Slashdot Mirror


EVE Online CSM and Diplomat Killed in Libyan Consulate Attacks

New submitter overmoderated writes first with news of an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. From the article: "The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad." An anonymous reader adds: "Sean Smith, a.k.a. Vile Rat, an EVE Online CSM member, and diplomat for the GoonFleet corporation, was one of the four killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last night. He was 34. A fundraiser is being organized for his children by the Something Awful forums." Update: 09/12 21:28 GMT by U L : Ozma from Something Awful mailed in a link to the memorial thread on the SA forums (including details on the memorial fund).

437 of 680 comments (clear)

  1. Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Nuff said.

    1. Re:Batshit Crazy! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Gotta love those "peace loving muslims" don't you?

      I mean...really? You go apeshit crazy, right and kill people over a fucking film?!?!

      I mean hell...the guys they murdered weren't even involved in the film.....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Eve is Real...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    3. Re:Batshit Crazy! by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      I was there

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Too Soon?

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We've done worse for a piece of cloth (a flag)

    6. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yah, all Muslims were responsible. Just like all people from Colorado were responsible for the Aurora massacre.

      I think this was done by some angry Eve Online players under the guise of a riot.

    7. Re:Batshit Crazy! by morcego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you realize that jews and christians are doing this same type of crap, right?

      No, you are wrong. Jews and Christians are doing EQUIVALENT crap, not the same type. They don't kill people over a film, just over some equally absurd nonsense.

      That's religion for you ...

      --
      morcego
    8. Re:Batshit Crazy! by dywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you realize that the atheists and politicians are doing this same type of crap, right?

      Evil is evil and needs no particular reasoning to justify itself, religious, political, financial, or otherwise.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    9. Re:Batshit Crazy! by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty much. So much for Islam being a "religion of peace." And you know what really grinds my gears? The people who trot out the old line about how this kind of atrocity is a "perversion" of Islam. It's shit all of the sort. Anyone who has actually read the Hadith will know that it's full of hundreds of exhortations to attack and kill infidels. We're not talking one little quote tucked away in the middle of a parable here, we're talking about the thing being riddled with explicit instructions to destroy infidels. These murdering mucksavages are just following orders handed down to them by their imaginary friend in the sky.

      The Cold War was peace and harmony compared to this Islamic fundamentalist shit. This is fucking terrifying.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    10. Re:Batshit Crazy! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Extremists feed of each other. A jewish extremist makes a film ripping on Muhammad, and islamic extremists go on rampage, thereby proving jewish extremists' point to the world, serving his propaganda purposes.

      Maybe we can found a new country, Extremistan, and put them all there to kill each other while the rest of the world enjoys peace and pluralism.

    11. Re:Batshit Crazy! by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

      Gotta love those "peace loving muslims" don't you?

      Be careful there. There are plenty of peace loving Muslims who are not batshit crazy. Don't condemn an entire populous because a handful of murders think they are justified through the eyes of their religion. Society gets to be a pretty cold place when you judge the intent of many based on the actions of a few.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    12. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CubicleZombie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you realize that jews and christians are doing this same type of crap, right?

      You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you. In fact, Jesus specifically told us you would and that we should do nothing. So say anything you want about my religion. It's okay. I forgive you.

      --
      :wq
    13. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you realize that jews and christians are doing this same type of crap, right?

      You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you. In fact, Jesus specifically told us you would and that we should do nothing. So say anything you want about my religion. It's okay. I forgive you.

      Congratulations, you at least have an idea what it means to actually be Christian (more to it than forgiving transgressors, obviously).

      Sadly, very few who claim to followers of Jesus Christ are as wise to the tenements of the faith as you seem to be. Therein lies the issue.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Batshit Crazy! by chill · · Score: 2

      Semantics are at the root of many misunderstandings. Just like many fundamentalist Christians don't know the proper definition of "theory" and ignorantly deride evolution as "just a theory", you don't understand the Islam definition of peace.

      It is "the peace of Allah". That is, peace for those who submit to the will of God. For those who don't submit... that's different. If you want "peace", then submit to God's will. The word "Islam" itself translates as "submission" -- as in submission to the will of God.

      Actually very similar to the bumper stickers "Know Jesus, Know Peace; No Jesus, No Peace". Except many in the Middle East take a literal approach to the interpretation.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    15. Re:Batshit Crazy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you realize that the atheists and politicians are doing this same type of crap, right?

      Actually, I don't. I have never seen an atheist kill anyone because of a film with Muhammad in it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Batshit Crazy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Gotta love those "peace loving muslims" don't you?

      I mean...really? You go apeshit crazy, right and kill people over a fucking film?!?!

      I think it's quite clear what's going on here:

      The film portrayed Mohammad as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake. In one clip posted on YouTube, Mohammad was shown in an apparent sexual act with a woman.

      These guys really hate documentaries!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      They are? Dig me up a recent case where Jews *or* Christians went on a murderous rampage because a film insulted their religion. Go ahead. I'll wait.

    18. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A theatre in Paris was firebombed for showing The Last Temptation of Christ.

    19. Re:Batshit Crazy! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder if you love those "peace loving christians" when they plant bombs and shoot up a summer camp . Or do you make really weak generalizations just when it comes to muslims? The reality is that the muslim terrorists are a tiny minority of the billion+ muslims in the world. To label every muslim a terrorist on par with Al-Qaeda merely does three things:
      1) It legitimizes the terrorists as the only real muslims.
      2) It legitimizes and fuels their calls for a culture war by calling for a culture war yourself.
      3) It pisses off every muslim who just wants to get on with their lives, and turns them against you. Which, incidentally, is again what the terrorists are hoping for.

      So congratulations for doing exactly what the muslim terrorists want you to do. What a good little puppet you are.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    20. Re:Batshit Crazy! by jittles · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Cold War was peace and harmony compared to this Islamic fundamentalist shit. This is fucking terrifying.

      Why are you so terrified? You're not in the middle of it. And people die every day. To be afraid of death is just silly. Now I would not blame anyone for wanting to live as long as possible, but any one of us could die tomorrow of an infection from a cut, a car accident, an illness, an aneurism, or a thousand other things. You can't live your life in fear of every possible thing that could happen. Now if you're a soldier fighting against these people, then you would have to be crazy to not be scared. But all living things must die, and people need to learn to accept it, and not sacrifice all their rights, freedoms, and happiness in an ever illusory sense of safety.

    21. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are plenty of peace loving Muslims who are not batshit crazy.

      Apparently not enough to police the crazies though.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    22. Re:Batshit Crazy! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1, Informative

      So what you're saying is that about 1 billion muslims are not really muslims at all because they don't kill all the infidels? Really? Do you want to go to the local mosques and educate them on that? Or is it just that you didn't actually read the Hadith, didn't read the Quoran, and just go by what some flamebait site like religionofpeace.com says?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    23. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Bigby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've never seen a Muslim kill anyone because of a film without Muhammad in it

    24. Re:Batshit Crazy! by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell that to those killed in the crusades.. or by the inquisition, or dead because of a thousand other dumb fucking reasons.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    25. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and no Christian will kill you.

      Thus setting yourself up to play the "No True Scotsman" card. Meanwhile, a certain mosque in Tennessee keeps getting burned down because the folks who use it deny Jesus was the son of God.

    26. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      No Christian? I wouldn't go that far - look at the abortion clinic bombings, it's not that far from what we are talking about.

      Now, the ultra orthadox Jews are a different matter - even Israel has problems with its Jewish fringe groups, except these aren't really fringe groups - take a look at how tolerant some of them are to Christians in Israeli communities...

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9529123/Vatican-official-says-Israel-fostering-intolerance-of-Christianity.html

    27. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Minwee · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. Only Muslims go on killing rampages.

      And since no true Scotsman would do such a thing, it must be all the fault of foreigners.

      Me? I blame Mick Jones for everything.

    28. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe we can found a new country, Extremistan, and put them all there to kill each other while the rest of the world enjoys peace and pluralism.

      I think the country you were thinking of was Ethniklashistan.

    29. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Yosho · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you read Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or Exodus? Those books are filled with various reasons for which you should kill people (see here), among others.

      Of course, most modern Christians choose to ignore those parts of the bible, aside from the occasional abortion clinic bomber. The only real difference is that there are a significant number of Muslims who haven't figured out that they should ignore the parts of their holy text that say to kill people.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    30. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      Anyone who has actually read the Hadith

      Versus people who have read the Qur'an?

    31. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, you might want to come out of that bubble you've been living in for the past 2000 years or so. Religion has been used as an excuse to commit "evil" acts down throughout the centuries, religious fanatics are currently responsible for the majority of the wars and violence that are occurring all across the globe, today.

      I love how you threw in "atheists" with "politicians" as well, as if they're even close to being one in the same. I'm Roman Catholic, practicing, and I can tell you that the atheists that I have met have all been very reasonable people, some of them are out to start an argument but every group of people is bound to have at least one complete prick in them. On the other hand I can safely say that pretty much every politician that I've met has only been out for number one. The only way they're similar is that politicians and atheists are both trying to present a particular point of view, but you could say the same thing about Gandhi and Mussolini if you wanted. It's a completely meaningless comparison.

      I _am_ religious and even I can acknowledge the severe and unreversable damage that organized religion is causing across the globe. The question is, why won't _you_ acknowledge it? Why are you trying to displace the blame on other groups rather than just accept the fact that organized religion is destroying this country and many others? I would suspect it's due to your own insecurity on the subject.

    32. Re:Batshit Crazy! by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the U.S. kills for resources

      ... and somehow you think this is the same thing?

      --
      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...
    33. Re:Batshit Crazy! by jmottram08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry guy, but making a movie and killing an innocent person are two very different forms of "extremism".

    34. Re:Batshit Crazy! by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try insulting the Party in China.

    35. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do tell when the Jews ever killed anyone over silly shit like this...

      Oh that's right, never, you're simply an antisemite and you wanted to include Jews into your religion bashing as well. You do realize that Jewish is ethnicity not religion right? Judaism is religion. So you don't even know anyhing about Jews. But here, I'll enlighten you, as Jews have been doing for the world since they emerged:

      Einstein
      Feynman
      Opheheimer ... Every other greatest Scientist, Musician, Author... Is a Jew.

      Now do tell what your race did? We Jews compose 0.3% of this planet's population, yet we won over 30% of Nobel Prizes, Field Medals, Chess Masters, Wrote the best and most renowned and thought provoking books... After all, this is why you hate us, because when you look into the mirror... you know that you'll never reach our level... it's not in your genes.

    36. Re:Batshit Crazy! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean we should welcome it's coming and do nothing to delay it.

      --
      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...
    37. Re:Batshit Crazy! by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does God say that isn't said through the voice of men? What we are seeing is a bunch of psychopaths seizing the unbreakable and unquestionable chains of God to lead a bunch of uneducated and disgruntled peons into violence. Don't think we're any different. You look at any major Holy Book and you can pervert it to violence if you so choose. There were Christian fundamentalists at Waco and the Branch Davidians who thought that God wanted them to prepare for the end of days. It's only because we have already went through the Crusades and have a relatively well-educated population that we haven't devolved into a theocratic shit state. We already have the TeaTards pushing an evangelical agenda. If our economy really hits the shitter, and we get rid of secular education, we'd be in the same fucking shit show in a few decades. Heck, you can argue that our invasion of Iraq was driven by evangelical neocons who thought they were on a fucking Crusade to tame the infidels, and a hundred thousand civilians died as a result of the invasion.

      The government of Libya already apologized. The government of Egypt deployed forces around the US Embassy there to protect it from attack. Eventually, the governments will need to send in their police forces and military to crush these violent uprisings. Other than that, there's nothing the US should do unless it turns out that the governments were actually behind the attacks.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    38. Re:Batshit Crazy! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      To further distil your point:

      _______ [b]extremists[/b] are the problem. Fill in the blank, it doesn't matter - the word in bold is the part that does.

      --
      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...
    39. Re:Batshit Crazy! by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      so the epicly vast majority muslims that have never done anything remotely like this are actually not actually muslims? or, are they still muslims, in the sense that christians, that do not follow every tenant of leviticus (as they should be, after all), are still christians? i am confused. what percentage of a faith's teachings must you follow to be considered a follower of said faith? i really want to know.

      --
      ...
    40. Re:Batshit Crazy! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well that was a total failure on my part. You get my point though.

      --
      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...
    41. Re:Batshit Crazy! by darkmeridian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Al Qaeda is shitting their pants that they are increasingly becoming irrelevant to the modern world. Documents from Osama Bin Laden's compound showed that he was concerned that the Islamic world is starting to reject his group's philosophy. If America went into the ME and started slaughtering more Muslims then this would only validate the hardliner's position.

      What should America do? Speak quietly and politely and fucking kill all the bad guys (and only the bad guys) using drones and whatever other military methods we have at our disposal.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    42. Re:Batshit Crazy! by berashith · · Score: 1

      Was it a Jewish film-maker? I had read somewhere that it was a Copt. It seemed to me, that if this was the case, that it would make sense that someone who has been actively repressed and driven from their home country for a religious belief, may try to show the world that those who did this to him may be a tad bit wrong in their thinking. This would be done in the US as we do take in many people, and have freedom of religion and expression. It is amazing that those last two things are so powerfully against someone's myth that they must kill to threaten any more horrible thoughts or words against their beliefs.

    43. Re:Batshit Crazy! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Really?

      I remember some people getting upset and protesting about Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" movie. I don't remember any of them attacking embassies with guns and rockets.

      I remember Piss Christ driving christians nuts and people protesting and vandalizing the image and making death threats. I don't remember any of them carrying out said death threats though let alone attacking a US embassy (the artist was American and got a government grant from the US).

    44. Re:Batshit Crazy! by jittles · · Score: 2

      Of course not. I didn't say that we should do nothing. Like I said, I understand that people want to live as long as possible. But there is only so much you can do, and living in fear is not a good choice for anyone. Especially for Westerners that have nothing to worry about except terrorists. The odds of dying from terrorism in the West is slim, and is not worth the sacrifice we have made to our liberties. Those sacrifices would have never been made if people had a reasonable understanding of what the real dangers in their lives are.

    45. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Cold War was peace and harmony compared to this Islamic fundamentalist shit. This is fucking terrifying.

      Oh please. The Cold War had the potential to destroy human life on this planet. Islamic fundamentalists killed 3000 people with one extremely lucky attack 10 years ago, and a handful here and there ever since.

      You're more likely to die on the road because you're too afraid of terrorists (or the TSA, as the case may be) to fly than you are to die from terrorists. Grow a pair.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    46. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Every other greatest Scientist, Musician, Author... Is a Jew".

      So they're like "Ubermenschen"?

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    47. Re:Batshit Crazy! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *were* doing. Islam today seems to be in many respects much like medieval Christianity - holy wars, oppressive governments, execution of heretics, and so on. Christianity changed. Sure, there are a number of crazies and extremists left - but when was the last time you saw an angry mob of Christians storming a British embassy and murdering diplomats because Dawkins insulted them? When it comes to modern religiously-inspired angry mobs, Islam leads with ease.

    48. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're going to argue something that happened over 6 centuries ago against something that happened like yesterday. Yes, because those are equivalent. I'm not arguing that Christians aren't guilty of some nasty stuff in the name of Jesus and God, but let's argue with some sense and use a modern issue to argue a modern issue. I don't argue that some random guy is really just a rapist because cavemen used to just take whatever woman they wanted. See how ridiculous that is?

    49. Re:Batshit Crazy! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      When was the last time the Jews had the *numbers* to pull off a decent angry mob? In terms of global population, they've been negligable since... well, forever, I think. They never controlled an empire - even at it's height ancient Israel was only a regional power, and the modern state is dependant upon external support for defence.

    50. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hatta · · Score: 2

      A jewish extremist makes a film ripping on Muhammad

      I haven't seen the film in question, so I have to ask how extreme was it really? I've heard that it portrays Mohammed as a war monger and pedophile, but isn't that historically accurate?

      In any case, no matter how detestable the content of the film, it's just speech. The responsibility for the deaths here lies entirely on the heads of the people who meet speech with violence.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    51. Re:Batshit Crazy! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The Christian holy texts are a mess. Two testaments, contradictory rules, and a hundred get-out clauses thought up over the last two millenia. A lot of it is fuzzy statements of intent, easy to interpret as a reader wishes. The Koran is much shorter, and more like a book of rules: It says, in very clear language, how the religion works and what rules believers have to follow. When the Koran says something, it's much harder to justify ignoring it.

    52. Re:Batshit Crazy! by andywebs · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't watch TV 11 years ago? And the films in question would be those that a Mr. bin Laden made, and distributed.

    53. Re:Batshit Crazy! by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      you realize that the atheists and politicians are doing this same type of crap, right?

      Evil is evil and needs no particular reasoning to justify itself, religious, political, financial, or otherwise.

      When has an atheist ever committed an act of terrorism in the name of atheism? Or murdered?

    54. Re:Batshit Crazy! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you

      Times sure have changed:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals

      Then again, maybe not:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Davidians

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    55. Re:Batshit Crazy! by dskoll · · Score: 1

      No, they are not. Please give one citation within the last 100 years in which Jews or Christians killed people because of a film they found offensive.

    56. Re:Batshit Crazy! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like Christians, can't they keep their Breiviks and McVeighs in line? Must be mostly a bunch of crazies right?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    57. Re:Batshit Crazy! by FrangoAssado · · Score: 2

      As someone posted above, this not extremely recent, and did not result in any death, but it's relevant. Now, to be fair, that's not even close to the attack in Libya. I'm just showing that Christianity is not immune to extremely violent fanaticism.

      You also have to consider the context in which this episode in Libya happened -- religion is certainly a factor, but not the only one, and probably not even the most important one. Libya had a bloody civil war a year ago, and is still very unstable; this same US consulate has been attacked a few months ago.

    58. Re:Batshit Crazy! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      "Overrated"? So far not rated at all.

      The Overrated and Underrated mods are meant to compensate for bursts of upmods or downmods when a post first appears. I've never seen them used that way. Really, they need to be retired.

    59. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you so sure that's what happened in this case? After all, the embassy victims had nothing to do with the film. I've seen Libyan muslims claim that this was a planned attack by anti-American militants (a.k.a al Quaeda) using a demonstration as a pretext.

      Even if it was all spontaneous and popular, it's highly likely that the perpetrators have other reasons to hate besides stories about an offensive film.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    60. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jews and Christians are doing EQUIVALENT crap, not the same type. They don't kill people over a film, just over some equally absurd nonsense.

      That's religion for you ...

      Yes, because being killed by Atheists and Scientists is soooooo much better... because they will kill you over *nothing at all*

    61. Re:Batshit Crazy! by kryliss · · Score: 4, Informative

      Planned Parenthood bombings? Abortion doctor killings? These are pretty recent and by religious pro-lifers.... Hmmm Pro life... kill a doctor.... Yep, that's going to lead people to your cause.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    62. Re:Batshit Crazy! by rho180 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When has an atheist ever committed an act of terrorism in the name of atheism? Or murdered?

      I think you'd be hard pressed to dispute that religious persecution (including state sponsored terrorism and murder) occurred in atheist states governed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc.

    63. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      Do tell when the Jews ever killed anyone over silly shit like this...

      you've never read the old testament.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    64. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither Breivik nor McVeigh was a Christian by any rational definition of the term. McVeigh was an avowed agnostic. While Breivik called himself a Christian, he explicitly said that he did not believe in the religion.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    65. Re:Batshit Crazy! by runeghost · · Score: 1

      The Second Jewish War, during the Roman Empire. The Jews of Cyrenaica, Cyprus, and Judea killed somewhere around a half-million Roman subjects and citizens.

    66. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It happens on a pretty regular basis, actually. The popular idea that China is a dictatorship with an iron grip on the populace is a simplistic farce. Yes, there is a strong concentration of power, but even then, the government often bows to the will of the people when they organize demonstrations. This has happened over real estate deals where farmers got the (very) short end of the stick, where corrupt police and local officials have abused their powers, and even over water rights. Some of this is to allow the people to let off some steam so it doesn't turn into a general backlash, but it's also because ultimately, five million military and police are no match for a billion people who want to change directions.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    67. Re:Batshit Crazy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Tell that to those killed in the crusades.. or by the inquisition, or dead because of a thousand other dumb fucking reasons.

      Actually, the Crusades were a string of mismanaged, amateurish and rather farcical campaigns that cost their organizers (i.e. Europe) many more lives than their would-be targets. It was very much like a bank robber shooting himself much more eagerly than his hostages. Kind of lame, don't you think?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    68. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree that extremists are the problem, however there is a distinction.

      When an extremist commits a crime in the name of Christianity, Christian religious leaders will condemn the action and Christians around the world will mourn the victims.

      When an extremist commits a crime in the name of Islam, imams around the world justify the action and Muslims around the world celebrate the deaths.

    69. Re:Batshit Crazy! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      If you think it is just the Koran, you are in for a surprise. Muslim apart of the Koran, follow a series of books called Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet) compiled by various followers of the Prophet. Some of these are extremely contradictory, and suggest Jihad, etc.
       
      Not to mention different sects that somehow manage to interpret the same Koran differently.

    70. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MarkGriz · · Score: 2

      Not to mention, those were individuals, not a group of raving lunatics committing murder in the name of their "peaceful" religion.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    71. Re:Batshit Crazy! by tibit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Feynman would have nothing to do with his origins/ethnicity. He refused being included in a book about "great Jewish men" (I paraphrase), and he'd be probably quite offended by you using his name in this fashion. Yes, what you cite is a fact, but the argument is charged, and he'd want nothing to do with it I bet.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    72. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      it portrays Mohammed as a... pedophile...

      ... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.

      Why, you may ask? Because it's a silly double standard - for example, it's a well known fact that Edgar Allen Poe, considered one of the greatest poets of all time, married his 13-year-old cousin less than 2 centuries ago, yet nobody calls him a(n inbred) pedophile, nor do they accuse his readership of supporting pedophilia.

      Lewis Carroll wrote "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" in order to convince an 11-year-old to let him fuck her, but nobody calls Lewis Carroll a pedophile (well, almost nobody - myself being an obvious exception).

      Shit, a few thousand years ago, the Greeks made a career out of fucking kids, but nobody I've ever met thinks that all Greeks are disgusting perverts.

      But then some non-Muslim makes a movie portraying the Muslim prophet as a filthy child-buggerer, and all of a sudden it's proof positive that every Muslim in the world agrees with pedophilia.

      So, to summarize: Real white people who like to fuck kids == no worries; Possibly imaginary prophet of one of the worlds largest religions is speculated to be a pedo == ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE IN FIRE!!!

      I guess that's not funny; It's stupid. Really, really stupid.





      Note that this post should not be taken as being supportive of pedophilia; quite the opposite. Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.

      In any case, no matter how detestable the content of the film, it's just speech. The responsibility for the deaths here lies entirely on the heads of the people who meet speech with violence.

      Couldn't agree with you more.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    73. Re:Batshit Crazy! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      And now I will have Adam Sandler in my head the rest of the day...

    74. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the film comported itself as though it understood the muslim religion or people with a muslim philosophy. Maybe it proved that it knew more than most americans and was still absolutely insane and horrible (not difficult to imagine given most americans) that might justifiably have lead them to believe that you were a bunch of close minded idiots who didn't deserve to live.

      Q.E.D.

    75. Re:Batshit Crazy! by tibit · · Score: 1

      Well, if the "true meaning of OT" is so radically redefined in NT, then perhaps we can apply the same thinking to the NT, and say, like, it's all really meant all differently. IOW: It's all pretty silly, if you ask me.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    76. Re:Batshit Crazy! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      And as long as more of your own guys die than the population you attack it is ok?

