecessors under the MURO banner made several terrorist attacks in Mexico in the late 1960's and 1970's. The movie "La Cristiada", "For Greater Glory" is only a propaganda piece that whitewashes the crimes and murders that these bastards made in 1920's with the explicit support of the Pope. Now it is used for stupid statements like this:
    CRISTIADA - Film on the Brutal Liberal-Masonic Persecution Against the Faith of the Mexican People

    On reality, the Cristero war had a strong religious basis but it had also a very strong economic component since it was a landowner's war against land reform, and used the ignorant masses as pawns to protect their economic interests. In their ignorance Cristero's killed protestants and jews for the crime of not being catholic and murdered or mutilated thousands of teachers and burned dozens of schools. The increasing power of the heirs of these loons in Mexico is what made me to stop attending Mass and stop calling myself a catholic.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!