    77. Re:Batshit Crazy! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Other than that, there's nothing the US should do unless it turns out that the governments were actually behind the attacks.

      Yup.. that's the philosophy in the US... exactly that...

    78. Re:Batshit Crazy! by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      23 + 40i%

    79. Re:Batshit Crazy! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I said.

      If you want to reply to someone - by all means. But at least reply to the right person.

      --
      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...
    80. Re:Batshit Crazy! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      The cold war had the potential to destroy all complex life on the planet.
      The war on terrorism has the potential to destroy all complex intelligence on the planet.
      Which is worse???

    81. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In some ways, yes, it is. The mujaheddin in Afghanistan were groups of groups. Some of them were friendly to the West, some at least as hostile as the Soviet hardliners. Their unifying principle was the fight against the Soviets. Eventually, they turned on each other until the Taliban came along, then they chose sides again.

      Libya is similar, though with a population that is generally more metropolitan. Afghanistan's people are generally insular, focused on very local or regional activity. Libya has long been used to working with the world and as such, have a better grasp of how important it is to settle down.

      The problem is that Gaddafi never trusted his military and so kept it weak so that it couldn't mount a coup, and the remaining institutions are similarly weak for the moment. He relied on family members running hand-picked units and on mercenary groups from around Africa such as the Tuaregs that have caused problems recently in Niger, Mali, and Algeria. These groups now have nothing to do but fight and/or sell weapons to try to earn or steal money. A few long-oppressed groups and former Gaddafi loyalists have also armed up, and groups like the Salafists that dream of instituting worldwide Sharia are doing the same. The Salafists are causing their own set of problems in Tunisia and Egypt as well, and have turned up in Syria where the Free Syrian Army (or the group formerly known as such) is trying to figure out how to distance them without alienating them.

      Most of Libya is happy and wants a quiet life with a return of international trade. Until national institutions like the military and police are strengthened appropriately, there will be groups that do as they will and cause mayhem and death. This has been happening for the last year, but it's only now that the US has been caught up in it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    82. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Christians don't try to kill people over a film? Really?

      And look at how they got condemnation and not support from all major Christian denominations. Look at how most Muslims support murder over a film.

    83. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Right, because this is so incredibly far-fetched for any other religion. Tell me you can't see some crazy pissed-off Christian attending a boycott/protest of some movie depicting teh baby jebus in some way and deciding to bring along an automatic weapon and spreading a little gospel of his own at a multiplex.

    84. Re:Batshit Crazy! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      The Cold War was peace and harmony compared to this Islamic fundamentalist shit. This is fucking terrifying.

      Oh please. The Cold War had the potential to destroy human life on this planet. Islamic fundamentalists killed 3000 people with one extremely lucky attack 10 years ago, and a handful here and there ever since.

      You're more likely to die on the road because you're too afraid of terrorists (or the TSA, as the case may be) to fly than you are to die from terrorists. Grow a pair.

      oh islamist fundamentalists have killed millions. it's mostly just some other islamist factions members(or members of different sects in their own country) but still, since that's what it's just all about - turf wars between different factions.

      but really, europe had pretty gruesome terrorism running free for the cold war decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction among others, the basques etc. What we are experiencing now is a decade of unprecedented peace in Europe('90s was literal hell on earth, if only due to Jugoslavia). Compared to that shit the TSA going batshit insane over the current threats is just batshit insane.

      the cold war was anything but cold. it was just cold when compared to the inferno of ww2.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    85. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Chaonici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't buy that. The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech. It's not my problem if Muslim extremists (and even some non-extremists) are insane enough to react violently to something that offends their religious belief. They wouldn't get away with it here in the US, so don't try to excuse it elsewhere.

    86. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      No, the Romans killed Jesus Christ for lese majeste (claiming to be the King of Jewish people).

    87. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you.

      "But since our discourse has now turned to the subject of blasphemy, I desire to ask one favor of you all, in return for this my address, and speaking with you; which is, that you will correct on my behalf the blasphemers of this city. And should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them thither; and when the judge on the bench calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels! For if it be necessary to punish those who blaspheme an earthly king, much more so those who insult God."

      - St John Chrysostom, one of the Church Fathers, and recognized as a saint by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and many Lutherans.

    88. Re:Batshit Crazy! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      if slash was smart, they'd auto-convert the bbs bracket tags to html tags.

      or, well, you know, just STOP using html tags since the bbs ones have taken over, anyway.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    89. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and the implication is that makes Mohammed (and apparently, by association, every Muslim who ever has or ever will live) a horrible person not worthy of attention, right? That's funny.

      It certainly makes him someone we should not look to for moral guidance.

      Edgar Allen Poe, Lewis Carroll

      Both authors, not moral leaders. If you look to the writings of Poe or Carroll for moral guidance you have serious issues.

      Rather, it is a condemnation of bullshit double standards and the egocentric asshats who perpetuate them.

      Why should we not have two standards for two different things? Authors of fiction are not moral leaders.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    90. Re:Batshit Crazy! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      My point is I believe the "no true scotsman" thing to be a pile of bullshit and a copout for people who want to tear down an argument without putting any work into it.

      --
      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...
    91. Re:Batshit Crazy! by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why should we not have two standards for two different things? Authors of fiction are not moral leaders.

      Ever heard of that Bible thingy?

    92. Re:Batshit Crazy! by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

      These guys really hate documentaries!

      These cans! He hates these cans! Get away from these cans!

      You Jerk.

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    93. Re:Batshit Crazy! by AlXtreme · · Score: 1

      Mainstream TV. It has already destroyed all complex intelligence on the planet.

      The terrorists have lost, wohoo!

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    94. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We Jews compose 0.3% of this planet's population, yet we won over 30% of Nobel Prizes, Field Medals, Chess Masters, Wrote the best and most renowned and thought provoking books...

      Unless you personally are a Nobel prize or a Fields (not "Field") Medal laureate, a chess master or wrote any of the best and most renowned and thought provoking books, you have no right to use the word "we" in that sentence.

      After all, this is why you hate us, because when you look into the mirror... you know that you'll never reach our level... it's not in your genes.

      Where is the list of your personal achievements? What have you done with what's "in your genes"?
      No, they hate us because of useless assholes like you. And frankly, the rest of us Jews don't like you and your ilk either.

    95. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You ever stop to think they haven't done worse because they haven't gotten their grimy little hands on something like a nuke, which would do more damage?

      Did you ever stop to think there's a reason they haven't gotten their hands on something like a nuke?

      The world is filled with people incompatible with our society. It's not a real problem unless they are numerous enough. You take something as simple burglars. Do you think your door locks and your local police are enough to keep you safe from them? It only works because the majority of people around you don't want to break into your house and take your stuff. If the majority of people in the world didn't respect property, you couldn't hire enough police to enforce property laws (even assuming that all police officers would be taken from the pool of the minority who do respect the concept of property). Our society would break down if that happened.

      Terrorists are an extreme minority. They do damage, but they're never going to amount to a major problem anymore than burglars will bring down civilization. There aren't enough crazy people, and there will never be.

    96. Re:Batshit Crazy! by alexo · · Score: 1

      You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you.

      Don't be so sure

    97. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Guppy · · Score: 1

      Try insulting the Party in China.

      A couple decades ago, maybe. These days, people openly bitch about the party on a routine basis, online and offline (although any talk of organizing to actually do anything about it will attract immediate official attention).

      A better example would be North Korea, where accidentally damaging your Glorious Leader lapel pin can get you sent to a prison camp.

    98. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Assuming that A) Mohammed was a real person, and B) he was, by period standards, a pedophile, which was my point.

      Period standards nothing. If you fuck a 9 year old you're a pedophile.

      One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...

      It's hardly a fair comparison, as there are no sources that believers claim to be true that would imply that Jesus was a pedophile. Aisha's deflowering at the age of 9 is reported in the Hadith, which believers have to accept as true. Any follower of Islam must reconcile his pedophilia with their belief that Muhammed was a good man, a problem that does not affect Christianity.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    99. Re:Batshit Crazy! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      lets see how many of those in the list you linked to are religious in nature and youtube motivatied.

      April 1999 - two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.
      July 1999 - a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.
      September 1999 - a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.
      October 2002 - a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.
      August 2003 - in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.
      November 2004 - in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.

      so far no religious motivation just crazy

      March 2005 - a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.

      committed against people of said faiths not by them good try though

      October 2006 - a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.
      April 2007 - student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.
      August 2007 - Three Delaware State University students were shot and killed in “execution style” by a 28-year-old and two 15-year-old boys. A fourth student was shot and stabbed.
      September 2007 - A freshman student at Delaware State University shot and wounded two other students at a campus dining hall.
      December 2007 - a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.
      December 2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.
      February 2008 - a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.
      February 2008 - a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.
      July 2008 – A former student shot three people in a computer lab at South Mountain Community College, Phoenix, Arizona.
      September 2008 - a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.
      October 2008 - Several men in a car drove up to a dormitory at the University of Central Arkansas and opened fire, killing two students and injuring a third person.

      still no religious motivation mentioned

      December 2008 - a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.

      not unless christians worship santa claus

      March 2009 - a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.
      March 2009 - a heavily-armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.
      March 2009 - six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.
      April 2009 – An 18-year-old former student followed a pizza deliveryman into his old dormitory, and shot the deliveryman, a dorm monitor, and himself at Hampton University, Virginia.
      April 2009 - a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.
      July 2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shootin

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    100. Re:Batshit Crazy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      No, but it wasn't viable in the long run, unlike the Muslim expansion to India, where with fairly limited casualties on their side, the Muslims managed to kill or enslave as many Indians within a single campaign than the Christians did in all the Crusades combined. So in the context of a discussion on the topic of "The evils of European Christianity throughout the ages", the Crusades are a fairly marginal issue, much less so than the religion-boosted wars between European nations ("we're Protestants, they're Catholics, we'd fight them anyway for loot and land but let's add some extra carnage because of it") and general stomping on freedoms of the common folks.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    101. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you.

      ...anymore.

    102. Re:Batshit Crazy! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      I know it is bad form to reply to ones own post but why am I modded troll?

      everything i said is true.

      Jew and Christians don't kill people over youtube videos
      Muslims obviously do, example this article. not all of them but from the news reports I have seen/read/heard today there is a very large number of them that are more than willing to do so.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    103. Re:Batshit Crazy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "much less so" should have been "much less important"...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    104. Re:Batshit Crazy! by operagost · · Score: 1

      There were Christian fundamentalists at Waco and the Branch Davidians who thought that God wanted them to prepare for the end of days.

      They were all Branch Davidians at the compound in Waco, Texas. Branch Davidians cannot be classified as "Christian fundamentalists" since a large part of their beliefs are not fundamental; that is, they are not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Also, note that Koresh and his followers had not initiated a terrorist attack on any kind. Based on information that Koresh had a meth lab and a bunch of illegally obtained firearms, the ATF attacked the compound. They did this even knowing that the Waco group had been warned, thus guaranteeing bloodshed. I'm not saying this to blame the US government, but to point our that NO, Koresh's group did nothing like storming an embassy and setting it ablaze.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    105. Re:Batshit Crazy! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      What should America do? They should treat the Libian mob in the only way those barbarians will understand: give each of our slain diplomats a grave of a hundred head.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    106. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

      Having worked in the largest Muslim country in the world, I must say all the ones I met are peace loving individuals. It's not Islam that makes people batshit crazy, it's the fact that they're generally poor and/or oppressed. Then someone comes along and say, "I can make your life better if you follow me". The fact that that that someone wants something and their strategy for getting it involves killing "infidels" [the people who have what he wants], is where the problem lies.

    107. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shiftless · · Score: 2

      Anyone who has actually read the Hadith will know that it's full of hundreds of exhortations to attack and kill infidels.

      So who is defined as an "infidel?"

      Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the
      Sabians, any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on
      them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

      -- Quran 2.62

    108. Re:Batshit Crazy! by operagost · · Score: 1

      So all I need to do to make my beliefs above reproach is to threaten violent action whenever they are criticized. Thanks for helping set back both religious freedom and free speech a few centuries.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    109. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean we should welcome it's coming and do nothing to delay it.

      No, but it does mean you shouldn't overreact, act like a fucking terrified idiot, and do the exact opposite things you would do if you wanted to prevent it.

    110. Re:Batshit Crazy! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Poe was real, his characters were not. Your analogy is fallacious. Please stop digging a hole; your argument is lost.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    111. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      You're taking a very Protestant point of view. A great many Christians have an episcopacy that sorts out "what Jesus really meant," who claim authority for determining who is and is not a "true Christian."

      And, of course, many (most?) Christian denominations take a "universalist" point of view, whereby "sinning" (up to and including committing murder) need not mean apostasy or result in excommunication.

    112. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      What a retarded statement. Seriously, slap yourself. Or would you like to be held personally responsible the next time some crazy ass white (or black, or Mexican) person does something crazy? Stop believing propaganda, you fucking racist tool.

    113. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, kind of the same as the "peace-loving" "Christians" who attacked cinema patrons and staff, and firebombed cinemas that showed The Last Temptation of Christ.

      Oh those wacky Christians! What will they do next?

    114. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Miseph · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ah yes, the No True Scotsman defense, that's solid.

      Sorry guy, but I remember the Atlanta Summer Games bombing, the OKC bombing, and numerous other acts of terrorism and assassination carried out by American Christians during the past 20 years. I'll believe that Christians don't do that shit anymore when they actually stop.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    115. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Assuming that A) Mohammed was a real person, and B) he was, by period standards, a pedophile, which was my point.

      Period standards nothing. If you fuck a 9 year old you're a pedophile.

      Except we're talking about a fictional character.

      One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...

      It's hardly a fair comparison, as there are no sources that believers claim to be true that would imply that Jesus was a pedophile. Aisha's deflowering at the age of 9 is reported in the Hadith, which believers have to accept as true. Any follower of Islam must reconcile his pedophilia with their belief that Muhammed was a good man, a problem that does not affect Christianity.

      Okay, so maybe not Jesus particularly - although it is fairly well known in academic circles that what's in the Christian Bible isn't the whole story, so there is a chance Jesus was down with the pedo action, but that part didn't make the final draft for obvious reasons - but fact is, the Bible is rife with references to kid-fucking and incest as perfectly acceptable, even encouraged behavior.

      Genocide is also, apparently, allowed and encouraged by the Christian god, but that's not non sequitur to our discussion, save the much earlier mention of Mohammed as a 'warmonger.' Still, it further impresses my point about the obvious double standard many of us "Westerners" have regarding other people's faiths and our own.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    116. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Poe was real, his characters were not. Your analogy is fallacious. Please stop digging a hole; your argument is lost.

      Right, Poe was real, and really had sex with kids.

      Conversely, Mohammed is not real, and thus didn't really have sex with kids.


      Something tells me, judging by your response, you don't actually know what my argument is.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    117. Re:Batshit Crazy! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Uh, none? The Crusades and the Inquisition were anti-Christian, and many Christians today will tell you exactly that.

      They also weren't religious. They were a land war, and persecution of dissenters to retain political power for the Pope. You need to remember, the Catholic Church wasn't just a religion, it was also a state - and the most powerful one at the time. It's action during those times are the exact same thing corrupt states do (start wars over resources (oil/land) and persecute ideological minorities (communists/heretics)).

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    118. Re:Batshit Crazy! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Have you read Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or Exodus? Those books are filled with various reasons for which you should kill people (see here [evilbible.com]), among others.

      Have you read the legal codes of 33 states of the United States? Those books are filled with various reasons for which people you should kill. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus were presenting a legal system that included capital punishment, not encouraging vigilatism. Shock horror, modern law in the US does the same thing.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    119. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      1. If Poe was interested in 13 year old girls he wasn't a pedophile. Don't confuse "kids" in the legal sense with "kids" in the biological sense.
      2. You think Mohammed was NOT REAL? What do you think of the huge number of historians and writers who say he is real?

    120. Re:Batshit Crazy! by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      I don't buy that. The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech.

      There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

              â" Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

      I suspect the attacks would have happened anyways, as something of a 9/11 anniversary present,
      but the notion that the contents of your speech does not make you liable is entirely incorrect.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    121. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The reality is that the muslim terrorists are a tiny minority of the billion+ muslims in the world.

      If you think about it, that argument holds no water. Where do reputations come from? America has a reputation as bloodthirsty and imperial in much of the world (especially Muslim countries), do you think that means the average American has a personal empire and goes around killing and raping Muslims? No it comes from the actions of the government and our army which is a "tiny minority" of the 300+ million Americans in the world.

      So when there are large groups of Muslims who are really crazy and violent and who get in the news every day for barbaric acts like suicide bombing, acid attacks, honor killings, church attacks, separatist movements, etc... they earn a well-deserved reputation of being a violent religion.

      To label every muslim a terrorist on par with Al-Qaeda merely does three things:

      Maybe I read a different post than you. GP didn't say that, merely made fun of the "peace loving muslim" meme that some tried to establish after 9/11 -- Islam meaning "peace" instead of "submission". Remember that?

      1) It legitimizes the terrorists as the only real muslims.

      How so?

      Let's try this. "Pit bulls are dangerous." So in your world I'm actually saying "Only dangerous pit bulls are real pit bulls?"

      2) It legitimizes and fuels their calls for a culture war by calling for a culture war yourself.

      Buddy that ship has sailed. It's a given in some Muslim countries that the US hates Islam and wants to wipe out Islam and that anybody (politically especially) who doesn't denounce the US is actually an agent of the US. (Or India. Or Israel.)

      3) It pisses off every muslim who just wants to get on with their lives

      Oh, right, remind me when the filmmaker compelled Muslims around the world to watch the film? No, these are Muslims who are looking for something to be agitated about. The Muslims in Libya who went to work yesterday and participated in the economy instead of protesting outside an embassy are proof that your point is completely invalid.

      It's no different than a white supremacist who purposely reads stories about black-on-white crime to get that rush of feeling just and righteous and angry. Well it's different -- I'm sure you'd have no problem seeing that a white supremacist is bad, whereas Muslim supremacists get a free pass from you for some reason.

      So congratulations for doing exactly what the muslim terrorists want you to do. What a good little puppet you are.

      Yeah, all the actors are just puppets of the hidden powers... sure.. and of course since it's a conspiracy there's no actual proof. Convenient for you!

    122. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Except we're talking about a fictional character.

      Not if you ask a muslim. If you believe in Islam, you believe that Mohammed existed, was a good guy, and fucked a 9 year old. That means every follower of Islam must condone pedophilia to at least some extent.

      Christians have it somewhat easier because there are two books. The vengeful god is mostly from the old testament, and Jesus brought a new covenant after which god is all lovey dovey. Now a lot of christians fuck it up by trying to apply rules from the old book to people today, but at least it's possible for a christian to believe what's in the bible without condoning evil.

      So I'm not seeing the double standard. Moderate christians have a way to rationalize away the evil done in their holy book. Do moderate muslims have a similar argument? "Mohammed was fictional" doesn't count, because if you believe that then you are not a muslim.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    123. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 2

      That's an interesting article. This part is great: "Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts.""

      Compare that to the US response to the Libya attacks! "We must not be intimidated by such acts" would have been awesome, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. Instead it's "We condemn all efforts to hurt your religious feelings." Wow, way to take a stand for freedom.

    124. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 3

      The Third Reich had and extensive selection program where only the resourceful and educated jews survived, mainly through US visas and such.

    125. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Some people think the Koran is all there is to it, but the Hadith are a very important component to Islam.

    126. Re:Batshit Crazy! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      I note you did not answer his claim, you just insulted his arrogance. Fair enough, but his original claim still stands. While I am not Jewish, I do find it odd that an inordinate amount of Nobel prizes have been won by a very small ethnic group. Maybe it's cultural, or maybe not, but maybe you can provide something other than insults?

    127. Re:Batshit Crazy! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      By Muslim expansions to India, are you referring to Tamerlane's assaults in the late 12th century, where enslaved hundreds of thousands, and he made pyramids of 70,000 Indian heads when he failed to convert them? That bastard slaughtered just as many Muslims as he did non-Muslims. He's probably not a good example.

    128. Re:Batshit Crazy! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not yet, but 18 inch dishes make the end a forgone conclusion.

      Their grand kids will watch MTV middle east and dress and act in ways that would shock the gayest emo kid like Archie Bunker.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    129. Re:Batshit Crazy! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He would have if he had shown it up against a mosque wall during services.

      As it was all they had to do was ignore him. Otherwise all you do is setup a system that rewards brittle feelings. Asking for a well done steak is 'fighting words' in my backyard! I'll ask you to leave, once, because I'm a gentleman. Doesn't mean I get to go on jehad against ruined beef, world wide.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    130. Re:Batshit Crazy! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      The instrurctions in the Bible to kill folks are contextual. This is the main difference between the violence in the Bible (which apologists of Islam always like to point out is much worse) and the violence in the Quran.

      No one today seriously thinks that when God told Saul to Kill all the Amalekites, man woman and child, that he means for people TODAY to kill the Amelekites, man woman and child. The violence is presented as a historical occurrence, not a guide for how to live.

      But the instructions int he Koran are filled with demands to wage war.
      Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
      Those are not contextual. Those specific verses are used to defend the killing of non-believers all over the world.

      The "pedo" claims actually come from the Hadith, which some Muslims accept as "canon" and some do not.
      Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad supposedly consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and other places). There is much debate on this, with some claiming that there was no true consummation. This specific situation is the really touchy area of debate.

    131. Re:Batshit Crazy! by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Technically, Paedophilia and Ephebophilia are different things.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    132. Re:Batshit Crazy! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      No, not literal men in Scotsland. TRUE men in Scotland. There's a difference.

    133. Re:Batshit Crazy! by samriel · · Score: 1

      Neither Breivik nor McVeigh was a Christian by any rational definition of the term.... While Breivik called himself a Christian, he explicitly said that he did not believe in the religion.

      No TRUE Scotsman is a mass-murderer, either.

    134. Re:Batshit Crazy! by valentinas · · Score: 2

      "Glenn Beck: Well, I'm not sure that God is Kim Jong-Il, but--
      Christopher Hitchens: Well, ask Kim Jong-Il, I think he has a different opinion."

    135. Re:Batshit Crazy! by xevioso · · Score: 1

      2. You think Mohammed was NOT REAL? What do you think of the huge number of historians and writers who say he is real?

      The same thing I think about the huge number of historians and writers who say Jesus/Buddha/other fictional deity was real - good for you, please don't murder me because I disagree.

      No one will murder you. We will just think you an idiot. There are few historical records of jesus existing, but it is generally accepted by real historians, .e., those that make a living doing hsitory and reading Greek, Latin and Aramaic that a man named Jesus, who eventually was called King of the Jews, did exist. There's some debate, but not much.

      As for Mohammed, there are TONS of historical documents that this person existed and led multiple warlike raids upon the Wahabis in the Saudi deserts.
      No one will murder you. You are just an idiot.

    136. Re:Batshit Crazy! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The word is 'pederast' if the child is past puberty. Only very slightly less creepy by today's standards. Historically very common though, even 200 years ago.

      Ref. Jerry Lee Lewis. It was legal even in 1950's with parental consent.

      Not as creepy as Woody Allen. There's a picture out there of Woody with his future wife in his lap at a baseball game. I don't care that she was 18 when he married her.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    137. Re:Batshit Crazy! by eepok · · Score: 1

      My post had nothing to do with my feelings. It has to do with US judicial precedence.

      And I don't care for what religion or reason one kills another, given the history of of humans killing humans, it's almost never been for a good enough reason.

    138. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, claiming I am making a "no true Scotsman" argument. Rather than refute the basis for what I said, just claim I am rejecting them as Christians because they did something bad. However, I am saying they are not Christian because of how they self-identified". McVeigh identified himself as an agnostic the day before his execution. Previous to that he had said that science was his religion. Breivik does identify himself as Christian, but he refers to himself as a "cultural Christian". In addition he refers to "Christian-agnostics" and "Christian-atheists". Since a central tenet of Christianity is the existence of a Creator God, it is a bit of a stretch to consider Breivik to be a Christian in the same way that these rioters were Muslims.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    139. Re:Batshit Crazy! by eepok · · Score: 1

      1) I would not fault you for violent actions in the case of being requested to cook a steak "well-done". ;)

      2) If I genuinely knew that you would likely be violent if I asked for a well-done steak and then did so, you would not be held entirely liable for your violent actions on me and if you hurt others, I would be held at least partially liable.

      Yes, while we all accept that the statement of words of any fashion should not immediately compel the rational person to violent action, we live in a world where they still do. Given the realities of the effects of words on people, we must still be judicious in their use.

      Free speech is not a blank check to do as one wishes without consequence. It is as much as responsibility as it is a luxury.

      But let's change the players a bit. If it wasn't a private citizen that made this video and was, instead, an arm of the American military forces and their goal was to goad Muslims into combat, would there be much protection of the video and its creators? What would be the difference?

    140. Re:Batshit Crazy! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The worst thing I've come across is thighing, I won't describe you can look it up yourself, some things once read can not be unread. I though sure fair enough some way old crap by sick sheep herders. So I tried to find condemnation of this practice in the modern religous world of it's adherents, instead I came across a mass wedding, 200 in fact, in the modern world. What I took to be cute little bridesmaid, instead were brides, ok, so the grooms were likely promised kids as well, nope they were full grown men, no link provide for this either, as some times was is seen can never be unseen. Personally since then I have had real trouble maintaining a open mind about religious freedom, really some religions just suck.

      I would have to question why some governments fail to ensure religious works within their countries fail to adhere to the principles of law and fail to force religious adherents from editing out those parts of those religious works that incite criminal acts. Sorry bit freedom of religion is not freedom to commit crimes nor is it freedom to incite to commit crimes.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    141. Re:Batshit Crazy! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I think you could make the case that a lot of that happened in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants.

    142. Re:Batshit Crazy! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most wholly-secular historians agree that Mohammed was real, and there's a general consensus that Jesus was real as well, and even the Buddha. It's the whole "divinity" question and validity of the theology associated with it that's the eminently doubtable part...

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    143. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Minwee · · Score: 1

      August 2012 - Gunman kills six people at SIkh temple in Wisconsin before being shot dead by police. Suspect is named as white supremacists Wade Michael Page.

      so the only ones that involved religion were either committed against Christians, or committed by Muslims.

      That's a pretty thorough analysis there. Good job.

    144. Re:Batshit Crazy! by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      Misapplying logical fallacies is, of course, a logical fallacy. "Scotsman" is a national identity. It's abusive to add moral and social refinements to that identity per convenience.

      "Christianity" is a moral and theological code centered around the teaching of Jesus Christ, generally accepted as being recorded in the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and usually including other books attributed to Paul and the disciples which are largely, but not wholly, consistent across denominations).

      On the one hand, demographically, it may be convenient to define a "Christian" as anyone who, answering a survey, states that they are a Christian.

      However, internal to Christianity is a series of stipulations on being a true Christian. Christians must acknowledge Jesus as the son of God; they are also required to obey his teachings. Christ is insistent that whether anyone is truly his follower will demonstrate this by their works. (a bad tree gives bad fruit; a good tree gives good fruit)

      Jesus supplies edicts such as:

      “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.Do to others as you would have them do to you.

      “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

      “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

      Are we really going to assert that someone who believes the above passage is the sort that goes around burning down Mosques? Those are just nasty malicious people who happen to have adopted the title of "Christian" because their grandpappy wore it, and they go around persecuting people who don't share the title. They might just as well have chosen skin color, political siding, or even favorite sports team (plenty of news articles about the riots which happen after certain sporting events) to define that identity.

      I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow Christianity's central figure to offer up the definition of who is and is not truly a Christian.

      Of course, that may result in a somewhat narrower definition than most "Christians" would like:
      "There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him—early." -- Mark Twain

    145. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Pilate couldn't just let him go, because a crime was committed. What he wanted is for the Jews to retract the evidence they presented (i.e. being witness to his claims to be the King), so that he wouldn't have to apply the law to a guy whom he considered quite obviously insane and harmless, which they refused to do. Nevertheless, Jesus was executed in accordance with Roman law, not Jewish law, and execution was carried out by Roman authorities, and in a way specific to them. Sanhedrin did indeed want to execute him for blasphemy, but if they did that, it'd be by stoning, not by crucifixion, as prescribed in Leviticus. And besides, they lacked authority to do so (and, of course, Romans couldn't care less about that aspect to do it on their behalf).

    146. Re:Batshit Crazy! by tibit · · Score: 1

      Moreover he detested honorary societies as well either ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    147. Re:Batshit Crazy! by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      America has a reputation as bloodthirsty and imperial in much of the world

      And is it correct? Quite frankly, I find that reputation retarded. America is very much into realpolitik, and the last couple of years had a bunch of real idiots in power, but there is no American empire, and the objective death count is pretty far from falling into bloodthirsty territory. That's why generalizations are dangerous: they are generally wrong, and lead you to respond incorrectly to political situations.

      Pit bulls are dangerous.

      I know where you're going, but this isn't logic class. If the argument is "All pit bulls are dangerous", then yes, it means that a harmless pitbull is actually not a pitbull. And this is what people are going for when they say "Islam is a violent religion, and muslims are dangerous.

      It's a given in some Muslim countries that the US hates Islam and wants to wipe out Islam and that anybody (politically especially) who doesn't denounce the US is actually an agent of the US.

      And you don't see the danger of running with incorrect generalizations? Opinions like that get shot down very quickly here, but the reverse is actually supported. And it is just as dangerous to incorrectly generalize about Muslims as it is about Americans.

      Yeah, all the actors are just puppets of the hidden powers.

      You misunderstand. People who argue that all Muslims are dangerous are puppets not of hidden powers, but of the very open rhetoric of muslim extremists. Not only that, but they do so thinking that they came to that conclusion on their own. Furthermore, it's not a conspiracy. It's just a large mass of people doing what they do best: being stupid.

      It's no different than a white supremacist who purposely reads stories about black-on-white crime to get that rush of feeling just and righteous and angry. Well it's different -- I'm sure you'd have no problem seeing that a white supremacist is bad, whereas Muslim supremacists get a free pass from you for some reason.

      I'd like you to actually point out where I give white supremacists a pass. And please contrast whatever statement you find with my opening about white christian supremacists. You should get my drift right now: incorrect generalizations are always bad. And in this case, they will lead to a global culture war. I'd rather not go down this path again.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    148. Re:Batshit Crazy! by daemonenwind · · Score: 2

      Seriously.

      Like no one here understands what it feels like to need to pull a raid because you're 100 Vespene gas short.

    149. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to ignore your continuing Protestant bias and get right to your Biblical quote:

      But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

      What Jesus does not say:

      But to you who are listening I say: Love my enemies, do good to those who hate me, bless those who curse me, pray for those who mistreat me.

      After all, nobody in the New Testament ever blessed or forgave Judas, let alone Caiaphas or Annas or Pilate or any of the Herods or...

      Jesus says "You should not condemn," but also says "God (i.e. Jesus) condemns." It can very easily be interpreted as "Don't judge, because I've already done all the judging for you; just carry out the prescribed sentences (much like Moses said)."

      (a bad tree gives bad fruit; a good tree gives good fruit)

      Let's take a closer look at what you're paraphrasing, specifically John 15:6

      If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

      Sounds like fire is exactly what is prescribed for those who deny the divinity of Jesus.

    150. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      And is it correct? Quite frankly, I find that reputation retarded.

      I don't think it's retarded. I've heard quite convincing arguments about so called soft imperialism. And of course our actions in our "sphere of influence" are very protectionary. E.g. Cuban missile crisis versus us now wanting to install missile defense systems so close to Russia, China, Iran, etc.

      That's why generalizations are dangerous: they are generally wrong, and lead you to respond incorrectly to political situations.

      Calling America an imperialist country isn't a generalization, it's an analysis of the situation and a conclusion that you personally disagree with. In fact I explicitly said such a statement IS NOT a generalization -- nobody things that "most Americans personally engage in imperialism", like getting grants from a king or something. And nobody thinks typical Americans are going around the world raping and killing with impunity.

      A nation's reputation is almost certainly not based on a generalization of its citizens.

      I know where you're going, but this isn't logic class. If the argument is "All pit bulls are dangerous", then yes, it means that a harmless pitbull is actually not a pitbull.

      Hmm, I'm a little confused. That's actually the opposite of what I was going for. I wanted to avoid that little logic puzzle. Bottom line is when people say "Islam is a violent religion" that is NOT equivalent to saying "therefore only violent Muslims are true Muslims." That's a logic puzzle which isn't characteristic of what people mean in ordinary speech.

      And you don't see the danger of running with incorrect generalizations?

      No because it's not entirely incorrect, especially from the point of view of Muslim fundamentalists -- they are actually 100% right. Their brand of Islam is not accepted or tolerated here, and most people would like to see it wiped out. Only the most limp-wristed college professors ever included the Taliban, for example, under the umbrella of acceptable multiculturalism. Now do you honestly think groups like the Taliban have no support in the broad Muslim world? Just look at newspapers in the Muslim world for your answer. They were the "lions of Islam" who fought superior forces and win with the help of Allah. Of course, Muslim countries don't like terrorism within their own countries -- that's un-Islamic -- but terrorism that helps destabilize foreign powers is awesome.

      Pakistan is a prime example of that, which carefully distinguished the "good Taliban" (state supported operatives in Afghanistan) from the "bad Taliban" (fighters who decided it was easier to put down roots in Pakistan itself and let the Great Satan have Afghanistan for a few years). They do the same thing with terrorist groups who fight in Kashmir. You want to go to Kashmir and kill Indian soldiers? Allahu akbar, here's some guns! You want to stay here? Well you're misguided, you're not understanding Islam.

      You misunderstand. People who argue that all Muslims are dangerous are puppets not of hidden powers, but of the very open rhetoric of muslim extremists.

      Okay, I think "puppets" is the wrong word there. They are obviously not taking orders from the Muslim extremists.

      I'd like you to actually point out where I give white supremacists a pass.

      No, I said you WOULD NOT give white supremacists a free pass, because you can see that white supremacism is bad. You give Muslim extremists a pass, because you said "It pisses off every muslim who just wants to get on with their lives". That's wrong. You're justifying their emotion instead of recognizing it as a symptom of extremism itself. The people who get pissed off about a movie DO NOT just want to get on with their lives -- otherwise, they WOULD just get on with their lives. Billions of people do it every day, it's not hard.

      They are just as extremist as white supre

    151. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Remind me to never let you anywhere near any minors.

      Okay I'll remind you. Don't let me anywhere near minors. Because I'm allergic to coal dust. Oh whoops I used the word "minor" wrong and so what I said makes no sense at all, just like what you did with pedophile!

      It's a real word with a real meaning, instead of mocking me you should learn the correct usage, accept that you were wrong, apologize for being an ass (for bonus points), and move on.

      The same thing I think about the huge number of historians and writers who say Jesus/Buddha/other fictional deity was real - good for you, please don't murder me because I disagree.

      I guess you don't care to share any of your reasoning. Okay then... good for you? Great contribution to the discussion.

    152. Re:Batshit Crazy! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Right, Poe was real, and really had sex with kids.

      Conversely, Mohammed is not real, and thus didn't really have sex with kids.

      So what makes you think Poe was real and Mohammed not real?

    153. Re:Batshit Crazy! by khallow · · Score: 1

      One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...

      What makes you think that hasn't happened yet? There's an awful lot of stuff out there that portrays Jesus, God (the Christian/Jewish one), and any number of human followers in a very negative light. We don't see bombings as a result.

    154. Re:Batshit Crazy! by khallow · · Score: 1

      So what definition of these terms was Breivik using?

    155. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Have you read the legal codes of 33 states of the United States? Those books are filled with various reasons for which people you should kill. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Exodus were presenting a legal system that included capital punishment, not encouraging vigilatism. Shock horror, modern law in the US does the same thing.

      Not sure I get what your point is here. Are you saying that killing is ok as long as a legal authority tells you to do it? I'm sure the Muslims who committed the murders in question here would tell you that the Quran is their ultimate legal authority. They don't see this as vigilantism, they see it as doing what the law tells them to do.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    156. Re:Batshit Crazy! by drkim · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do tell when the Jews ever killed anyone over silly shit like this...

      They killed Jesus Christ for preaching peace, non-violence, and the rejection of greed.

      I believe:

      1. The Romans actually killed Jesus.

      2. Jesus was actually a Jew.

    157. Re:Batshit Crazy! by drkim · · Score: 1

      Yes, because being killed by Atheists and Scientists is soooooo much better...

      Yeaaaaaah....

      I don't remember the headline about the "Atheist zealots" going nuts, and flying a plane in to a building, or machine gunning a car full of Nuns, or blowing up a hotel in Mumbai, or going on a crusade into the holy land, or...

    158. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Disproportionate education and wealth relative to the general population of western society from the 1850s to the 1950s (when nearly all current/past laureates were born)?

    159. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      ONE church, the Catholics, did most of what you cite

      Well that's a horseshit point. Catholics are, and always have been, the majority of all Christians (though it's a slim majority nowadays), and while most modern denominations didn't exist, NONE of their theologies are new. There have always been Christians that believe some or all of those points and they were committing atrocities too. Of course they therefore committed most of the atrocities--it doesn't mean the rest weren't keeping up per capita (the racist crimes of Calvinists alone could, and do, fill books).

    160. Re:Batshit Crazy! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Same goes for Muslims. Most moderate Muslims condemn this shit while the extremists are simply allowed to continue since they are of the same religion after all.

      Same goes for Christians. Most moderate Christians would allow for LGBT rights and even abortion while the extremists are simply allowed to continue allowing their own children to die, set policy in this country etc since they are of the same religion after all (see current political climate in the US, see attacks on abortion clinics facilities, see attacks on stem cell research facilities, see attacks on gays, see KKK, Westboro, ...)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    161. Re:Batshit Crazy! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Likewise, I don't know of any Muslim or Jew or any other religion that kills over an insult since strictly speaking any holy book condemns it and disqualifies such persons from being of such faith.

      But there are plenty of examples: Since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    162. Re:Batshit Crazy! by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Christians and Jews go around blowing up busses and airplanes trying to kill as many people as possible to make their point. - Some have and the point is not to kill as many as possible, the point is to seed terror in a population.

      They regularly storm embassies and kill artists who say things they don't agree with. - Again, some have, read your history. Hitler was a Christian and so were most of his troops and they were all blessed by their churches too.

      They also routinely preach from the pulpit that people of a certain nationality are evil and should be purged from the earth. - Read your Bible, it's full of it. And most evangelical christians would probably agree that non-whites or non-christians are evil and should or will be purged.

      I think you have quite some observation bias. How long ago was the last terrorist attack on US soil by Muslims? How long ago was the last attack on US soil by Christians? The last terrorist attack on US soil was by Christians against Muslims in 2010 where they tried blowing up a mosque.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    163. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Don't tell the Party that comrade.

    164. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Muslims did start it when they took control of Jerusalem in the 700's and then forbade any Christian from going there to pray.... A little religious respect back then and none of this crap would still be going on 1300 years later.....

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    165. Re:Batshit Crazy! by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Go read the hadiths now, and come and tell me it is as awesome as Koran (which I agree is awesome)

    166. Re:Batshit Crazy! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that condemning the Levitical law for having the death penalty is inconsistent unless you likewise condemn the US code of laws. Saying that Christians not executing Levitical law are ignoring bits of their holy book is like saying that US citizens not going out and executing drug traffickers are ignoring their legal code.

      You're calling out religious society for having had the death penalty codified in law in the past, and yet not mentioning all the secular societies that have the exact same penalty.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    167. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Tell that to those killed in the crusades.. or by the inquisition, or dead because of a thousand other dumb fucking reasons.

      As others have said, that was six centuries ago. At some point people need to move on from the past. The Christians have long since moved on whereas the Muslims seem to remain stuck in the 7th century. It's popular here on Slashdot to say that the radical Christians, for example, are the same as or just as bad as Al-Qaeda but does anyone honestly believe that? I cannot recall a single instance where somebody was killed over an unflattering cartoon or even just a cartoon of Jesus. Look at the Muslim reaction to the Dutch Cartoon affair and now this. It's madness. If my choice is between these people or Ned Flanders, I'll take "Hidlee Ho Neighbor" any day.

    168. Re:Batshit Crazy! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      A jerk? Why? The Muslims themselves insist that these things happened, as per Quran, yet they are uncomfortable when they are mentioned. Why is that?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    169. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Tom · · Score: 1

      That's the problem with pacifists and why I don't identify as one even though I am a peace-loving guy who doesn't hurt people.

      We need to kill those fuckers, for one simple reason: They are willing to kill us.

      I am all for engaging in dialog and finding peaceful solutions with anyone who is willing to do the same. But we (as a culture) need to stop pretending that everyone can be talked to. We absolutely need to talk to everyone who is willing to engage us the same way - I am entirely opposed to wholesale invasion of countries, and Afghanistan and Iraq were horrible mistakes. But if someone shoots at you, shoot back and shoot to kill.

      It'll be interesting to see if the libyan police will find the killer and bring them to justice.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    170. Re:Batshit Crazy! by laejoh · · Score: 1

      That's one more thing to add to the list of 'what did the Romans do for us, anyway?'

    171. Re:Batshit Crazy! by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Problem is, if they ever find traces of the precious Unobtanium, the US would invade...

    172. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Christianity changed.

      I'd rather describe it as "bent over massive external pressure". The changes were resisted strongly, for a long time, and a lot of people were killed over it.

      The muslim world has never had a Renaissance or an Enlightenment, and that's why they are still stuck in a time in which I am sure Europe would also be if it weren't for those changes that forced religion out of the way of progress.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    173. Re:Batshit Crazy! by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can found a new country, Extremistan, and put them all there to kill each other while the rest of the world enjoys peace and pluralism.

      Actually we did. We called it "America".

      Not convinced it worked out so well in the end. :P

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    174. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Tom · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. I was kind of wondering if people routinely bring rocket launchers to demonstrations in Libya. Or spontaneously buy them at the nearest 2nd hand shop when the need arises.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    175. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Tom · · Score: 1

      and a handful here and there ever since.

      You, Sir, are an asshole.

      Are your seriously only counting american victims, again? What about the tens of thousands killed for such "crimes" as shaving their beards or allowing themselves to be raped? What about the ongoing civil wars between various muslim factions? What about the Taliban?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    176. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Xest · · Score: 1

      The Christian crusader type terms.

      He literally believes he's a modern christian crusader.

    177. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "but when was the last time you saw an angry mob of Christians storming a British embassy and murdering diplomats because Dawkins insulted them?"

      The only reason for this is because said Christians that you're referring to live in a comfortably protected state.

      But when you consider Christians who aren't, you see a different picture - in Africa many Christians have been equally guilty of slaughter of muslims and so forth, but more prominently you only have to look at what happened in Yugoslavia where the Christian Serbs literally commited one of the worst atrocitiesof the last 30 years against muslim civilians. The troubles in Ireland were as much about inter-Christian conflict as anything else and South America has seen much Christian conflict and terrorist groups to boot.

      Which really goes to show it's much less about religion explicitly and more to do with political atmosphere and poverty. This is why your suggestion that Islam is somehow uniquely violent is utterly stupid, the only way you can make that correlation right now is because currently muslims are the ones living in political and economic environments where this sort of thing can thrive, in part, because largely Christian nations have been responsible somewhat for creating that atmosphere in some cases, the obvious one being Iraq, where Bush/Blair's Christian crusade stirred up a hornet's nest of Islamic terrorism.

      Part the problem of the Western mindset and media is that it's quick to lump disparate Islamic terrorist groups together with Islamic extremists (but that do not resort to terrorism) and muslim civilians all in one basket creating the illusion of a grand Islamic problem. The issue is that it doesn't do the same when it comes to the IRA, Kony's LRA in Uganda, the KKK, Breivik in Norway, the NLFT in India, all committing terrorist acts in the name of Christianity yet it's really no different.

      Islam isn't the problem (well, I say that, but personally I think all religion is a problem as it inherently requires a believer to be irrational, and to often reject logic in favour of, well, plain old bullshit), poverty is, political turmoil is. There are a few nutjobs out there too, these are a problem, but these are the same folk who would be serial killers in a state where religion is less prominent - basically they're societies violent oddities, the problem is that in a religiously vibrant place they find something to justify their psycopathic tendencies with and the means (guns, explosives, and an army of uneducated people) are available to do it on a larger, more violent scale are easily acquired.

    178. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2

      Those genocides weren't in the name of atheism, they were in the name of the totalitarian states that committed them. They weren't trying to convert the people to rational humanists - they wanted them to worship the state rather than god.

      No one has ever tried to prosecute a genocide against irrationality and magical thinking, in the name of making the world a more rational place.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    179. Re:Batshit Crazy! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      well if you're gonna be asinine and not read the post i replied to, i've never seen the jews and christians murder people because of a film with Muhammad in it, either.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    180. Re:Batshit Crazy! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      evil is evil. somehow their genocide is less evil because they werent trying to convert people? just like somehow murder is more murdery if its racially motivated?

      evil is evil is evil is evil is evil is evil. the reasoning doesn't matter.

      lus you contradict yourself when you say that in one sentence, and then follow it with "they wanted them to worship the state not god"....that IS forced conversion.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    181. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No one has ever tried to prosecute a genocide against irrationality and magical thinking, in the name of making the world a more rational place.

      While I don't have any citations handy, I'm pretty sure it has been done. When talking about the span of human history, the word "never" is a VERY strong word.

      For starters, not all those who do things in the name of rationality are actually rational. In fact, it is hard to come up with a definition of "rational" that does not include behaviors that most people would consider "irrational." Rational simply means in accordance with reason or logic. However, when your opening premise is that all men should worship the great spaghetti monster, then that which rationally follows can be rather absurd.

      Logic is a vacuum - it can only restate the truths it starts with. Your set of axioms goes a great way towards explaining your behavior, especially if you are rational.

    182. Re:Batshit Crazy! by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Can't speak for Openheimer but neither Feynman nor Einstein had any time for the Jewish faith. They were Jews by accident of birth, no more. People of the Jewish faith are not necessarily immune to fuckwhittery.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    183. Re:Batshit Crazy! by rho180 · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like a No True Scotsman fallacy. You might as well say that Al Qaeda aren't true believers, they only want the U.S. to stop meddling in the Middle East.

    184. Re:Batshit Crazy! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Given that there's no modern Christian crusader, we already see a problem. And that apparently, he is a so-called "Christian atheist" which by addition of the term, "atheist" means he isn't Christian. This is the point I was coming to. Namely, that the terms he uses to describe himself, aren't applied as most of us would recognize those terms. So it is pretty deceptive to claim, for example, that he is an example of Christian violence, when he readily admits that he isn't Christian by the definition of the word. He identifies himself as "Christian", but doesn't provide the single most important identifying characteristic of being Christian.

      There's been some discussion of the No True Scotsman fallacy. But it's worth remembering here that like many other fallacies, it isn't a fallacy, if it's both true and relevant to the argument. After all, it's actually worth noting that Christians don't engage in routine violence like the cultures of the Middle East do. Even when their core beliefs are challenged or reviled. They could, as has been done in previous centuries, interpret their beliefs and writings in a way that allows for such haphazard violence, but they don't.

    185. Re:Batshit Crazy! by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      Islam demands that the entire world be brought to submission under god by any means necessary.

      The thing is, you can't tell a Muslim what Islam is about. There are many examples of Muslim people living in peace with people from other religions. In Turkey, for example, over 99% of the population is Muslim, but there are lots of Catholics and Jews living there in peace.

      To be a decent person as a muslim is to be a bad muslim, to threaten, burn, rape and kill nonbelievers as a muslim is to earn a guaranteed place in heaven.

      By the same standard, to be a decent parent as a Christian is to be a bad Christian, because the Bible says (for example) "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9). That's not an isolated quote: a lot of Leviticus is batshit insane, with rules about when it's acceptable to kill your slaves, and all sorts of crazy stuff. And that's just one chapter ("Book") of the Bible, in there's a lot more in other parts about killing fortune tellers, mediums, everyone in enemy nations and all sorts of other insane things.

      Of course, it's insane to judge Christians based on these texts. Everyone knows that most Christians are not like that. But for some reason you're not willing to apply the same standard to Muslims.

      It's not productive to judge religions based on what's written on their sacred books. What counts is behavior: if people behave in an unacceptable way, they have to be dealt with, regardless of religion.

    186. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Actually, in a way there's a lot of evidence it is.

      Many studies have concluded that the conflict between Israel, Jordan, Syria, and the Palestines over the years have been as much about raw resources like pure water in such a dry region as a decisive element in causing the conflict.

      In Africa, much of the conflict surrounded the raw materials from mines - blood diamonds aren't merely a funding source for warring groups, but a cause as much as anything else as rivals decide to use violence to try and gain a greater share of said resource.

      Resources - land, water, oil - are at the source of most conflicts.

    187. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Xest · · Score: 1

      No one's saying it's less evil, merely pointing out that it's a completely different issue such that it is not evidence that atheism is a driving force behind extremism, which it is completely true.

      "lus you contradict yourself when you say that in one sentence, and then follow it with "they wanted them to worship the state not god"....that IS forced conversion."

      Maybe, but the point is that it's not forced conversion to atheism, it's forced conversion adhering to the will of the state and it's leadership.

      You've one off on a tangent, the argument was whether atheism has ever been a determining factor in committing an atrocity, not whether dictatorships have done things equally as bad as religious extremists. We all know the latter is true, but it has nothing to do with atheism being a driving force behind any kind of extremist ideologies like religion is, which was kind of the GP's point.

    188. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Sounds to me like a No True Scotsman fallacy."

      If it sounds to you like the no true scotsman fallacy then that doesn't mean it is, it just means you've failed to logically comprehend the discussion at hand.

      It's really quite simple, religious extremists have killed people stating they did so because the people they killed refuse to have the same beliefs as them.

      Dictatorships have killed people because those people wanted to live their lives differently to how the state determined they should live their lives and because they refused to devote their lives to the will of the state and it's leadership.

      What hasn't happened is atheists killing people because those people they would've killed refused to not believe in god.

    189. Re:Batshit Crazy! by rho180 · · Score: 1

      Atheism is a core tenet of Marxism, and you should be able to find many quotes from Marx and Lenin on the evils of religion and how religion is antithetical to the establishment of a Marxist state. If you want to argue that religious persecution in states founded on these principles is merely about maintaining power over the masses, what's to keep a religious person from arguing the same thing about the Inquisition?

    190. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Xest · · Score: 1

      Read my points again, the Inquisition is merely a combination of points 1, and 2, repeating them here:

      1) It's really quite simple, religious extremists have killed people stating they did so because the people they killed refuse to have the same beliefs as them.

      2) Dictatorships have killed people because those people wanted to live their lives differently to how the state determined they should live their lives and because they refused to devote their lives to the will of the state and it's leadership.

      What the inquisition wasn't, is 3. What states based on Marxist ideals are, is 2, but not 3:

      3) What hasn't happened is atheists killing people because those people they would've killed refused to not believe in god.

      What implementers of Marxist/Leninist regimes were against was not a belief in god, but merely the idea that you not do as they wish because you'd been told to do/believe something else by your religious leader of choice. If you went up to Lenin and said "I believe in god, but I'll get on and do what you want" he likely wouldn't have cared. If you walked upto him and said "I believe in god, and my religious leader of choice said your idea is stupid" then he'd probably have shot you on the spot. It was about eliminating other sources of power and control from the equation because such sources of power inherently led to a hierarchy which went against their political ideology and which was hence a threat to their ideology. It was not the inherent belief/disbelief that was in question, but the fact that you would bend to the will of someone else.

      The Inquisition was about the political elite using inquisitors as their security aparatus in the name of religion.

    191. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      2. You think Mohammed was NOT REAL? What do you think of the huge number of historians and writers who say he is real?

      The same thing I think about the huge number of historians and writers who say Jesus/Buddha/other fictional deity was real - good for you, please don't murder me because I disagree.

      No one will murder you. We will just think you an idiot. There are few historical records of jesus existing, but it is generally accepted by real historians, .e., those that make a living doing hsitory and reading Greek, Latin and Aramaic that a man named Jesus, who eventually was called King of the Jews, did exist. There's some debate, but not much.

      As for Mohammed, there are TONS of historical documents that this person existed and led multiple warlike raids upon the Wahabis in the Saudi deserts. No one will murder you. You are just an idiot.

      Yet you are either incapable or unwilling to provide any documentation to back your claims... and I'm the idiot for not taking an anonymous stranger at their word?


      Yea, keep thinkin' that, bud.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    192. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Technically, Paedophilia and Ephebophilia are different things.

      Technically, Ephebophilia (had to look that one up) is specific to 14-19 year old kids, so my referring to Poe as a pedophile for marrying a 13 year old is correct.

      Besides, no amount of pontification will ever convince me that a 40 year old dude banging a teenager is not fucked up.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    193. Re:Batshit Crazy! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Remind me to never let you anywhere near any minors.

      Okay I'll remind you. Don't let me anywhere near minors. Because I'm allergic to coal dust. Oh whoops I used the word "minor" wrong and so what I said makes no sense at all, just like what you did with pedophile!

      It's a real word with a real meaning, instead of mocking me you should learn the correct usage, accept that you were wrong, apologize for being an ass (for bonus points), and move on.

      Or, and this is just a thought, you could google the words you claim I'm using incorrectly and realize that I'm actually 100% correct, then subsequently go fuck yourself.

      The same thing I think about the huge number of historians and writers who say Jesus/Buddha/other fictional deity was real - good for you, please don't murder me because I disagree.

      I guess you don't care to share any of your reasoning. Okay then... good for you? Great contribution to the discussion.

      Back atcha, chief.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    194. Re:Batshit Crazy! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It was an Israeli living in the US. It's not impossible he was a Copt, but quite unlikely.

    195. Re:Batshit Crazy! by rho180 · · Score: 1

      I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Marxist ideals are anti-religion. Marx believed that religion was a shackle on the people that provided illusory happiness and that needed to be thrown off to achieve real happiness. If you want to argue that states founded on Marxist ideals were not true to those ideals, but cynically used them as an excuse to dominate their citizens (a stance that I don't necessarily disagree with), that's fine. It's just that such arguments sound awfully similar to arguments made by religious apologists for the evils of their institutions.

    196. Re:Batshit Crazy! by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      skinheads aren't a relegion but yeah i did mos that one.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    197. Re:Batshit Crazy! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Replace 'must' with 'should' in your third paragraph.

      My point was that what is fighting words when in someone face is just juvenile trolling when put out for general voluntary viewing/reading.

      Rules of polite society don't become first amendment restrictions, ever

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    198. Re:Batshit Crazy! by wermske · · Score: 1

      The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech.

      The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919))

      The propriety of imposing civil liability for negligent speech has been the subject of judicial review since before the First Amendment’s incorporation. Most courts have adopted the Brandenburg incitement test as an evidentiary predicate for intent and causation in cases alleging that dangerous speech caused dangerous behavior and public harm.

      That said, the Brandenburg test (which requires intent and temporal imminence) does not specifically address the aspects of fault or causation in negligent media cases. As a result, Brandenburg has operated to immunize negligent vectors of negligent speech from responsibility.

      There is significant case law and research into tort liability for unreasonably dangerous speech. The history of speech tort jurisprudence (negligent speech in particular) is fairly well documented. Contemporary negligent speech cases typically assert that dangerous or violent media negligently influence dangerous behavior, desensitize society to violence, and can cause others to adopt violent behaviors, in turn causing serious harm or death to themselves or others.

      Importantly, there is supporting case law concerning actions that result in (1 to N-degree) distress in others. Recent research on brain activity reveals vulnerability to media influences and (IMHO) warrants review of the existing jurisprudence.

      INAL - but victims would do well to investigate action against both the source of the speech as well as vectors.

    199. Re:Batshit Crazy! by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      ... because of how they self-identified ...

      and...

      Breivik does identify himself as Christian, but ...

      Auuughaaah! Warning! Warning! Cognitive dissonance alert! Auuughaaah!

      FYI, that "but" is what makes your argument into a classic manifestation of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Wikipedia could append it to the official example list.

    200. Re:Batshit Crazy! by oamasood · · Score: 1

      All right folks, I'm Muslim (gasp)....
      There are actually no "texts" in the Qur'an that say to "kill people", those are only a few verses taken out of context and fed to the public by the right-wing with political motivations. It is absolutely haram (forbidden) in Islam to kill a person - even if they committed a crime deserving capital punishment. (In that case, they must be taken to court and proven to be guilty without a strand of a doubt. Much more burden of proof than is required to put someone on death row today, BTW. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said "It is better to free ten guilty people than to punish one innocent person.")

    201. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So, if I call myself an atheist, but say that I believe in God, you have to still accept that I am an atheist?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    202. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Or, and this is just a thought, you could google the words you claim I'm using incorrectly and realize that I'm actually 100% correct, then subsequently go fuck yourself.

      I googled it since you're too intellectually lazy to do so. "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children."

      Okay, so.. what's the average age of puberty in girls? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?pagewanted=all

      In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens, then a physician’s associate in the pediatric department of the Duke University Medical Center, started noticing that an awful lot of 8- and 9-year-olds in her clinic had sprouted pubic hair and breasts. The medical wisdom, at that time, based on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.

      Alrighty so what have we learned? Pedophiles have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children and female prepubescent children on average start puberty (not finish.. start) before age 10, though it was higher in the past.

      So the question is was Poe a pedophile.
      1. Did he have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children?
              a. Was he interested in prepubescent children? It's possible that a 13 year old girl hadn't even started puberty (delayed onset puberty), but not likely. In a quick google search I didn't see any sources one way or the other, just that she was 13.
              b. Was it primary or exclusive? No, his first relationship when he was 16 was to a 15 year old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Elmira_Royster). He also had a relationship with a Mary Devereaux. I didn't find her age but the implication was she was an adult.

      We don't have to go any further, the argument that Poe was a pedophile has already failed. You failed. You failed hard. You should go cry about your failure.

    203. Re:Batshit Crazy! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      mhm, i guess there's no helping it then ... brace for impact. How about the muslims who don't like the fanatic muslims, who's side are they on ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    204. Re:Batshit Crazy! by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Oh and since I'm feeling particularly generous today, the word you were looking for is pederast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty). You're welcome, ass. You learned something new today!

    205. Re:Batshit Crazy! by drkim · · Score: 1

      Good point. The Jews didn't kill Him, they rejected Him and when given a choice on which prisoner to release and which to crucify, they chose to crucify Jesus. So they didn't kill him, but voted him on to the cross? Subtle difference of course.

      ...but since he was also a Jew, and so (probably) was the other prisoner for crucifixion, what you are really saying is: "Some Jews picked one of their fellow Jew to be released, and another fellow Jew to be crucified by the invading Romans, who only allowed them to pardon one of the Roman prisoners."

      That comes out WAY different than saying "the Jews killed Jesus."

    206. Re:Batshit Crazy! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Try a "Piss Christ" troll and let the world know YOU did it:

      Duplicate the famous Serrano "Crucifix in a glass of urine" troll.

      Find suitable vessels and repeat with a Torah and a Bible, then post visibly on intarwebz.

      Which Superstition is going to Fatwa yo' ass?

      Hint for the historically impaired:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    207. Re:Batshit Crazy! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Citations of specifically similar conduct in similar quantity needed.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    208. Re:Batshit Crazy! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Those were SPECIFICALLY "cult of personality" States which happened to have nominally "atheist" leaders.

      Note also in the case of Russia the Church was welded to the Tsarist monarchy and therefore fit for destruction as a LITERAL enemy of the people. Stalin was nasty but NEVER forget that the Tsars and their Church so wrecked Russia that Revolution was a genuinely "good idea" at the time.

      Thanks for playing though.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    209. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MisterMonday · · Score: 1

      When has an atheist ever committed an act of terrorism in the name of atheism? Or murdered?

      I think you'd be hard pressed to dispute that religious persecution (including state sponsored terrorism and murder) occurred in atheist states governed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc.

      While it's true that state sponsored terrorism has occurred in atheist states (mostly communist ones), we're not talking about a government. We're talking about PEOPLE killing other people in the name of atheism. I have yet to hear of a single instance of an atheist having his views attacked and killing or conducting terrorist activities because of in the name of atheism. And if it has occurred, it's certainly not with the same frequency as other religions. What Stalin did was politically motivated, not "religiously" motivated (insofar as it could even be called religious if it's atheism that we're talking about). NOTE: I'm not attacking any one religion, or even religion as a whole; I'm merely making a point. If I have offended anyone because it seemed like I attacked their religion, I do apologize sincerely.

    210. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      He also says that there are such things as "Christian-atheists".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    211. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

      There is a small town in western Mexico called "Nueva Jerusalén" (New Jerusalem) that had their state built school destroyed by christian extremists 3 weeks ago. The town currently is under the care of a very strong detachment of Federal Police to keep the extremists at bay. The non extremist inhabitants only want their children to go to the school like every other child that goes to the school in Mexico.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    212. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech.

      It can.

    213. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      It's just that such arguments sound awfully similar to arguments made by religious apologists for the evils of their institutions.

      Stalinism isn't "our" institution. It wasn't motivated by the desire to spread atheism, and it isn't recognised as some kind of authority figure to atheism. In all these cases of totalitarian regimes forcing deconversion on their victims, atheism is a requirement, not the goal.

      Given that it's a lack of belief in religion, rather than a subscription to stalinism, it's not proper to suggest that atheists must be apologists for the atrocities of Stalin. It's like saying all people that aren't Jewish are apologists for the holocaust, since not being Jewish was a requirement of the Nazi regime.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    214. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      While I don't have any citations handy, I'm pretty sure it has been done. When talking about the span of human history, the word "never" is a VERY strong word.

      While I can't prove a universal negative, the fact that you have no citations and are only pretty sure doesn't really give me much pause for thought. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it has happened.

      For starters, not all those who do things in the name of rationality are actually rational. In fact, it is hard to come up with a definition of "rational" that does not include behaviors that most people would consider "irrational." Rational simply means in accordance with reason or logic. However, when your opening premise is that all men should worship the great spaghetti monster, then that which rationally follows can be rather absurd. Logic is a vacuum - it can only restate the truths it starts with. Your set of axioms goes a great way towards explaining your behavior, especially if you are rational.

      I don't see what any of that has to do with the point I was making, which is that the explicitly stated purpose of all of these "atheist regimes" was never to improve their victim's critical thinking skills.

      Also, what you're saying smacks of post-modern solipsism. Just because you have to start with some axioms doesn't mean all axioms are as valid as any others. Axioms themselves don't just spring out of thin air - they can be the product of previous rationally concluded reasoning, as well as wishful thinking. From what I've seen there's a robust chain of logic leading from "i think therefore i am" to "there's no reason to believe a god exists, and no reason to believe the laws of physics have ever been violated by supernatural forces, and there is overwhelming evidence that none of the gods purported to date exist". Obviously this is a very long chain that I don't have time to justify here, but what I'm saying is, I don't concede your point, and if I had hours and hours to debate I would.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    215. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      You've completely misunderstood not only what I'm saying, but the entire discussion thread.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    216. Re:Batshit Crazy! by IwantToKeepAnon · · Score: 1

      "These cans! He hates these cans! Get away from these cans!" is a line from "The Jerk", a movie by Steve Martin. There is a man trying to kill Steve's character "The Jerk" and misses and hits oil cans (The Jerk is in a garage). The Jerk sees several cans get hit and comes to the wrong conclusion, "He hates these cans!". The parent comment also comes to the wrong conclusion "These guys really hate documentaries!" therefore the parent commenter must be The Jerk.

      QED

      --
      "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
    217. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 1

      Why, you may ask? Because it's a silly double standard - for example, it's a well known fact that Edgar Allen Poe, considered one of the greatest poets of all time, married his 13-year-old cousin less than 2 centuries ago, yet nobody calls him a(n inbred) pedophile, nor do they accuse his readership of supporting pedophilia.

      Oh, I thought that was Jerry Lee Lewis.

    218. Re:Batshit Crazy! by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      That would depend on your definition of "atheist".

      Some who I would describe as "agnostics" think themselves "atheists" for example.

      Some of those for example believe in God but insist that his existence is by definition unknowable, undetectable and that God once having created the Universe never again interacted with it and does not care nor sustain sentient beings after death. Are they "atheists"? They would say so since their position is that for "practical purposes" God does not exist and that from our perspective God existing and not are indistinguishable.

      As to self-declared Christians, the problem with religions is that not only are they muddled piles of self-contradictory goobledey-gook to begin with, there are also no objective authorities that can arbitrate between people believing themselves this or that. This however apparently does not stop avery member of every obscure spinoff of every religion calling everyone else "Heretics! Apostates!" and themselves "the only true adherents of {fill in your wacky religion name here}".

      And so if Breivik calls himself a "Christian", then he is one pretty much by definition, no more or less than "reverend" Jones or one Adolf from Austria were.

    219. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So, then atheists should be keeping their Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots in line.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    220. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      By the same standard, to be a decent parent as a Christian is to be a bad Christian, because the Bible says (for example) "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9)

      Your argument stems from a misunderstanding of what Christians believe regarding the laws in Leviticus. They were laws for the Israelites. Fin. When Paul pointed out that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews before becoming Christians, it opened the floodgates to the spirit of the law, not the letter (Love God above all, and love your neighbor as yourself). Now this might mean that to be a good Christian (loving others), one must be a bad Jew (not executing your children), but that's what grace is for.

    221. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No TRUE Scotsman is a mass-murderer, either.

      First, No True Scotsman is a bullshit fallacy. Please don't use it.
      Second, McVeigh was raised as a Catholic by identified himself as agnostic.

    222. Re:Batshit Crazy! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Since he said 'we Jews' he gets to use the term 'we' unless he's not a Jew.

      Your English could use upgrading.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    223. Re:Batshit Crazy! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. The Jews have produced a disproportionately large number of intelligent, creative, wonderful people, throughout history immemorial. They have also produced a metric shitload of assholes. Such is the way of things. The moral high ground is not based on intelligence or acclaim; there are intelligent and creative people out there doing evil just as others do good. The Nobel prize, as a measure of achievement, to me is nearly meaningless due to politics. There are plenty of metrics by which I could claim the Scottish are the best race on Earth, if I chose to do so, which likewise could be shown to be irrelevant or unimportant by someone else working from a different perspective. (We do beat everyone except the Russians--barely, and including Jews, significantly--in levels of average househeld wealth in America.)

    224. Re:Batshit Crazy! by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      When Paul pointed out that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews before becoming Christians, it opened the floodgates to the spirit of the law, not the letter

      On the other hand, Jesus said (Matthew 5:17-5:19)

      [17] Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [my ephasis]

      But, I don't pretend to tell Christians what Christianity is about. And of course Jews also have their own reasons not to follow those barbaric rules. I think it's great. My whole point is that Islam should be treated the same way.

    225. Re:Batshit Crazy! by cynyr · · Score: 1

      and those crusade things were just Christians trying to nicely discuss why their religion was better/more correct/etc...

      Way to classify the whole group by the actions of a few.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    226. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      My point was only that the sorts of people who commit genocide for what you consider the purpose of making the world a more irrational place probably feel that they are in fact making the world a more rational place.

      I'm not suggesting that in the case of this article that those committing these atrocities are doing it in the name of rational humanism. I'm just saying that there is nothing that prevents people from committing atrocities in that name.

      History is full of examples where at one time people who held to certain beliefs felt that those beliefs compelled them to commit atrocities, and at other times people who held to what they profess to be the same beliefs felt that the same actions were wrong. People can justify whatever they care to.

    227. Re:Batshit Crazy! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Lewis Carroll's supposed pedophilia or even motivations for interest in the girl are controversial to say the least.

      And the Greeks didn't screw kids, the practices that they used, from time to time, were with boys who were at least 13 and usually older. Technically minors today, of course, but not the same as children.

      Although there have been many situations where children would marry in medieval times, especially nobility, the understanding was usually that the actual consummation would occur when the child was older, indeed, at ages approaching 16-18 or so.

      In much the same way, it is not clear how old Aisha was when she was married to Mohammed, and even if she had been married at something like 9 years old, consummation very likely would have happened later.

      These so-called revelations tend to be due to modern people's misunderstandings of how things used to work in the times they are discussing. Marriage to child brides did not require a "wedding night" and Mohammed had something like nine wives total, so he certainly had other options for partners if he felt the need.

    228. Re:Batshit Crazy! by krischik · · Score: 1

      One has to wonder how "Christians" would react had someone made a movie implying that Jesus was a pedo...

      Well, current studies found that Jesus preferred (wealthy) widows — a group of women which tend to be not under aged.

    229. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      James Doohan ("Scotty", but hand in your geek card if you didn't know that) Married his wife of 30 years when he was 54 and she was 18.

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    230. Re:Batshit Crazy! by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Oh so now we are at the "But, but, they did it too!" kindergarten-level argument.

      But then again by switching to that old canard it seems that you gave up on the idea of pretending that Christians are somehow less violent, less greedy, less power-hungry, less hypocritical or more charitable than everybody else and that they are miraculously immune to ideology-motivated insanity, unlike everybody else and that everybody who does something despicable is magically not a "true" Christian, even though he/she self-identifies so.

      Progress, sort of.

    231. Re:Batshit Crazy! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I was not making the argument that Christians were "less violent, less greedy, less power-hungry, less hypocritical or more charitable than everybody else." I was making the argument that the Breiviks and McVeighs are not in the same category with relationship to Christians in general as the people who carried out the original 911 attacks or the people who carried out the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya are with relationship to Muslims in general.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    232. Re:Batshit Crazy! by t14m4t · · Score: 1

      Interestingly: Christianity was 1000-1500 years old at the time. And Islam is about that old now.

      --
      67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
  2. vr by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    rip vile rat.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:vr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why the hell was this modded flamebait? Its the dude's eve character name!

  3. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by CBung · · Score: 1

    So... if we remove that, the story wouldn't be here at all then right?

  4. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Libya had it all going on, till the western nations went in and fucked everything up. They were closer to a true democracy than just about any other nation on earth, had both oil and fresh water

    Oh yeah, it was a veritable utopia ... wait, I mean [citation needed].

  5. link to fundraiser in SA forums by Qubit · · Score: 4, Informative

    is here.

    (how did story get posted w/o a link?)

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
    1. Re:link to fundraiser in SA forums by CBung · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if the issue is that it seems like 30pages of RIPs, and there is no fundraiser details yet, it's only mentioned in the thread title... will wait and see I guess.

    2. Re:link to fundraiser in SA forums by Qubit · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if the issue is that it seems like 30pages of RIPs, and there is no fundraiser details yet, it's only mentioned in the thread title... will wait and see I guess.

      Fair, but then story should have read "A fundraiser is being considered...stay tuned", or somesuch :-)

      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
    3. Re:link to fundraiser in SA forums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seeing how this is EVE related, the fundraiser is probably part of some elaborate scam.

  6. rip vile rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You will live forever in are harts.

    Goondolences.

  7. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He might be known to a lot of geeks who play the game. Stop being an asshole.

  8. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by greenreaper · · Score: 1

    Right. What relevance does it have as "news for nerds" otherwise?

  9. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    If you think that Libya was "closer to a true democracy" under Gaddafi, you're outright insane.

    Yeah, the islamists that came to replace him are worse. But it was no rose garden there before that, and human rights violations were routine.

  10. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Valor958 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, an EVE Online CSM 'got what he deserved'... how exactly? You have some major rage issues against EVE? Read the article, Sean Smith was the EVE CSM... Chris Stevens was the ambassador. Even then, how would an AMBASSADOR at a consulate deserve to die over anything? Did he set policy? Did he do ANYTHING to these people? Again with a lack of reading... this was in response to a bunch of insecure religious extremists going, as quoted above, 'bat shit crazy' over a movie they didn't like regarding their reverred Prophet Mohammad. So, here's your reasoning in a nutshell. Because a Libyan Christian living in California made a movie supporting his belief that the Muslim faith is a dangerous cancer (his words), these men deserved to die. Hopefully these same folks never see any of these movies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_about_Muhammad Or we may just have WW3 on our hands....

  11. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    If they were so well provided for and happy with the job Gaddafi was doing why did they rebel?

  12. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, I say from the bottom of my heart, fuck you, Sean Smith. You got what you deserved.

    See? This is the problem with radicals; they believe innocent individuals need to suffer for the disagreements of others.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  13. Re:Fundraiser? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Informative

    He wasn't a diplomat he was a tech guy working in the consulate. I can understand the confusion, Sean Smith aka Vile Rat was a diplomat for the eve online alliance Goonswarm and a former member of the CSM.

    He leaves behind two kids so presumably it would go towards them and any funeral costs.

  14. Re:Fundraiser? by heypete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He was a "diplomat" in EVE Online. In real life, he did IT work for the consulate -- he wasn't a diplomat nor any particularly wealthy, privileged person. He's just an ordinary guy doing IT work.

  15. Re:Fundraiser? by masternerdguy · · Score: 2

    vile rat was a csm diplomat for eve online and one of the original goons. csm diplos fly to iceland to discuss game balance.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  16. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He's not making a scientific claim that requires proof, he's stating a bit of history which was something that millions of people were very aware of. Stop being lazy and look for yourself.

    That's why I was asking ... I did and it sounds pretty shitty. It was "closer to a true democracy than just about any other nation on earth (sic)" and that's why it was ruled by one man, Muammar Gaddafi, from 1969 to 2011 and he had a horrible record with political dissidents and human rights.

  17. Don't fall for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you guys actually believe this?? I mean, come on... it's GOONS. They are notorious for pulling pranks like this.

    1. Re:Don't fall for it by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope I was acquainted with Vile Rat, in Eve. This isn't a troll it is genuine.

    2. Re:Don't fall for it by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      You're a bigger fool for not realising this for what it really is. Retaliation for burning Jita. Never underestimate the nerdrage of someone who lost a fully loaded freighter.

  18. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Trolls gotta troll.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  19. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by belo+abismo · · Score: 1

    I hope you get what you deserve too

  20. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    And the West has a long history of deposing people with a 'horrible record with political dissidents and human rights'... to replace them with someone much worse.

  21. Listen to what his friends say about him... by Qubit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...sounds like he was pretty involved in the game.

    It also sounds like he was well-loved. Choice notes from the forum thread:

    • He had some kind of horrible tattoo. A lot of people remember ribbing him for that :-)
    • Gently caress
    • Digital Ebola: "He died doing the job that he loved. He is missed."
    • Arkhamina: "I remember mailing him music in the Green Zone. Friends sent him a headset mic when his was broken. Hard things to find in a war zone."

    And probably my favorite:

    Supercar Gautier:

    Many goons have died, but few goons are destined to have their deaths fiercely politicized by the American media during an election year.

    Through the bullshit media circus, we will know "That was Vilerat, and he was actually way awesome."

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
    1. Re:Listen to what his friends say about him... by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      Apparently one of the guys you could rely on to show up to a tower fight.

      Vile rat

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:Listen to what his friends say about him... by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      His last killboard activity was on July 4th. A true patriot!

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    3. Re:Listen to what his friends say about him... by Digital+Ebola · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wow... I haven' logged into /. in years.

      Sean was a very patient man. You have to be patient to play Eve, especially to play the meta-game of diplomacy. He built a great legacy for in-game diplomacy and it's no stretch to say that he's responsible for alot of the way things are aligned politically in the game. He loved the diplomacy game in Eve because it was a sandbox that oftentimes mirrors real life. He loved people and he was often the voice of reason, not just for game matters, but for lots of real life things.

      Sean made every attempt to be the best person he could be and that rubbed off on alot of us. If I was having a bad day and I needed to vent, he would be there and he would have sane advice. I was really sad when he left the Montreal duty station to move to the Hague, because that meant a timezone difference that's hard to deal with. He managed to keep up with everyone though. He cared about his friends and there aren't many goons that would refuse his advice or insight.

      He wasn't just a IT guy in the FSIMS. He once told me that you can do many things outside of your job description when working for State. He always said that if you were motivated and eager to learn, you could go far there and have a very challenging and worthy career. Naturally, there were lots of things that he couldn't tell us but to say that he was simply a IMS guy is not completely accurate. He lived for it and I have no doubt in my mind that there was not any occasion that he would not rise to.

      I cannot even begin to tell you how hard this has been on all of us. When you talk to someone everyday and share the little things of your day to day life and you share your trials and tribulations and successes, you really miss that person when they are gone. It's surreal, even the possibility of him dying was sort of a standing joke, like it would never happen to him. I guess you think that way about anyone that's deployed in a government or military post because if you stop to dwell on the risks, you break down.

      There's not enough thanks in the world for the guys that work for state or the guys in our military. It's easy to be dispassionate until you know someone that is lost or know someone that has lost. Eve not only lost a great player but a great friend.

      --
      "Network penetration is network engineering, in reverse."
    4. Re:Listen to what his friends say about him... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Do you have stairs in your house?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Listen to what his friends say about him... by Digital+Ebola · · Score: 1

      I am protected.

      --
      "Network penetration is network engineering, in reverse."
    6. Re:Listen to what his friends say about him... by Silent+Node · · Score: 1

      I've spent most of my many years on /. just lurking.

      Might be worth seeing how he worked in the game for some folk.

      --
      "You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit." -A. Ginsberg
  22. "we are ready to sacrifice millions" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    A quote from the dailystar.com.lb

    "We sacrificed dozens and hundreds during the uprising for our dignity. The Prophet's dignity is more important to us and we are ready to sacrifice millions," said mosque preacher Mohamed Abu Gabal who joined the protest.

    Perhaps we had better get started, before more innocent people get the same seemingly random treatment.

    1. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Get started what? Bomb the hell out of the country? 'cause it worked so well all those times you've tried it elsewhere...

    2. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Germany: Peaceful nation.

      Japan: Peaceful nation.

      Yes in fact it did work. We just have to make sure we don't half ass it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It does work when you actually go in and establish a real, honest-to-God occupation regime with your own people on top (rather than playing democracy as you currently do in Iraq and Afghanistan), openly declare the intent of transforming society to a certain set goal, and do whatever it takes to get there and make it stable - and don't leave till you're done. That's very expensive.

    4. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How do you figure out who's an extremist?

      And what's your definition of "extremist"? What do you do if, by that definition, half of the country are extremists?

    5. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That or you decide they just aren't ready, so you reignite old factional wars and leave them to themselves. I'm talking about getting the Sunnis back to war with the Sheites, so the rest of the world can get on with it's business of draining the last of their oil.

      Not exactly peaceful, but Iraq and Iran were busy in the 80s. That's a good goal.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by berashith · · Score: 1

      they are the ones with the rocket launchers

    7. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We didn't bomb the shit out of anybody in WWI. Which was the point I was answering.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by Freddybear · · Score: 1

      Once we light enough of them on fire they'll all be extremists. That will make target selection a lot easier.

    9. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's a despicable goal. If they want to kill each other, that's bad enough, but when you fuel the fires so that they kill more of each other, that makes you directly responsible as well.

    10. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      actually, they like killing each other no matter WHAT we do.

      they just like killing, if your idea varies from theirs.

      and so, if they are so hell-bent on killing people, at least let them work on their own kind and leave us the hell alone!

      not kidding, either. they are a culture of hostility. its part of who they are. there won't be any changes, either, as long as the koran stays intact and unedited. (I'd LOVE to see some tolerance language in there, but I don't expect to ever see any edits done to their 'holy book').

      other religions also need a few phrases of tolerance, but islam leads the pack in terms of 'anger management issues'.

      there won't be true peace until and unless islamists moderate themselves. and we won't see that..... ever. not ever.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, GP wasn't suggesting to just leave them alone. He was suggesting to specifically promote hatred between different groups to escalate the conflict.

    12. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It's no different than helping rebels defeat Gaddafi -- one group that hates us helps weaken another group that hates us. If managed correctly at least it's effective and fairly cheap.

      And why is it despicable? It's not like it would be interfering with peaceful people who would rather be left alone. They invite this sort of attention on themselves.

    13. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      These kinds of conflicts are by their very nature destroying the societies they happen in, and lead to numerous civilian deaths, sometimes even outright genocides. Most of the people who perish in them don't hate you, and couldn't really care less about you.

    14. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by stdarg · · Score: 1

      These kinds of conflicts are by their very nature destroying the societies they happen in

      The qualities that produce these conflicts are already in those societies. Isn't it better to keep them focused on each other rather than focused outwards? I don't believe that terrorism and Islamic radicalism would just die out if we closed our eyes and left them all alone.

      Most of the people who perish in them don't hate you, and couldn't really care less about you.

      The flip side is that most people couldn't really care less about them either.

      The thing about people is even if they don't hate you personally and would in fact like you if they knew you, they can be awfully bad to you. That's the nature of war. When you learned about the world wars in school, I would almost guarantee that one of your teachers said "But what conflict does one German farmer have with a French farmer? Why should they be fighting so much?" or something to that effect. It's our nature.

    15. Re:"we are ready to sacrifice millions" by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We don't need to promote the hate. We just need to ship them lot and lots of AK ammo. They've hated each other for a 1000 years already.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  23. Radicals: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "they believe innocent individuals need to suffer "

    Often, radicals believe there are no innocents.

    They feel that either you must be as militant as they are, or you're just a tool/ally of those they feel are opposing/oppressing them.

    In the former case, you're a fighter for their cause and thus a martyr if killed.

    In the latter case, you are a part of the problem that needs to be disposed of.

  24. Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by gay358 · · Score: 1

    Because US is so hated in many countries, I think they should build the embassies outside city (centers). Then it would be easier to have good fortifications, like double fences, with land mines, machine gun towers, over meter thick walls like in Iraq (although the Iraqi plan included thousands of soldiers, I don't think you really need thousands of soldiers with propertly fortified embassy) etc.

    1. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by jvillain · · Score: 2

      Yes building castles in foreign countries sends entirely the right message. It is certain to dispel the belief that the US is an occupation power.

    2. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by gay358 · · Score: 1

      I think castle outside city (center) with mainly defensive weapons, would result in less aggression and would be easier to handle than the current embassy in Libya. Massive, but mostly passive defences, enable to control the situation with less aggression and with better safety than too lightly fortified embassy. And if it is necessary to use weapons for self defence, if there is bomb attack against embassy etc -- the risk for innocent civilians would be much lower, if the embassy is outside city (center).

      Most countries would not need so fortified embassies, but let's be real -- US isn't exactly liked in many parts of world. Constant military attacks to other countries, supporting in a completely one-sided way Israel -- no matter what it does and many similar foreign policy issues don't really win friends.

      However, building a huge castle inside expensive central areas of city, like in Iraq - is wrong idea even for image, but also for many practical reasons as well.

    3. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      ...or we could stop treating other people like they exist for our benefit and end the cycle of hatred. It is not as though people woke up one day and said, "Let's hate America now!" The United States has done things that have angered people, and instead of working for any sort of reconciliation, we just keep applying the same "make people angrier" formula.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I used to work in a former US embassy building and I'm sure the upper floor could withstand plenty of RPG attacks. It was built in quite a peaceful country so the level of armor on this place is as hilarious as it would have been if the building were in Canada.

      It's basically a massive concrete bunker on pillars with a downstairs area between the pillars. Upstairs has 3ft thick concrete walls and no windows. Another company was up there so I didn't see inside. The rooftop is big and flat with no antennas, walls or flagpoles, ideal for a helicopter to land on.

      Downstairs has bulletproof floor-to-roof glass all around and heavy caging behind the glass. Nothing compared to upstairs but it felt like we were ready for a zombie apocalypse in there. Only one room is fully closed in downstairs (so you had a wall with full outdoor visibility from any other point), it was heavily armored with a big steel door (we used it as a server room). I don't know what the point of this room was, you'd think they would have put it in the much better-protected top floor.

      And it's within walking distance of the core of the capital city.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      Oddly, the U.S. embassy is already the most fenced-in, paranoidally guarded embassy in a quiet, prosperous European country where I live. In no other embassy you are frisked and escorted around the premises by armed military personnel.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    6. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      bullshit.

      moslem hate of non-islamic ideas goes WAY BACK. way before there WAS a country called america.

      nice try, though.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:Build Fortified Embassies Outside Cities by gay358 · · Score: 1

      Muslims can be problematic, but constantly attacking Muslim countries and being the only country that seems to support Israel no mater what it does, will get enemies in Muslim countries. There are huge differences between countries how hated they are in Muslim countries. And usually even non-Muslims don't like get attacked, bombed to stone age etc.

  25. A US ambassador or a random video game player by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Which ones death in an attack on an embassy should I put first?

    1. Re:A US ambassador or a random video game player by David_W · · Score: 1

      Which ones death in an attack on an embassy should I put first?

      ... on a news site dedicated to nerds and technology. Hmm...

  26. Streisand Effect by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Obligatory Streisand Effect link to the video that they are acting against: Innocence of Muslims

    And, for bonus points, here's an emoticon depiction of The Prophet Mohammed: 0-<-<

    Come get me.

  27. Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First it was Afghanistan. You thought that everyone fighting against authoritarian Soviets was automatically pro-democracy and pro-human rights; and what's wrong if they speak of Islam and jihad occasionally? Clearly it's only against the bad guys. And so you gave them money and guns and trained them, and the end result was a country where most schools (build by those very Soviets) were demolished and replaced by madrassas, and secular if authoritarian government replaced by fanatics who were stoning women on football stadiums for adultery after they were raped.

    (Oh, and don't say that you didn't support Taliban. This guy was no better, and most of his troops ended up in Taliban anyway.)

    And what do you get for it in the end? A whole country turned into a giant terrorist training camp that's now working against you, and using those very weapons that you've supplied them to kill your soldiers, and workers that you send to try to rebuild the country. The training camp that produced those people who committed the biggest terrorist act ever in the history of this planet, against the USA.

    Then there was Kosovo. Again, "freedom fighters" against a totalitarian regime and all that. Again, a decade afterwards it's slowly growing to be another place where Wahhabism spreads, only this time in the middle of Europe (and also a major drug transit center to boot, to finance the operation). And, again, the chickens are coming home to roost.

    Now there's Libya. It's only been a year since the downfall of the regime - thanks largely to heavy NATO military backing of the rebel "freedom fighters" - and we've already seen genocide of the black population, widespread persecuting of Christians, and now this act of outright hostility towards USA and the murder of its citizens and representatives. You can go on at length about how the real, democratically elected government of Libya is liberal and all about human rights and such, but what this incident clearly shows is that they're not a government. They're simply not in control of the country. And people that are in control, because they have guns (that you gave them) and troops and determination - people like this - hate democracy and human rights with a passion, and hate you because you are representative of that. And you can't even say that they haven't warned you if you were only willing to see and listen...

    But, hey, that's still not quite enough jihadis, right? Let's create another breeding ground for them in Syria as well?

    1. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You left one thing out.

      There was exactly one positive consequence to the Iraq war. Khadaffy decided to cooperate with the West and end his WMD program for fear that he would be next. What was his reward? As you said, NATO backed the rebel "freedom fighters."

      As a result, NO tin-horn dictator will EVER give up their WMD program.

    2. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, none of the real-world stuff is as simple as you portray it. Libya started as a very real effort by the general population to overthrow a pretty scummy dictator. There were three options: support the government (thank god we learned our lesson on supporting dictators for some very fuzzy "strategic" goal), do nothing, or support the people fighting the government. We did pretty much the best thing we could have: even the fight by taking out heavy armor and artillery, remove the threat of aerial assault, and let the Libyans sort out the rest. We're seeing the results of the do-nothing approach in Syria: a prolonged war that is getting more violent as time goes on, with more extremist elements joining the fight on both sides.

      Libya is a pip-squeak compared to what we're getting in Syria.

      I hate to break it to you, but sometimes the best we can do results in a situation that is only somewhat of an improvement over a total catastrophe. And yet, it is still better than to just sit on your ass. What is it with people who think that if something's not perfect, nothing should be done?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      In other words. We are freeing Islamists around the world from their pimp-lords, rulers, kings, and anyone else that thrives on their oppression. In return with their new found freedom, they are collectively forming an Islamic axis of evil (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc) against Western nations and specifically it's titular head, America.

      Well, fuck em. Them bitches can bring it!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, none of the real-world stuff is as simple as you portray it. Libya started as a very real effort by the general population to overthrow a pretty scummy dictator.

      Not quite. It started as a very real effort by a part of the general population to overthrow a petty scummy dictator ruling in the interests of and supported by the other part of the general population. That's why we eventually called it a civil war, not an uprising.

      But even then, so what? If someone revolts against a dictator, it doesn't mean that they are any better themselves. The problem is that Americans seem to assume that everyone revolting against a dictator is a champion of freedom. In practice, more often than not, they just want a different kind of dictatorship.

      We're seeing the results of the do-nothing approach in Syria: a prolonged war that is getting more violent as time goes on, with more extremist elements joining the fight on both sides.

      There was no such threat in Libya without foreign involvement. To remind you, the loyalist Libyan army has all but steamrolled the rebels by the time NATO intervened. Syria is different because, on one hand, the pro-government side is much more of a minority (it's basically Alawites and some Christians vs the Sunni majority), and, on the other hand, there are already a bunch of states around that are supporting both sides of the conflict - Iran backing Assad, and Arab states backing the rebels. That's what prolongs the conflict.

      I hate to break it to you, but sometimes the best we can do results in a situation that is only somewhat of an improvement over a total catastrophe.

      And, pray tell, in what sense is the situation in Libya "somewhat of an improvement" over what was there under Gaddafi?

      That was the whole point of my post. In none of the cases that I've outlined, the situation is actually better. It is, at best, different, and usually worse, especially when you look at it from western perspective. So why get involved to help one bad guys against other bad guys, and get burned in the process? More importantly, why keep repeating that?

    5. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It's business... Waddya gonna do?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      a prolonged war that is getting more violent as time goes on, with more extremist elements joining the fight on both sides.

      How is this a bad thing? If crazies want to kill each other, let them lest they start killing unrelated people when they have got nothing else to do.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The suggested alternative is to stay away from the fight when a dictator and a bunch of islamist rebels want to hash things out. It's cheaper all around, and the end result is, at worst, the same.

    8. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      We are freeing Islamists around the world from their pimp-lords, rulers, kings, and anyone else that thrives on their oppression.

      It's somewhat more complicated, but it'll do as a simplification.

      In return with their new found freedom, they are collectively forming an Islamic axis of evil (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc) against Western nations

      Iran doesn't belong here. It's a Shiite theocracy, remember, and Shiites and Sunnis (or Persians and Arabs, since that fight also has an ethno-cultural dimension) don't get along well. In fact, you can see it in Syria today - Iran openly backs Assad, while Arab states support the rebels.

      Looking at it purely from a geopolitical perspective, Syria under Assad would actually be preferable to the West, because it would be aligned with Iran, and hence counter-balance the various Sunni states in the region. Don't forget that it borders Iraq, as well. If Alawites get purged from the government (and, likely, from general population) in Syria in the wake of rebel victories, you can bet that the sectarian fight will move on into Iraq. Once that is over, you'll have Iran surrounded by a circle of hostile Sunni states. Why do you think they want nukes so bad? No, it's not to nuke Israel or US. It's to threaten to nuke Saudi Arabia and Egypt in the event they decide to invade.

    9. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      The revolts happened without US influence, yes. And they were nearly crushed when the West decided to intervene.

      And, yes, US was not the main player there (which is why I referred to NATO and not US), but it certainly supported the whole affair big time.

      Also, the UN resolution only established a no-fly zone, and allowed the use of military force against anyone (whether loyalists or rebels) targeting civilians. In practice, the way it was implemented by NATO countries, they only ever targeted loyalists - despite the rebels engaging in open genocide of black Libyans during and after the campaign - and they targeted loyalist targets indiscriminately, even when they were engaging rebel fighters and not civilians. It had actually got to the point where there was coordination established between rebel militias and NATO strike forces such that the rebels would be alerted of the upcoming air strike against loyalist armor & artillery, and time their assaults so that they happen immediately after those strikes. In other words, it was direct military support for one side in a civil war, under the guise of protecting civilian population.

    10. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to repeatedly engage in business that only leads to losses for yourself?

    11. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      I see - the argument is of the type "better the devil we know than the angel we don't". There's some merit to it, but quite frankly, blind application of this leads to.... blindness. As a result, I don't put much faith into that. At some point, you have to do what is right, because the alternative is not doing anything at all - and I quite frankly find that repulsive.

      There was no such threat in Libya without foreign involvement.

      The parallels of the war in Syria are much closer than you think. The rebels were initially getting rolled everywhere as well. At some point, the government's logistics started to break down, the rebels started to get more defections and more support from surrounding states, and the civil war was one. There is no reason to think that Ghaddafi would have just crushed the rebels as easily as you make it sound. Note that the only thing that happened was a no-fly zone and the destruction of heavy weaponry; the only real advantage that Ghaddafi had. With that gone, the rebels were basically guaranteed to win. With that in place - which is what is happening in Syria - it comes down to how hated the ruler is, how many defections from the army occur, and whether someone is willing to feed weapons into the country. All three of which were happening.

      Syria is different because, on one hand, the pro-government side is much more of a minority

      And Ghaddafi relied almost exclusively on support from his tribe and hired goons from Africa to protect his rule. I don't think they're as different as you make it sound.

      It is, at best, different, and usually worse, especially when you look at it from western perspective.

      I'm not sure you realize just how short-sighted and self-congratulatingly cynical your view is. The best thing that can happen is that you get another dictator like Ghaddafi in place? Really? As for whether it is worse in the three situations you cited, Kosovo is flat out wrong (you really wanted a full on Balkan war in Europe?), and Libya and Syria are more a function of msulim extremists infecting every unstable government in Africa and the near East than a fundamental problem with revolutions.

      If anything, it shows that the threat of muslim extremists is far worse than just an occasional bombing in Europe and the US: it can lead to the long-term failure of an entire geographical region to establish proper governance. That alone should warrant the involvement of Europe and the US in the region to make sure that conflicts are as short as possible.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because instability breeds more instability. And the crazies are already killing unrelated people. Unless, of course, you mean that everyone east of the US is crazy, and should just annihilate themselves.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    13. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      I see - the argument is of the type "better the devil we know than the angel we don't".

      No, the argument is that the one we don't know is the devil also - we know enough to determine that.

      And Ghaddafi relied almost exclusively on support from his tribe and hired goons from Africa to protect his rule.

      Not just on his own tribe. There were a number of tribes aligned with him. Did you miss the part where, after the end of the civil war, rebel militias have evicted citizens of several towns for being "pro-Gaddafi"?

      "Hired goons from Africa" was mostly rebel propaganda they've used to justify their genocide against black Libyans. To date, there has been very scant evidence of those mythical black mercenaries. At the same time, in several cases where rebels have claimed to have captured mercenaries, Red Cross and Amnesty International managed to intervene, and found out that the guys were natural-born Libyans with families and all, who had the bad luck to be passing by in the wrong place ad the wrong time.

      I'm not sure you realize just how short-sighted and self-congratulatingly cynical your view is. The best thing that can happen is that you get another dictator like Ghaddafi in place? Really?

      The best thing that can happen to Libya in a nice world with rainbows and unicorns is a liberal democratic state with human rights and everything.

      The best thing that could be the outcome of the Libyan civil war as it actually went was Gaddafi staying in power but having to negotiate with other factions, and therefore the regime becoming less oppressive. But, hell, at least it would still be secular, and non-Muslims and blacks wouldn't be chased down by mobs.

      Kosovo is flat out wrong (you really wanted a full on Balkan war in Europe?)

      What exactly was wrong about what I said about Kosovo? That it now breeds terrorists? I gave you links. That it's a crime and narcotics hub? It's pretty much common knowledge in Europe, plenty of materials available, just google it. Hell, KLA was actually recognized as a terrorist organization by USA - right until the Kosovo War, where that classification was suddenly and quietly rescinded (and never since reinstated).

      No, I don't want a full on Balkan war in Europe. But I also don't want to see a "war of liberation" which results in churches being burned instead of mosques.

      and Libya and Syria are more a function of msulim extremists infecting every unstable government in Africa and the near East than a fundamental problem with revolutions.

      I never said anything about a "fundamental problem with revolutions". There are certainly numerous cases where revolutions lead to better results. What I was saying is that revolutions where the rebels have a sizeable islamist faction in them seem to lead to "Islamic democracies" that are almost invariably worse, as far as civil liberties and human rights are concerned, than the regimes they replace.

      If anything, it shows that the threat of muslim extremists is far worse than just an occasional bombing in Europe and the US: it can lead to the long-term failure of an entire geographical region to establish proper governance. That alone should warrant the involvement of Europe and the US in the region to make sure that conflicts are as short as possible.

      "Proper governance" is the key word. I'm all for that. The problem is that this isn't what is being done. Instead, the West backs violent goons to dispose other violent goons, and then those goons form the new government. That's how it went in Afghanistan (both in Soviet time and now) and in Libya.

      The only way to establish proper governance is to go in and occupy it. No puppet governments. But that's imperialism, and hence not politically correct. Not to mention, insanely expensive - more so than buying AKs for jihadi "freedom fighters" and dropping an occasional JDAM to support their advance.

    14. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Islamic democracies" work quite nicely. Ask Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia. Those are actually the only Islamic countries I can think of that have an actual functioning democracy. Not sure why you think that they are some backward shithole. Again, the differentiating factor here really seems to be governance, and not religion.

      But that's imperialism, and hence not politically correct. Not to mention, insanely expensive - more so than buying AKs for jihadi "freedom fighters" and dropping an occasional JDAM to support their advance.

      And that's why it's not done anymore - not because it's not PC, but because it's just so fucking expensive and long. Not to mention that it requires an actual exit strategy with a proper handover. In short, every thing the US as a country doesn't want to do anymore. So we have three options: do the right thing and pay for it, do nothing, or do the cheapest thing that still has a positive ROI. And do remember that doing nothing has always costs associated with it as well.

      What exactly was wrong about what I said about Kosovo?

      That it was worse now than what would have happened with non-intervention. I'm fully aware of the sorry state of Kosovo right now - and I'm ecstatic that the entire region isn't like that, which is what would have happened with a full-on war.

      The best thing that could be the outcome of the Libyan civil war as it actually went was Gaddafi staying in power but having to negotiate with other factions, and therefore the regime becoming less oppressive.

      And that would have never happened. That's right up there with Unicorns farting rainbows.

      "Hired goons from Africa" was mostly rebel propaganda they've used to justify their genocide against black Libyans.

      Actually, Ghaddafi did employ hired goons from Africa. The problem was that black Libyans were regularly assumed to be just hired goons. And since there were far more black Libyans than hired goons.... well, you do the math. And yes, persecution of black Libyans is a problem. I'm not arguing that Libya isn't a significant basket case right now. However, it's a better start than we're getting with Syria, and at least there's the opportunity there for something positive to happen. Syria basically is going to be a basket case for the next decades.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    15. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Losses?

      You are counting Islamists and Christians. I'm counting dollars and barrels (and poppies). You talk about 'rights' and 'democracy'. I'm discussing percentages and distribution charges. You mention citizens and representatives, Me? Buyers and traders... As the old cliche goes: War is very good business. The more, the better... I see no loss. The house always wins.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Islamic democracies" work quite nicely. Ask Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia. Those are actually the only Islamic countries I can think of that have an actual functioning democracy. Not sure why you think that they are some backward shithole.

      Turkey is not an Islamic democracy. It's a secular democracy which has a Muslim majority. Not the same thing at all.

      Malaysia and Indonesia are hybrids - they're not full-on islamic, and their laws are mostly secular actually, with a few extra provisions for Islam - they don't have Sharia as law of the land, as is the case in a full-fledged Islamic state. And they are noticeably worse then Turkey with respect to freedoms and human rights, especially Indonesia. But certainly not shitholes, no.

      But, then again, they don't have a major Salafi political movement (yet).

      In short, every thing the US as a country doesn't want to do anymore. So we have three options: do the right thing and pay for it, do nothing, or do the cheapest thing that still has a positive ROI.

      Where is that positive ROI, again?

      I can agree with you that the situation in Kosovo is debatable. It is more democratic than it was as a part of Serbia, that much is true. Though I don't think there would be a "full-on war" without western intervention there, either. But where is that positive ROI in all the other places I've mentioned? Starting with Soviet-Afghan war and American support for mujahideen there?

    17. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The thing you are worried about sounds like a great plan to me.

      Get the Sunnis and Sheits fighting again and they will be out of oil before they make peace. Then we can all just ignore them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      NATO was out of bombs after a week.

      They had to come to us for supplies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      After all this, I doubt that China and Russia will support similar UN security council decisions in some other countries. In my opinion western countries acted in a short sighted way by bending the UN security council decision.

    20. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      China and Russia use this argument to explain their lack of support, but in practice they have other, more mundane reasons to not support it. Russia, for example, has a naval military base in Syria - the only foreign military base it has, and the only one that gives it direct access to the Mediterranean. It will likely be shut down should the rebels take over.

      I don't think UNSC is going to matter this time, though. If it won't give mandate, well... there wasn't one in Kosovo either, nor in Iraq. So what?

    21. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The irony is that back when Soviets were fighting mujis there, one of the reasons they were involved was because mujis were growing poppy to fund their operations, and a lot of it went right back to the USSR. Of course, once Soviets were finally kicked out, the plantations prospered.

      Then, when the more extreme mujis formed Taliban, they've started to enforce the Koranic prohibition on narcotic substances, burning down poppy fields and executing growers. At that point the traffic went down significantly.

      Then, when US was about to go in claiming that they want Osama, Taliban has restarted the grow ops in anticipation of fighting to prepare some funds. They even came up with a sharia explanation for it - apparently Koran only prohibits using those substances yourself or selling them to another Muslim, but growing them for infidels to corrupt themselves is a valid form of jihad.

      And then the guys who are running them today (which are the same who were running them before Taliban) have got back, and it's full steam ahead.

    22. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Of course.  How else are you going to justify trillion dollar "defense" budgets?

    23. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      It is true that in Syria the naval base of Russia is important factor, but I am not so sure about China.

      Without UNSC decision, an attack will be unlawful, although at the moment ICC don't have jurisdiction to convict over unlawful wars. However, any unlawful wars will give very bad example, especially if they aren't strongly condemned by other countries. They will lower the threshold for countries like Russia and China to have their own unlawful wars against minor opponents. You can expect wars like the Russian war with Georgia, but without any justification.

    24. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Turkey is not an Islamic democracy. It's a secular democracy which has a Muslim majority. Not the same thing at all.

      The good news: by your definition of an islamic democracy, Turkey isn't one. The bad news: by your definition, it's a contradiction in terms. If you run strictly by the rules of hardline muslims, the only proper Islamic state is a caliphate. And the further bad news is that there is not a single functioning caliphate in the world. Then again, there also isn't a functioning theocratic government anywhere in the world, regardless of what religion it purports to be.

      The reality is that there are well-functioning governments out there where a majority of the population is muslim. As a result, it is absolutely possible for muslims to have functional government that doesn't try to kill everyone else. Anything else is just the true Scotsman argument. Except in a weird reverse way.

      But where is that positive ROI in all the other places I've mentioned? Starting with Soviet-Afghan war and American support for mujahideen there?

      Afghanistan turned into an expensive quagmire for the Russians, and became its Vietnam. There's all kinds of positive ROI in there. The fact that it also bred the people who orchestrated 9/11 is more a problem because some people failed to act on the intelligence that was provided to them. Finally, 9/11 was less costly to us than Afghanistan was to the Russians.

      As for positive ROI in other places: the only other one you mentioned is Libya. And the cost there was minimal, with the upshot being that the war was fairly short, which reduced the ability of muslim extremists to infiltrate the place. It also reduced tribal killings, which reduces the revenge killings. So yes, it was a pretty dirt cheap way to stack the odds in favor of a more stable government emerging rather quickly. Did it succeed? I don't think anyone thought - or should have thought - that Libya was going to turn overnight into Turkey. Or even Malaysia. But again, we can now see what happens when you let a civil war stagnate in an area that has long memories and a habit of revenge killings. I'm pretty sure Syria is going to end up significantly worse than Libya.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    25. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russian war with Georgia had a valid casus belli, though (having their official peacekeeping force in Ossetia attacked without provocation). While there was a lot of talk about disproportionality of response, I'm not aware of anyone making any serious claims as to its overall legality.

      And Chinese don't look like they're much interested in waging war on any of their neighbors. All pieces of territory they're concerned with, like Taiwan, they claim to be their own territory anyway, so they wouldn't really feel constrained by international treaties and laws. They'd just declare that those don't apply and it's all a police operation etc. Just like they did in Tibet.

      China's interest, I think, has more to do with Iran. On one hand, they share some common ground, both being naturally aligned against the Western bloc. On the other hand, Iran is Shiite, which means that it doesn't openly support Uighur insurgency in China itself, unlike various Sunni Arab states in the region. They have what to offer to each other, as well: Iran has plenty of oil and natural gas, while China has a strong industry, and can provide various high tech stuff, especially military, but also heavy industry in general - helping them build factories, dams etc. And, indeed, if you look at Iran's foreign economic partners, China is both the biggest exporter and importer of their goods.

      Now, Iran is slowly getting surrounded. Most countries around are Sunni majority and tend to be hostile. Azerbaijan on the north is Shiite, but the population is Turkic rather than Persian, and the state is largely secularized, so they align with Turkey on the basis of cultural rather than sectarian ties; besides, Iran has the province of South Azerbaijan, also inhabited by Azeris, which Azerbaijan proper wouldn't mind annexing. This leaves Iraq, where Sunni and Shiites are contesting each other for power, with Iran's active involvement. An Alawite (i.e. Shiite) dominated Syria on the other side of Iraq is an important part of that contest, but if Syria turns into an "Islamic democracy", with its Sunni majority, then that's another regime that's going to be hostile to Iran - and now they'll only have one border with Iraq to support the militias there; and should they lose that battleground, they will be completely encircled. Hence why Iran is actively supporting Assad, both diplomatically and with materiel. And China basically just backs that.

    26. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The good news: by your definition of an islamic democracy, Turkey isn't one. The bad news: by your definition, it's a contradiction in terms. If you run strictly by the rules of hardline muslims, the only proper Islamic state is a caliphate. And the further bad news is that there is not a single functioning caliphate in the world. Then again, there also isn't a functioning theocratic government anywhere in the world, regardless of what religion it purports to be.

      By my definition, an Islamic democracy is a democracy where the supreme law of the land is Sharia (i.e. other laws can exist, but they cannot contradict Sharia, and if they do, Sharia supercedes them), and where the people cannot democratically vote to change that. There are plenty of states like that; just go around reading their constitutions. Afghanistan right now is a classic example - it has a constitutional provision declaring Sharia to be superior to any law or any clause of the constitution, as well as another one that forbids any amendment to that provision. So, no, it doesn't take a Caliphate.

      The reality is that there are well-functioning governments out there where a majority of the population is muslim. As a result, it is absolutely possible for muslims to have functional government that doesn't try to kill everyone else.

      I never claimed the opposite.

      Afghanistan turned into an expensive quagmire for the Russians, and became its Vietnam. There's all kinds of positive ROI in there.

      Positive for whom, though? Not for Afghanis, that's for sure. And not for the neighboring countries, either (see also: Islamic Emirate of Waziristan).

      And perhaps not so much positive for US, either. I mean, how many American civilians did USSR kill during the Cold War?

      As for positive ROI in other places: the only other one you mentioned is Libya. And the cost there was minimal, with the upshot being that the war was fairly short, which reduced the ability of muslim extremists to infiltrate the place.

      What do you mean, "reduced the ability to infiltrate"? You mean, when they string up their black shahada flags all over Benghazi and Tripoli, including over government buildings, that's nothing special?

      . It also reduced tribal killings, which reduces the revenge killings.

      It did, seriously? The whole country right now is basically a bunch of militias, organized largely around tribal affiliations, which are just itching to go at each other. In some places, in fact, they already did that. Not to mention the witch hunts against those tribes which backed Gaddafi. And blacks, Christians, and other minorities.

      So yes, it was a pretty dirt cheap way to stack the odds in favor of a more stable government emerging rather quickly. Did it succeed?

      A stable government, it ain't. A country does not have a stable government when, in the middle of the day, a truck drives down to the embassy of one of your (supposedly) closest allies, people come out of it, and unload four RPG shots into the building - and then calmly drive away.

      I don't think anyone thought - or should have thought - that Libya was going to turn overnight into Turkey. Or even Malaysia.

      No-one asking for it to become Turkey or Malaysia, but how about having at least as much stability as it had under Gaddafi? You know, when people can actually go about their daily jobs without the fear of getting shot by a random stray bullet, or abducted and tortured because someone pointed at them as a loyalist in hiding?

    27. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      By my definition, an Islamic democracy is a democracy where the supreme law of the land is Sharia

      I'm not sure I would put up Afghanistan as an example of an Islamic democracy, for no other reason than that the rule of the central government barely extends out of Kabul. Furthermore, there's more to an Islamic state than Sharia. There are specific organizational structures that go into an Islamic government, and they all preclude the ability of a democratically elected chamber to do anything of significance. Which is actually nicely illustrated by Afghanistan: if the government can't make any laws that contradict Sharia, it becomes nothing but the executive of existing law. Kinda like the US, but without Congress and the SOC being a council of Imams. Not exactly democratic.

      I never claimed the opposite.

      But you claim that they don't exist. I claim that they are possible, because they do exist.

      The whole country right now is basically a bunch of militias, organized largely around tribal affiliations, which are just itching to go at each other.

      It could be worse. It could be Syria. Learn to differentiate.

      No-one asking for it to become Turkey or Malaysia, but how about having at least as much stability as it had under Gaddafi?

      As I mentioned earlier, you might have as well asked for it to become Turkey or Malaysia. Once the unrest started, and people started shooting, it was going to end only with every last potential rebel dead, or with Ghaddafi dead. Or with an occupation army, but.... we know how that is working out too.

      A stable government, it ain't.

      I didn't say that it was. I said that the action improved the odds of that happening.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    28. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by gay358 · · Score: 1

      When I said: "You can expect wars like the Russian war with Georgia, but without any justification" I meant that in case of war with Georgia, there was at least some kind justification for military action by Russia, but in future wars there wouldn't be need for even that kind of justification.

      In the Georgian / South Ossetian case there has also been some talk that South Ossetia would become a part of Russia. But I think, that the current disputed status is just fine with Russia. It will make it difficult for Georgia to become a NATO member, when large of the country has disputed status and is not under control of rest of Georgia. Understandably Russia has not liked NATO expansion near its borders, so this could give Russia yet another motive to start wars with neighbours and lock them in similar disputes, which would prevent the countries joining NATO.

    29. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      "Islamic democracies" work quite nicely. Ask Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia.

      Doing a quick search reveals countless religious problems in Turkey. Even ignoring their historical problem with Kurds (who aren't much different than secular rebels), the Alawites fear for their safety and have been attacked: "As Syria War Roils, Unrest Among Sects Hits Turkey" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/middleeast/turkish-alawites-fear-spillover-of-violence-from-syria.html?pagewanted=all

      And there are countless small stories of religious persecution, things that would be classed as hate crimes in America, e.g. http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/turkey/15153

      Malaysia has a two-tier justice system, one for Muslims one for others, with a history of discrimination against non-Muslims: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/asia/13malay.html

      Again, countless reports of smaller-scale incidents as well. I'm sure you remember when churches were attacked for using the word "allah", which Muslims wanted to keep associated with Islam only; it made international news. Yeah that was good old Malaysia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10961282

      Look at this little gem from that article: "But some Muslim groups are suspicious of their motives, our correspondent says, saying the use of the word Allah is a ploy to encourage Muslims to convert to Christianity - something that is illegal in the country."

      So apparently proselytizing is illegal in Malaysia. HMMMMMM I wonder if that also applies to Muslims encouraging Christians to convert? Nope didn't think so: http://www.prayway.com/unreached/countries/malaysia.html "Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom are under attack, as it is illegal to proselytize Muslims, while Muslims may convert whoever they like."

      Indonesia... seriously... why would you even bring up Indonesia? Are you unaware of all the problems in Aceh? They've had tons of Islamic radicals, and in 2006 instituted sharia: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/asia/01iht-aceh.2356621.html?pagewanted=all

      And predictably since then things have gotten worse with attacks on Christians: http://www.persecution.org/2012/06/20/hundreds-of-muslim-extremists-attack-christian-prayer-house-in-indonesia/

      Do you honestly think they are working "quite nicely" in these Islamic strongholds? Your standards are too low.

    30. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      "As Syria War Roils, Unrest Among Sects Hits Turkey"

      This is actually an argument for curtailing civil wars as quickly as possible. It's actually been my argument from the start: protests in the Middle East tend to progress towards sectarian violence spilling over into other countries if they last too long, and it's in everyone's best interest to have actual violence be as short as possible. If you want a comparison with the US, it's like drug violence spilling over into the US. It's not directly tied to how the US works, but it isn't immune to it.

      And there are countless small stories of religious persecution, things that would be classed as hate crimes in America, e.g.

      If that's the worst to worry about, we're in pretty good shape.

      Malaysia has a two-tier justice system, one for Muslims one for others, with a history of discrimination against non-Muslims:

      No argument. Not sure why you think though that that disqualifies Malaysia for being a working Islamic democracy. What it does mean is that it has a long way to go before it becomes an equal opportunity country. The good news is Malaysia knows it. Also, you might want to check your sources. Some of them (like prayway) definitely have a tendency to exaggerate developments. While there is a tension between the different groups in Malaysia (and it is much more than just between muslims and non-muslims), it is not nearly as bad as some stories make it sound like.

      Indonesia... seriously... why would you even bring up Indonesia? Are you unaware of all the problems in Aceh? They've had tons of Islamic radicals, and in 2006 instituted sharia:

      And you can do business there, government is pretty stable, and people can practice a different religion. The institution of Sharia law as a fully-formed body of law is more worrying - but so far, it hasn't had a huge impact on overall stability. Right now, there are no signs it will become another Afghanistan or descend into civil war, which is what the OP was claiming.

      Do you honestly think they are working "quite nicely" in these Islamic strongholds? Your standards are too low.

      My standards are indeed pretty low. But that's just because people keep forcing me to lower my standards. I mean, by your standards, the US isn't a functioning democracy. Not that I fully disagree with that - but at some point, you have to accept that people are stupid, stupid things happen, and look at small victories. Otherwise, you'll just have to move to an Island and hope no one else moves in.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    31. Re:Will you guys ever learn? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If you want a comparison with the US, it's like drug violence spilling over into the US. It's not directly tied to how the US works, but it isn't immune to it.

      The difference, which is vital, is that the vast majority of Turks are in one or another Islamic sect, and Islam is a force in the government, whereas the vast majority of Americans are not in gangs and gangs are not a force in the government.

      I agree that it's not directly tied to how the US works. I'd say it's not tied at all to how Turkey or the US work. It has nothing to do with the government, it's the people and the religion.

      No argument. Not sure why you think though that that disqualifies Malaysia for being a working Islamic democracy.

      What I responded to was your assertion that Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are working "quite nicely", which is more qualified than just "working."

      The institution of Sharia law as a fully-formed body of law is more worrying - but so far, it hasn't had a huge impact on overall stability.

      You're right, and why should there be instability when a Muslim-majority country institutes Islamic law? That's hardly surprising. The question, again, is whether it's working "quite nicely" when minorities are being persecuted, churches being physically attacked or legally shut down, etc.

      I mean, by your standards, the US isn't a functioning democracy.

      Where do you get that impression? Even when you misunderstood me to mean that I didn't Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are even functioning, how does that translate into the US not functioning? We don't have sharia law, we don't huge crowds of angry Christians burning Muslim neighborhoods and mosques... shoot, here when someone vandalizes a mosque (at night, with no injuries at all) it's decried as a "hate crime" and investigated by the FBI. How can you compare that to what happens in Muslim countries throughout the world?

  28. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    That's true, but it doesn't make the outlandish claims by OP any more valid.

  29. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by dywolf · · Score: 1

    shieldtroll AC'ing his own comment.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  30. Re:Fundraiser? by SpzToid · · Score: 1

    His last chat transcript in TFA is chilling. It seems like any good I.T. guy he was online at the time. It sounds like they were under very heavy attack actually, with mortars... in the US Consulate compound? OK, now the government is beefing up security, but I wonder what was in-place before the place was destroyed.

    What a terrible thing to happen.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  31. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because a Libyan Christian living in California made a movie supporting his belief that the Muslim faith is a dangerous cancer (his words)

    He just got vindicated based on the actions in Libya and Egypt. I think his film just got a helluva lot more popular now.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  32. Re:Fundraiser? by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Informative

    nah that wasn't his last chat transcript. That was just an example that was pretty common to hear from him when he was in Iraq . His lats words on jabber were "FUCK" and "GUNFIRE" and then he disappeared off Jabber.

  33. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by jvillain · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The result of his actions were entirely predictable. They were mean spirited and intended to provoke this response as is his calling Islam a cancer. Yet the person is not held responsible in any way, shape or form for their actions even though they lead directly to deaths. . While I respect free speech you can't shout fire in a theatre for good reasons. Why isn't this person being held to the same level of responsibility?

  34. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you think that Libya was "closer to a true democracy" under Gaddafi, you're outright insane.

    Even the most sham-elected de facto dictatorship on the planet blows the doors off any theocracy ever, when it comes to "closer to a true democracy".

    At some point, the people can appeal to a (human) tyrant, and he might respond to their concerns.

    Whether or not it exists, god never responds.


    We need to get out of the Middle East/North Africa, until the savages either settle their differences or kill each other off. Screw this "democracy" crap, we've now plunged three "questionable" but relatively secular democracies into borderline (or even outright) sharia over the past decade. We need to quit while only that far behind.

  35. A film that was known about in July by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    which shows one thing.

    An excuse needing an offense on a day where the maximum amount of press could be extracted. In other words, just what any extremist or politician would do.

    When your society is breaking down an outlet is required. Seeing that we are the big evil for the people who exploit the misery of their people all in the name of religion what could we expect? You have a society where your not safe so the only escape you have is to become part of the mob because it offers anonymity.

    Sometimes getting rid of a dictator is a bad thing, witness Libya and Egypt. When the control is there are ample numbers of organized groups more than willing to move in. They will do so under the protection of their religion and people over there know better than to speak out. It is even easier when nearly half the population has no choice (women) and a good number of those remaining are more than happy about abusing that other half.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  36. Re:Goons deserve to die... by Aryden · · Score: 1

    I actually voted for Vile Rat in the last election.... damn shame... I made tons of money off that election. I do however, offer my condolences to his family.

  37. give credit where credit is due by poetmatt · · Score: 3

    that psycho pastor had involvement in what ended in this situation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones_(pastor)

    In September 2012 it was reported by The Atlantic that Terry Jones was involved in the promotion of a movie vilifying Islam, titled Innocence of Muslims. The movie led to protests in Egypt and Libya. In Cairo, protesters breached the wall of the U.S. Embassy and burned the flag. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was largely burnt and looted; killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American citizens.[26] Jones screened the film for his followers on September 11, 2012, a day he dubbed, "International Judge Mohammad Day"

    I hope this guy knows he has blood on his hands now, as batshit crazy as *he* is, he is now partially at fault. I knew he'd do something to incite violence overseas ever since his ridiculous quaran burning.

    1. Re:give credit where credit is due by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones_(pastor)

      In September 2012 it was reported by The Atlantic that Terry Jones was involved in the promotion of a movie vilifying Islam, titled Innocence of Muslims. The movie led to protests in Egypt and Libya. In Cairo, protesters breached the wall of the U.S. Embassy and burned the flag. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was largely burnt and looted; killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American citizens.[26] Jones screened the film for his followers on September 11, 2012, a day he dubbed, "International Judge Mohammad Day"

      So, in order to protest the film, they all went and proved the film right?

      --
      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...
    2. Re:give credit where credit is due by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I hope this guy knows he has more blood on his hands now

      FTFY. A lot of people died on his much-publicized Quaran burnings.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:give credit where credit is due by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Islam has plenty of its own Terry Joneses. People who agree with the loons in the west on virtually everything, except who the "good guys" are. They all want war, and escalating provocations is how they're trying to get it.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:give credit where credit is due by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      And who much-publicized it? The media. Frankly, if the media had not made a hype about it, most likely few people would even have noticed. I'd give the media at least as much guilt in it as the guy himself.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:give credit where credit is due by will_die · · Score: 2

      Do you also think that woman that don't wear burqas deserved to be raped?

    6. Re:give credit where credit is due by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      I don't think they released this film in Egypt or Libya so they must have seen the torrent version. To all religious shitheads: when on the interwebs you might see stuff you don't like. Put on your big boy pants and deal, or just turn the web off and stagnate. Now where's my porn? (:0:)

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    7. Re:give credit where credit is due by DRMShill · · Score: 2

      Blaming Terry Jones for this is like blaming a rape victim for dressing too provocatively.

    8. Re:give credit where credit is due by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If they were Islam's Terry Joneses, they would have found another film and given it publicity. Try again?

      Seriously, what are you trying to say by equating Terry Jones or the mysterious Mr. Bacile with the Muslim lunatics who stormed an embassy and committed murder?That their extremists are much more extreme and dangerous than ours? That the word extremist has lost all meaning and soon we'll be calling toddlers the extremists of children?

    9. Re:give credit where credit is due by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I would have agreed with you before the uproar over this obscure movie released online.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:give credit where credit is due by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. That's a terrible and incorrect analogy, you misogynist.
      Making bad analogies is like making bad analogies for things that aren't a part of the discussion.

  38. Just insane.. by Guru80 · · Score: 1

    This shit is just beyond crazy...First off, nobody in the US would even know this stupid movie exists if it wasn't for these extremist fairy tale worshipers..Second, seriously?? going around and killing people because they share the same nation as some other d-bag? If that is the case we might as well exterminate the entire human race right now because there are d-bags everywhere. Finally, Grow the fuck up and learn a little tolerance for others beliefs or lack there off. How many religions are there in the world? and obviously each and every one of them is the ONLY right religion....so learn to deal with it like responsible members of the human race...where is another great plague, great flood or meteorite when you need one.

    1. Re:Just insane.. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      The movie was merely the pretext. The reason for the riot and for killing the Americans was to celebrate the 911 attack on the World Trade Centers.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  39. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It touches something everyone who plays online games wonders about.

    How deep is that connection with your friends you know only in a virtual way? Does their impact on the virtual world you played in matter in any sense? Is changing a game world that 300 000 people play in and enjoy a real accomplishment? If he coaches little league or his kids football people would talk about that, even though it impacts a lot less people and is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. Hundreds of thousands of people have been touched, in a small way, by this guy, he was part of their little special society.

    It's also strange, how our relationships with friends are changing. My friends who I play online with at least, are more likely to remember the far too many hours we spent trying to kill the first entrance trash in molten core, on the first night there were 40 people on our server who could even get in than some event where people went bar crawling and didn't quite make it home. We raided molten core, other people broke into an abandoned cement factory.

    I'm 32, 4 years ago a friend of mine from public school passed away due to brain cancer. I had known him for 23 or 24 years in total (from junior kindergarten until he passed away). We did lots of stuff as kids, riding around parks on a bike, trying to meet girls, failing miserably with girls, we sat around his house and played games, we went to universities, fell in a river at a yearly university party etc. That stuff, when people gave speeches about it at his funeral is something everyone could relate to and laugh about. Including that time we accidentally set fire to our old school, his father sold school equipment and after graduation he was working for his dad and someone botched an installation... Know one really knew (or was inclined to talk about) how he'd spent the last couple of years of his life trying to help organize a guild in a video game. He couldn't be around people IRL a lot of the time due to treatments, but he could log on and help organize 40 or 50 people to get their shit together and have fun. I guess that's important, insofar as having fun is important. But it's not something people in their 40's and 50's and older can really understand or relate to generally.

    Eve particularly makes this a story because it's a single world. Whatever my deceased friend accomplished was confined to one server of a cluster of servers of hundreds of thousands or millions of people all doing the same thing, in their own little instances walking past each other. But in Eve, one person can change the world for everyone, good or bad.

    Notice how there's no story about the other 3 people who were killed, 2 other staffers and the ambassador. The ambassador is getting lots of coverage on the MSM. That was his 'clique' so to speak, and that will be his mark on the world is as an ambassador trying to manage US business. This was an IT guy, who played games with his friends. There's nothing wrong with that, but how we think about peoples contribution to the world is changing, this poor guy has the unfortunate distinction of getting a lot of press for it, but he's certainly not the first.

    When George Lucas or Hironobu Sakaguchi, or Sid Meier pass away people on the outside of their properties (Star Wars/Indiana Jones, Final fantasy, Civilization) will understand them as the creators of those things, even if they never played the games or watched the movies. Game worlds are different, because the people who created the rules of the world, and the people who make the world aren't the same. This guy made part of the world that was created by the people at CCP, and that 300k other people play in. I don't think society has quite figured out how, if at all, it wants to try and recognize that.

  40. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

    Know one

    Really, I'd catch this after I hit post. Figures....

  41. I concur by br00tus · · Score: 1

    As you said, their oil and water was kept in local hands, and the Libyans had an independence of mind, which was there true crime. Why are the Qadaffis of the world always portrayed as devils while the Saudi regime are portrayed as angels? If Qadaffi had taken US money and bowed down to the oil companies and Zionists he would have been portrayed angelically. As it was, he knew the winds had changed and worked to appease the West and US. Didn't matter, NATO took it upon itself to bomb the hell out of Libya. Now tears are flowing for these foreign imperialists who just helped arm a bloody insurrection to get Libya under the hands of the West. Not every Libya man is a pussy who is going to lie down and let foreigners walk all over them, as this attack shows. How many Libyans killed in the recent US backed bloody civil war get a full blown Slashdot memorial? Some American gets a piece of that aftermath and it's a big deal. Those who live by the sword die by the sword.

  42. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    shieldtroll AC'ing his own comment.

    Right.

    If you know me well enough to have me on your Foes list, you should know me well enough to know that I don't respect my audience enough to bother posting as an AC.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  43. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Even the most sham-elected de facto dictatorship on the planet blows the doors off any theocracy ever, when it comes to "closer to a true democracy".

    I don't think that always follows. I, for one, would prefer to live in Iran over North Korea.

    That said, revolutions backed by a fundamentalist religious movement make me nervous. It is, indeed, a very good excuse for perpetrating all kinds of nasty things - and, what's worst, it's a way to turn even common citizens who were normal, non-blood-thirsty people yesterday into fanatics quartering and burning people alive on a square in the center of the town while chanting "Allahu Akbar".

  44. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    So what your saying is that the next time someone insults Christianity such as putting a crucifix in jar of urine (Piss Christ) or anything else of that nature, they should bring about the Crusaders again and kill in the name of God!? Because you just accepted the premise that "might makes right". Which BTW is one of many truths in life. I don't like the idea of it being true, but there you go.

    If you're going to cower in the face of Freedom of Speech, you deserve to be someone's bitch at the tip of a sword. At worst, stoned to death!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  45. He really shouldn't have gate-camped the Libyans.. by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    ...I guess.

  46. Bullshit by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    Bullshit! No one has responsibility for this except the religious fanatics that did it and their own leaders. And as long as these radical idiots keep this kind of thing up only more people will be willing to speak out against them.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Bullshit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I consider them mentally ill. It is known that certain actions will cause them to become violent, this pastor was warned before his Quaran burnings by the FBI about this and did it anyways (resulting in many deaths), the blood is on his hands.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Bullshit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2
      Allow me to preface this post by stating that I vehemently disagree with Terry Jones' ideology.

      I disagree. I consider them mentally ill. It is known that certain actions will cause them to become violent, this pastor was warned before his Quaran burnings by the FBI about this and did it anyways (resulting in many deaths), the blood is on his hands.

      This; this is exactly the attitude that results in our government justifying spending trillions of our tax dollars on security theater and domestic surveillance.

      See, we supposedly have an inalienable right to free speech in this nation. Over time, someone's expression of free speech will inevitably piss someone else off. Sometimes, that someone else uses the threat of violence in an attempt to violate the first person's right to free speech.

      By giving in to the violence-seekers, you're giving them just what they want. By censoring free speech, using the tired excuse of "if you say that you'll have blood on your hands," you ensure not only that the terrorists win, but that free speech will be killed off eventually. Today it's violent Muslim extremists; tomorrow it may be violent Christian extremists, or violent anti-abortion extremists, or violent anti-gun extremists.

      Don't give in to extremism. Don't fall victim to lowest-common-denominator thought processes. Don't demand the rest of us be pussies. Man up and stand up for what's right, threats of violence be damned.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Bullshit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Only if the US is mentally ill as well.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Bullshit by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So instead we just sacrifice wave after wave of innocent bystanders in the middle East to the utterly predictable angry mobs of extremists instead of putting any blame on the anti-Islamic shit-disturbers? There has to be a better option...I realize and agree that they should have the right to say horrible, hateful things about Islam and depict Mohammed in the worst way imaginable, but people *will* die every time it happens. If we just keep it up it won't be the crazies that are all dead in the end, it will be everyone else.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:Bullshit by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So instead we just sacrifice wave after wave of innocent bystanders in the middle East to the utterly predictable angry mobs of extremists instead of putting any blame on the anti-Islamic shit-disturbers?

      You know that phrase right-wing jackasses trot out every time they want to further degrade our liberties, "Freedom isn't free?" Yea, well, this is what that really means.

      Of course, that's not to say they have to be sacrificed - self-defense is always preferable to martyrdom.

      There has to be a better option...I realize and agree that they should have the right to say horrible, hateful things about Islam and depict Mohammed in the worst way imaginable, but people *will* die every time it happens. If we just keep it up it won't be the crazies that are all dead in the end, it will be everyone else.

      Oh, that's an easy one - we just have to let them* know that if they try to kill us for expressing our beliefs, we'll kill their asses first!

      Serious, man, how long do you think this nation would have lasted had our forefather pussed out and surrendered every time some other nation threatened them with violence? Like I said, freedom isn't free.


      * By "them" I specifically refer to the individuals and organizations who engage in violent behavior, not as a blanket term for all Arab/Muslim people.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  47. As if the film were everything? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Do you really think that Muslims are killing people because of a single film? That may have set them off, but there has been a lot of buildup to this, and that buildup had nothing to do with the media.

    Let's put it this way: South Park depicted Mohammed once, without causing any riots, suicide bombings, or other forms of kililng in response.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:As if the film were everything? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Let's put it this way: South Park depicted Mohammed once, without causing any riots, suicide bombings, or other forms of kililng in response.

      If I recall, their depiction of Xenu caused more trouble than that.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:As if the film were everything? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They showed Mohammed once, nobody noticed. Second season IIRC

      Years later, after the cartoons and riots, they tried again and had all sorts of fun, showing the guy everybody believed was Mohammed in a bear suit etc. They claim CC censored them.

      Eventually the censors got wise to the first time. Now 'super best friends' isn't available from comedy central.com. The DVDs that contain it might become collectors items.

      Parker and Stone have both been condemned by multiple fatuahs. If I was them I'd at least use this to get a federal concealed weapons permit, like Feinstien, those are 50 state good.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  48. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    So tell me, when did you move to the Utopia known as Libya? I hear there are rainbows and unicorns, and all the rivers are made of chocolate.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  49. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by berashith · · Score: 2

    i truly cannot even parse this. A person should be responsible for using "mean spirited" words ? When the deaths were caused on the other end of the world by people who probably never saw the video? The responders could have opted to shout mean spirited words back, or even make their own movie, or go and live their lives in a way that proves the movie-maker wrong. Instead it is decided that murder of random employees of a country whose laws allow people to use "mean spirited" words is a proper response. This proves the movie maker correct more than anything. Things stopped becoming conjecture or slander, and just became pointing out facts real quickly. The movie is obviously an excuse to take action, and this action would have happened anyhow. This wasnt random or authentic rage, or organic in any way. Some of the masses may have been whipped into a frenzy, and been told about this film, but none of the attack makes sense this way... it occured on a very important day, in multiple countries.

    As soon as criticism should be punished for the actions of those being criticized is as soon as I start to fight the war. Speech is speech, murder is murder.

  50. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2

    So what your saying is that the next time someone insults Christianity such as putting a crucifix in jar of urine (Piss Christ) or anything else of that nature, they should bring about the Crusaders again and kill in the name of God!?

    You've got the order of that entirely incorrect. What I believe jvillain is saying is that, "if insulting Christianity was known to motivate a large number of Christians to violence and murder, then anyone purposefully insulting Christianity should also be held responsible for resulting criminal activity."

    Antagonizing an individual does not necessarily make one blameless for the resulting violence committed against you. There's the famous case of Buzz Aldrin punching conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel. Mr. Sibrel tried to get Mr. Aldrin arrested for assault, but the action was denied because it was plainly obvious that Mr. Sibrel had instigated the confrontation. A punch to the face and murder are on entirely different levels, so the comparison isn't be exact, of course.

    While "they need a thicker skin" make be a relatively valid opinion, I think "don't be an asshole" is far and away more important.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  51. Where was security by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    Where was their security? At this time of all times they should have been on a much higher state of alert. How's that privativation of State Dept security working out?

  52. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    Goonswarm Alliance is a superpower in eve. It's long been a mystery how such a collection of mismatched personalities manages to stay so perfectly organised. Now we know: They had a professionally trained diplomat.

  53. Re:Fundraiser? by jandrese · · Score: 2

    The attackers had organization, a plan, and even RPGs, this wasn't guys angry at the video, it was guys using the video protests as cover for their own preplanned attack on the embassy.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  54. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by pellik · · Score: 2

    Well said. I wish I had some mod points for this.

    As a gamer I find that the celebrities I care about, the ones who entertain me and impact my life, are decidedly different then those most of the rest of the world care about. Imagine if it had been a Hollywood celebrity that was killed in the raid, rather then an internet one? There would be nothing else on the news. But when someone who is well known on some (geekish) corner of the internet dies, even people on a geek site question whether the news is meaningful.

  55. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    He did not "shout fire in a theatre". In the context of the ruling which that phrase comes from, if there was a fire in a theatre, the people in the theatre were in significant danger. When the people became aware of a fire in the theatres of that time, they tended to attempt to escape the danger with no concern for the welfare of others. So, what danger was the maker of this film pointing out falsely that was so dangerous that they attacked U.S. facilities and killed people without thinking because they were trying to escape that danger?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  56. Troll? No, I don't think so. by shiftless · · Score: 2

    Why is parent marked troll?

    1. Re:Troll? No, I don't think so. by dcollins117 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why is parent marked troll?

      Because it never happened.

    2. Re:Troll? No, I don't think so. by shiftless · · Score: 1

      You're a moron. Read history.

  57. FTFY by shiftless · · Score: 2

    That's humanity for you ...

    FTFY

    1. Re:FTFY by morcego · · Score: 1

      Thank you. 1 intelligent reply. I was losing hope here.

      --
      morcego
  58. Re:Fundraiser? by petsounds · · Score: 1

    Dude, this is Libya. They just had a revolution a few months ago. EVERYONE in Libya has an RPG, grenades, and machine guns. Unfortunately their new government hasn't done enough to collect all the heavy weapons out there. But I don't think there's enough evidence yet to suggest what particular group was behind this or what their motives were.

  59. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by fredprado · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No amount of verbal or written instigation justifies murder.

    Furthermore, no amount of verbal or written instigation should make you accountable for the actions of others. You can't force people to do things with words, ultimately it is their choice alone if they will do it or not and they alone should answer for the consequences.

  60. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The Attack on the US Consulate Was A Planned Terrorist Assault Against US and Libyan Interests

    The military assault against the US Consulate in Benghazi should not be seen as part of a protest against a low budget film which was insulting Islam â" there were just a few peaceful protesters present at the event. Indeed, there have been no other demonstrations regarding this film in Libya.

    We at Quilliam believe the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack that would have occurred regardless of the demonstration, to serve another purpose. According to information obtained by Quilliam from foreign sources and from within Benghazi we have reason to believe that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi came to avenge the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi, al-Qaedaâ(TM)s second in command killed a few months ago.

    The reasons for this are as follows:

    • 24 hours before this attack, none other than the leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video on Jihadist forums to mark the anniversary of 9/11. In this video, Zawahiri acknowledged the death of his second in command Abu Yahya and urged Libyans to avenge his killing.
    • According to our sources, the attack was the work of roughly 20 militants, prepared for a military assault â" it is rare that an RPG7 is present at a peaceful protest.
    • According to our sources, the attack against the Consulate had two waves. The first attack led to US officials being evacuated from the consulate by Libyan security forces, only for the second wave to be launched against US officials after they were kept in a secure location.

    The weak security environment in Libya including in Benghazi and the failure of the government to project its power outside of the capital have been used as a cover for the attack.

    The failure to rebuild the defence and security sector, in an accountable, professional and responsible manner will only further the likelihood of such attacks in the future. Attacks in Benghazi are not new â" the Red Cross has been attacked multiple times in previous months, as have the US consulate and also the UK Ambassador, and such security lapses encourage attacks. The International Community must take the challenge of not allowing extremist elements to hijack the Arab Uprisings very seriously, by renewing their focus on civic and governance responses to check the efforts of Islamist extremists attempting to exploit the inevitable security vacuum.

    Noman Benotman, President of Quilliam says:

    âoeThese are acts committed by uncontrollable jihadist groups. We hope Libya will seize this opportunity to revive its policy of Disarmament, Demobilisation and Re-integration (DDR) in order to facilitate an end to the spread of such attacks, with the help of the International Community. We hope that the International Community, including NATO member states and especially the US, will continue their excellent work in Libya which began with the overthrow of the dictator Gaddafi after 42 years in power.â

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  61. Satellite dishes and Feminism. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The Islamic world is too rigid to adapt.

    18 inch satellite dishes are very easy to hide.

    Muslim fundamentalists will live long enough to see their grandchildren being emos. Even we will have to agree it is not an improvement. But they won't blow things up for the right to stick household appliances up their butts.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  62. A militia needs to do militant attacks by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    otherwise it's not a militia. if a militia leader doesn't use the militia for combat, then he has no power outside of combat and his militants will start flipping him off instead of saluting.
    any excuse will do.

    this time it was just the movie that was the excuse - politically of course opposing the movie and attacking the consulate have pretty much nothing to do with each other, suing would have had more results if the aim was to fear people into not doing such movies.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  63. accountability and responsibility by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    I insult a guy's mother, and the guy's response to my insult is to kill a government official from the country I come from.

    Many people posting here are saying I should be responsible for that guy murdering someone. Because I insulted his mother. Really?

    OK, my insult is wrong, yes. Am I responsible for murder? Because I incited the guy to murder? What does that mean? Is the man a human being who is responsible for his own actions? Or a swarm of angry bees?

    Isn't it rather insulting to say that the guy is just a force of nature, and not a human being? Well, you are saying that I am responsible for him murdering someone, not him. So clearly YOU don't consider this man to actually be a man at all, but just a beast without thought or reason.

    This is my thinking:

    1. If I make an ugly movie, I am responsible for making an ugly movie.

    2. If I kill a human being, I am responsible for killing a human being.

    #1 and #2 have nothing to do with each other. Really.

    To think otherwise means you don't believe in personal responsibility and accountability at all. Without believing in that concept, is anything we call moral behavior possible?

    At some point you are going to have to come to grips with the existence of a guy where all you have to do is insult his mother, and he goes on a killing rampage.

    It seems some people posting here are trying very hard to avoid the obvious implications of a world where a man like that is not uncommon. You better stop trying to avoid the obvious.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:accountability and responsibility by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well, if some Libyans came over here and killed the guy who produced that move, I might cut them some slack. But not the most convenient government official available. This does demonstrate the cowardice of the people who make such offensive statements while hiding behind the skirts of US military might. If they have something to say about Mohammad, go say it in Benghazi. Otherwise they are just a bunch of pansies.

      This incident also demonstrates the philosophical differences between free Western governments, who do not hold their citizens to moral or social standards and those that expect the government to enforce such standards. This may be why they (Libyans) held our ambassador responsible as a member of our government.

      It seems some people posting here are trying very hard to avoid the obvious implications of a world where a man like that is not uncommon. You better stop trying to avoid the obvious.

      That's the sort of world our own social conservatives want for us. A United States in which your local minister will serve as our very own Mutaween.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  64. Streisand Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hi, I'm the Prophet Mohammed, and I fuck camels!
        /
    O
    \|/
    /\

  65. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by cpm99352 · · Score: 1

    Thanks, this was one of the best things I've read in years.

  66. Re:Prophet? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    'The Pedophile Mohammad (piss be upon him).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  67. Re:humanity by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1

    If that's humanity, where do I apply for a transfer to another species?

  68. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    I think the thoughts in your post rather eloquently why the City of heroes community is fighting the announcement of the shutdown.

  69. crazy fucking assholes are crazy fucking assholes by JaimeZX · · Score: 2

    They just have different excuses for it.

  70. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    What I believe jvillain is saying is that, "if insulting Christianity was known to motivate a large number of Christians to violence and murder, then anyone purposefully insulting Christianity should also be held responsible for resulting criminal activity."

    I think that, if Christians were prone to violence and murder like that, then calling them violent and murderous would not be insulting. It would be a plain statement of the fact.

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

    The consulate in Libya was shot with the RPG, several times.

  72. Re:Fundraiser? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately their new government hasn't done enough to collect all the heavy weapons out there.

    What can they do, really? If you don't have more guns (and people) than the other guy, then the only thing you can do is politely ask. Of course he'll refuse - after all, so long as he has his guns, he also has the same power as you, at least on his own turf. Then what?

  73. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    No amount of verbal or written instigation justifies murder.

    Of course not, but that doesn't mean you can act as if cause and effect no longer apply and the results are not predictable.

    Furthermore, no amount of verbal or written instigation should make you accountable for the actions of others.

    Maybe in a court of law. But you should always hold yourself accountable for the completely expected consequences of your actions, even if certain steps in the chain of causality involve other sentient beings.

    For example:

    You walk into a bar and tell an ex-marine you know has a drinking problem and rage issues that dogs are fucking scum and you wish more of them were dying from IEDs.

    Do your actions justify the savage beating you will receive? No, of course not.

    Do your actions explain the savage beating? Are you responsible for doing something so stupid that you had to have known would result in that beating? Yeah. I mean if you smashed your face into a wall the resulting pain is obviously your fault. So just because this person has free will and might have gone against everything you knew about them and not hit you, you're free from blame? I don't think so.

    But I also don't think blame is a zero-sum game, and a person is completely responsible for their own actions. That marine I made up should seriously get some counseling when they get out of jail.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  74. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

    Zawahiri acknowledged the death of his second in command Abu Yahya and urged Libyans to avenge his killing

    Yeah because that'll stop the cycle...

  75. Flinging pigsblood at Arabs mature and reasonable? by leftie · · Score: 1

    Christians and Jews flinging pigs blood at Arabs is the act of a mature and reasonable person. Like we all keep pigs blood in the fridge, right?

  76. Christian attacked people for a film by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Christian did riot and attack people due to the "last temptation of christ" , look back in the news from 88-89. Cocktail molotov were thrown at a cinema in France, and 14 people wounded. Granted it is not as bad as a RPG into a car, but the fact is that there are fundemmentalist everywhere, and in that country a lot ofn military hardware is floating around. I am not excusing the act of those nutcase, but jsut like I did not condemn the WHOLE christianity when tehy killed doctor, shown "god hate fags" sign, or thrown molotov cocktail onto cinema, I think one should not condemn the whole islam either.

    That said the fundemmentalist silamist can rot.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  77. wrong : evidence inside by aepervius · · Score: 2

    "You can say anything you want about Jesus and no Christian will kill you."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film)#Attack_on_Saint_Michel_theater.2C_Paris

    nobody was killed but it was not for trying.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  78. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    Hey, why not go fuck yourself?

  79. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Even the most sham-elected de facto dictatorship on the planet blows the doors off any theocracy ever, when it comes to "closer to a true democracy". At some point, the people can appeal to a (human) tyrant, and he might respond to their concerns. Whether or not it exists, god never responds. We need to get out of the Middle East/North Africa, until the savages either settle their differences or kill each other off. Screw this "democracy" crap, we've now plunged three "questionable" but relatively secular democracies into borderline (or even outright) sharia over the past decade. We need to quit while only that far behind.

    I agree with the first statement, there's bound to be a little more reason there..
    but anyway, in regards to "getting out now", how much time do you think that will buy us? Does anyone really believe that these religious nutjobs, violent members of a proselytizing religion, are going to be forever content in their sandy, barren corner of the world? Is that what the Hindu's in India during Ghandi's time thought? It would be swell if they killed themselves off or settled down, but that's not what's happening: instead, one faction manages to subjugate the other (i.e. the Taliban) and then imposes it's iron grip on the region.
    We can get out of there now, and leave a total nightmare for our children and granddhildren to have to deal with when these savages come to enforce the word of Mohammad over the whole of the earth, or deal with this now, before the militant islamists get any more powerful.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  80. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    They were mean spirited and intended to provoke this response as is his calling Islam a cancer.

    That's great, Islam is a cancer. I said it too, just to provoke people.

    What else, well if you insult christians or jews, or hindu's or taoists, or buddhists by calling their religion a cancer can you tell me what would happen? I know you already can. They'd look at you, shrug and go on their way. He didn't shout "fire in a crowed theater" rather you're seeing the face of a religion that hasn't grown up because it's still a child, that will not face the realities that all other religions have.

    If I took my torah and burned it, nothing would happen. There'd be no riots in the streets. If I took my bible and burned it in the streets nothing would happen. If I took a variety of other religious texts, nothing would happen. If I took a Koran and did it, I'd have death threats against me within the hour.

    Religion of peace in action.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  81. FreeRepublic.com is far far worse by leftie · · Score: 1

    You want to be REALLY afraid, go read freerepublic.com sometime.

  82. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Digital+Ebola · · Score: 1

    Right.

    If you know me well enough to have me on your Foes list, you should know me well enough to know that I don't respect my audience enough to bother posting as an AC.

    You are going to find out that karma is indeed a big bitch. And I'm not talking about the slashdot kind.

    --
    "Network penetration is network engineering, in reverse."
  83. There was a UN mandate by jopsen · · Score: 1

    Don't compare Libya to CIA activities in Afghanistan. NATO didn't arm the rebels and there was a UN mandate! Need I remind you that French planes were the first to deploy in Libya. For once the US wasn't playing a leading role.
    So yes, the US apparently learned from the Afghanistan. But nothing you do or learn can protect you from an angry fanatic with a rocket launcher.
    That's what happens when you let people own weapons.

    1. Re:There was a UN mandate by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There was a UN mandate to protect civilian population and enforce a no-fly zone. Not a UN mandate to implement air strikes on any military targets belonging to one side, coordinating them with another side to maximize military efficiency.

      And, yes, French planes were the first to deploy, and generally European states had a bigger involvement there, but US was not exactly standing by, either.

  84. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by budgenator · · Score: 2

    I went to youtube and watched the whole movie trailor, which is not a feat for the faint of heart. This movie if viewed in it's entirety not only easily displaces Battlefield Earth it also bumps up The Profit on my personal list of worst movies. Anyone taking blood thinners should avoid this movie and it's trailer because it will make your eyes bleed.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  85. Re:Geting covered in pigblood makes one go "Carrie by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    I'm afraid I don't get the reference, but I get the point. It's better than killing/wounding.

    My point was the comparison between these two concepts:

    1. Islamic extremists kill people because their beliefs differ (infidels) or because of something they said (Muhammad cartoons etc).
    2. U.S. soldiers kill people because they have resources the U.S. needs.

    I'm not excusing our actions or saying it is OK, but I am saying there is a world of difference between the two. #2 is, with a zoomed out enough lens, potentially acceptable or at least understandable. #1 is always wrong.

    --
    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...
  86. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    I don't have much to add to what Chris Burke said, but...

    You can't force people to do things with words [...]

    Oh, you most certainly can. I wouldn't called it "force", though, but with knowledge of the person or group, or situation, one can most certainly illicit an expected reaction. How can you possibly be held blameless for the role you had in directing events?

    [...] ultimately it is their choice alone if they will do it or not and they alone should answer for the consequences.

    I disagree completely.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  87. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    The insinuation being that he would want to stop the cycle?

  88. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Whether or not it exists, god never responds.

    Theocracy isn't "rule by God". That would be a Deiocracy. Theocracy is rule by the priests. Appeal to the priests is no more/less likely to intrinsically fail or succeed than that of an appeal to a single ruler.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  89. Re:Easily avoided by using respect by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    One explanation for your first point is that these folks have lived under a dictatorship for their entire lives. They may not really understand that how things work in countries where people can act outside the government. Doesn't excuse it, of course.

    But my response to your second point answers the first too. What kind of ignorant asshole disrespects Mohammed? What kind of ignorant Muslim murders innocents in response to heresy? People who are trying to inflame a holy war, that's who.

    Here's the deal. The radical Christian right is deliberately insulting Islam to provoke events like this, to convince us moderates that the Muslims are all murderous lunatics. The radical Islamic right is deliberately overreacting with acts of murder, trying to provoke racist hatred or military response from the US, proving to moderate muslims that we're racist gun-happy heathens. The two sides play off each other. Their goal in inciting a holy war is to force the rest of us to choose sides. As the extremists play off each other, they force the moderates into their arms, increasing their power.

    Don't play their game.

  90. Friend of mine works in Near East Affairs at State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hearsay confirmation, state intelligence have been (unofficially, internally) confirming that the attacks were not caused by the same people who were protesting the film, and that bringing the weapons and inciting violence were a crime of opportunity by a known foreign militant group who tried to attack them before.
    Not just US consul staff were killed, but so were as many protesters and Libyan guards who worked at the Consulate.
    Ah, here's the SECSTATE: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

  91. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by Guppy · · Score: 1

    It's long been a mystery how such a collection of mismatched personalities manages to stay so perfectly organised. Now we know: They had a professionally trained diplomat.

    I'll say. Even if he was a Tech guy at the Embassy, he knew what he was doing.

    Right from the link to Mittani's blog:
    "If you play this stupid game, you may not realize it, but you play in a galaxy created in large part by Vile Rat’s talent as a diplomat. No one focused as relentlessly on using diplomacy as a strategic tool as VR. Mercenary Coalition flipped sides in the Great War in large part because of Vile Rat’s influence, and if that hadn’t happened GSF probably would have never taken out BoB. Jabberlon5? VR made it. You may not even know what Jabberlon5 is, but it’s the smoke-filled jabber room where every nullsec personage of note hangs out and makes deals. Goonswarm has succeeded over the years in large part because of VR’s emphasis on diplomacy, to the point of creating an entire section with a staff of 10+ called Corps Diplomatique, something no other alliance has. He had the vision and the understanding to see three steps ahead of everyone else - in the game, on the CSM, and when giving real-world advice."

  92. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by xtracto · · Score: 1

    Ok, this just makes me very angry.

    Let me start observing that I am not an American (I am just a random Mexican). But the fact that every time there is an attack to the USA, the countries involved say "it is not us, it is the terrorists in our country" is starting to sound like a lame justification. It was not Pakistan, it was Al-qaeda, it was not Lybia. Really?

    Putting blame in "terrorists" is getting old, being it the USA or other countries who do not want to appease their people.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  93. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

    Without a doubt. I'm sympathetic to the costs of running an operation like CoH, and it had a good run, but it's too bad there isn't a 'COH 2' sort of thing for everyone to migrate to if they need to shut down the last one.

  94. Hey Perspective People by kenp2002 · · Score: 2

    Hey lets put this in perspective, remember all the people that were murdered by Christian extremists when Mel Gibson made that Passion of the Christ film? And lets not forget all those that died when the Last Temptation of Christ was released. Don't forget those murdered in the name of Christ when Andrew Loyd Webber released Jesus Christ Superstars and certainly have a moment of peace for those murdered every time South Park, Family Guy, The Simpsons, and Comic Artists featured Jesus. I mean don't you remember the "Dogma" massacres as a result of of that film? When Penny Arcade featured Jesus as Metal don't you remember the number of attempts on their lives?

    It's a religion of peace people, lets keep this in perspective. Don't let a small, vocal, organized, group of extremists pain a picture of a religion is evil. I am certain those responsible will be arrested by their fellow Muslims and prosecuted for murder by their fellow Muslims.

    Now the question you have to ask, "am I being sarcastic, or playing this comment straight?"

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  95. MOD parent up by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. This is just one of those many threads that bring out all the folks that'll start quoting that Godless piece of bigotry that is www.thereligionofpeace.com, and get modded up by others who insist on believing that all 1.4 BILLION Muslims around the world are terrorists, which makes about as much sense as equating all Protestants with the Klan. I'll probably get modded down just for posting this, but I really don't care...that sort of crap makes me ashamed to be an American.

    1. Re:MOD parent up by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      Yah, because stereotyping was invented and perfected in the U.S.A. Get a clue.

      Yea I stand corrected...obviously because people in other countries have ugly racist stereotypes we have to also right? Sure, America's diverse and all that, but it doesn't excuse bullshit like that whole "Ground Zero Mosque" bullshit. Anyone who wasn't ashamed about that in a country that's supposed to be about freedom is dead from the fucking neck up.

    2. Re:MOD parent up by couchslug · · Score: 1

      All people who believe in Superstitions deserve contempt for that belief.

      Religion deserves no respect because it is not supported by evidence.

      Prove your Sky Fairie exists, NOW, irrefutably (Mystery and Faith aren't evidence) and I'll recant and grovel before his/her/its Noodly Appendage.

      Religion is slavery to other humans, that is all, and that's why it comes with "marching orders".

      Absent PROOF of Deity, religion and those who believe it deserve scorn and contempt for promoting anti-truth.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  96. Beats me by shiftless · · Score: 1

    I don't know, but if you find out let me know. We might have to invent our own. If we can somehow figure out how to upload ourselves into a computer, we could live practically forever and maybe actually learn from/fix our mistakes. If the old style humans keep giving us shit, we'll just pack our bags, upload our shit into some giant spacecraft and set sail for the Gamma quadrant at a leisurely 0.5c....never to meet again, until the day we nuke Caprica. It has all happened before, and it will all happen again....

  97. Can you kindly stop regurgitating bullshit ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... it's the fact that they're generally poor and/or oppressed

    This is yet another bullshit that has been regurgitated, over and over again.
     
    It's a total bullshit !!
     
    You want to portray the moslems as "poor and oppressed" and I will debunk your lies ---
     
    Fact I: Wealth of the moslems:

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

     

    Qatar booked an estimated gross domestic product per capita of more than $92,501 for 2011
     
    Whereas for the United States of America -- only $48,442
     
    As for your expression "generally poor and/or oppressed", there ARE millions and millions of poor and oppressed Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Atheists all over the world.
     
    Tell us, how often do you see the poor and oppressed Buddhist or Hindu or Christian or Atheist murdering / beheading / massacring innocent victims in the name of their religion?
     
    In other words, poor and/or oppressed should not, and can never become a valid raison d'etre for anyone in massacring other people
     
      Stop apologizing for those bloody assholes who worship their "allah"
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Can you kindly stop regurgitating bullshit ? by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      You're a moron.

      I don't even know where to begin...

      1) Why on earth would you pick Qatar of all places? They have a population of 1.9 Million. I live within an hour of at least two cities that are larger than that. You then compare it to all of the United States? Really?
      2) GDP per capita is a terrible measure of poverty. If you've got unequal income distribution (lots of poor, and some super rich) it skews the numbers.
      3) Qatar has fantastically low violence. Like lower than the United States. Even though GDP per capita isn't the best metric to use, Qatar is still a very well off country. The unemployment is low (1.5%!!!), poverty is low, literacy rate is on par with western nations, higher education rates are high, etc. And you know what? Their murder rate is half that of the United States.

      Now I bet if we went through all the majority Muslim nations one by one, we'd find exceptions - nations where the populace is relatively well off and educated that are more violent than other nations that are poorer (Muslim or non-Muslim majority),

      But I also bet that if we ranked all the nations in order that violence and other social ills would largely trend with some other metrics (unemployment, median income vs. cost of living, education, literacy). I further bet that the Muslim nations on this list would *mostly* cluster with nations that are statistically similar to themselves.

      Does culture matter? Absolutely. Look at the violent crime rates in the U.S. vs. Japan or Germany, three nations who have very similar makeups on paper.

      But my point is that culture goes *way* further than just religion. Stop being obtuse, or stop trolling. I can't tell which one you're doing.

  98. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by fredprado · · Score: 1

    By your moral codes you may be right, but because each person has its own moral code there is something called the law. And by law, and by my moral code no matter what I say I won't be responsible for someone deciding to inflict physical harm upon me.

    You may establish causality between my acts and the acts of others, but that is not very relevant to establish blame.

    Having black skin was enough motive for having someone beaten once at some places. There was a clear relation of causality. Even so I wouldn't be able to put the blame on the victim here.

    Causality can be established between women using provocative clothes and rape, and that does not make the victim accountable for the rape either.

  99. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's blowback. From assets used to achieve para-political military aims, then discarded by the would-be puppet masters.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  100. Re:They're thieves and war criminals by fredprado · · Score: 1

    So, by your own admission you then concede you cannot force anyone to do anything with words as I said. The fact you can push people's buttons does not take from them the capacity to decide. If they cannot refrain to commit crimes because they heard something unpleasant only means they are not adequate to live in society and should be locked in a cage. Last but not least, you can disagree as much as you wish, but that does not make you right..

  101. Re:GODDAMN FUCKING BULLSHIT ! by riondluz · · Score: 1

    Wow!
    Honest feelings and not one reply.

    I'll take a bite.

    First I'll attempt with counterpoint by citing (a) the usefulness enemies to retain power, (b) similarities with extremes in both jewish and christians in principles and means (and examples), (c) that the parts of the elephant you blindly touch is as fractalized as the Maine coast, (d) the general public apathy/tepidity to act juxtaposed against oppressed minorities struggling to survive, (d) that terror will always be a tool both by the little (the rebels) and the big (e.g. RioTinto, Standard Oil) until people wake up to the lie.
    (e) there is no difference dying in an bang or in a breaking levee

    Here's another tack:

    Global Reporting stimulates Global Opinions about shit that almost everyone, in some way, is totally clueless about in trying to explain.

    Either you were there, or not; either you were a detatched witness or you were biased. When it's eye-opening, pucker-uping shit then its usually about grunts/expendables looking in the mirror one day and seeing someone who can't go home again.

    Not the same anymore from experiencing some insane, mis-guided, self-delusional bullshit they said "i can't do this anymore; i just aint me".
    "No Mas"

    So: to respond to your queries about muslims by who knows less of them than their digits on hand implies that (at least) I have no god in the fight.

    One: They are speaking out. They are a minority, sure, but they decry what is happening as much as you do. As a minority, like OWS or the TP even, their voices do not gain any mainstream media attraction. Unless you search you will not hear them.

    Two: To the larger group of StatusQuo, don't rock-the-boat, there-you-have-it/there-it-is majority who prefer feeling over fact, don't like to have to think a whole lot and have difficulty communicating in words - that muslim minority (as vocal on rights and injustice as on violence) like all the other fringes who just want to stir up trouble, are percieved as a nuisance to infiltrate, mis-guide and, if caught, serve as a warning to others not to trust the resolute when it comes to making plans.

    Three: Have you entertained the possibility that your understanding, the aggregate assembled or compiled from collected stories, might be tainted by information (often deliberately) ommited, or otherwise FUBAR from the 'boots on the ground', 1st-person, actual experience?

    Four: Understanding is a more difficult path than letting your ego latch onto the emotional response of the sensational. It's what keeps the charade in play.

    Five: when/if you realize your post has become recursive, that's its also become your "GODDAMN FUCKING BULLSHIT" as well as same of countless 'programmed', manufactured, well-spun, pawns in the game of the System; then you will understand and your questions closer to real targets.

    TC: I've been on this board a long time and hold you, docruby and and fistfull of others in both respect and regard. Get over this before this, or the next-big-thing makes your head ASPLODE!

    Sincerely

    --
    resist propaganda
  102. If God wasn't dead by okmijnuhb · · Score: 1

    He would smite all religionists, leaving only atheists who live by the golden rule.

  103. Re:GODDAMN FUCKING BULLSHIT ! by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

    Where were the moderate Christians when Christian extremists bombed abortion clinics and shot staff members?

    I'll grant you that there are probably more violent extremists who would cite their motivation as Islam than there are violent extremists who would cite Christianity as their motivating force. But so what? That still doesn't put the blame on the rest of the Muslims.

    The fact is that there were no U.S. security forces there. The consulate was defended by and the mob was engaged with deadly force by Libyan security forces. Early reports indicate that when it became clear that the mob was overrunning the consulate, a local Militia intervened and stepped in to defend the consulate. Many / most of these Libyans were likely Muslims themselves.

    Today, there were rallies in Egypt and Libya of people expressing remorse for what happened. But I guess they must not be Muslims because they weren't violent and because they denounced the violence. Funny that.

    To answer your questions:

    How many of them did you see spoke out against the beheading of non-moslems, carried out by their moslem brethren, in the name of Islam?

    Every single Muslim I know. Every. Single. One. To say nothing of Muslim politicians and prominent leaders speaking out in more prominent venues than my living room or office.

    were those so-called "moderate moslems" when the Madrid Train Stations got bombed?

    There are 1.1 Million Muslims in Spain. 29 individuals were charged in involvements in the Madrid train bombings. While I'm sure there are other violent crimes that have been committed in that population of 1.1 million, am I to believe that the vast bulk of them are what? Biding their time? Waiting for the right moment to detonate their suicide vests that they've all been issued at the local mosque / radicalization center? Wow! Spain is a ticking time bomb!

    Did we see any of those "moderate moslems" spoke out against the bombing of the London subway system?

    Why yes we did see moderate Muslims speak out after the 7/7 bombings. In fact, 500 of their religious leaders in the U.K. issued a Fatwa condemning the bombings.

    Do you know that them moslems beheaded little kids in southern Thailand, just because their parents were (the parents were butchered as well) non-moslems?

    Did you know that Patriotic Resistance Force in Ituri (a group that indentifies itself as a Christian militia) has committed genocide, kept prisoners locked in rooms that were essentially mass graves, kept women and children as sex slaves, and engaged in conscription of child soldiers? Does this mean all Christians are vile? Or maybe just all African Christians? Maybe just Ugandan Christians? I'm sure we can find a sweeping bigoted generalization you can agree with!

    You should be modded down as a troll, because you are a troll.

    There are bad Muslims in the world. Congratulations for figuring that bit out.

    But guess what? If there are a million Muslims in an area and 100 of them go on a killing spree, guess which group gets news coverage?

    Nobody is apologizing for anything. We're trying to make sure bigots and morons understand that a couple billion people aren't responsible for the actions of a few.

  104. He was a MUD player too. by Atryn · · Score: 1

    We knew Kurgen/Gothic on the Moral Decay MUD where he and his wife both played and became wizards. As I understand it, his activity has been much greater on Eve, but we feel like a member of our family was lost as well... RIP Kurgen.

    --
    Come play Moral Decay!
  105. Re:GODDAMN FUCKING BULLSHIT ! by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

    You know what?

    I am truly fucking tired of the BULLSHITS from you moslem apologists !!!

    You know what? I was going to mark this post as a troll to at least partially hide it from the world, but sometimes people need to be exposed as the retards they are so I've decided to let more people see the post to let them make up their own minds about you.

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  106. Oblig. FC by ifrag · · Score: 1

    Tyler's words coming out of my mouth. I used to be such a nice person.

    Listen to me. You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen. We don't need Him. Fuck damnation, man. Fuck redemption. We are God's unwanted children. So be it! But first you have to give up. First, you have to know, not fear, know that someday you're gonna die. It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

    --
    Fear is the mind killer.
  107. Double standards are twice as good! by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    I find it so typical that we here see Mulims protesting the movie because (among other things) it displays them as aggresive, violent and murderous, and they do this protesting by... being aggressive, violent and murderous.

    It's just like the cartoon crises - they protested against Muhammad being shown with a bomb in his turban, signifying the violent and murderous nature of Islam, by being violent and murderous...

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:Double standards are twice as good! by Sparks23 · · Score: 1

      If I'm reading the news articles properly, available evidence actually indicates the protesters themselves were peaceful and the protests got used as cover for violence by extremists. Some articles suggested that this was a 9/11 'reminder' planned anyway, and the protests over the film just provided a convenient cover for them to get into place in a crowd.

      Sadly, the lunatic fringe is often what a group gets judged by, which is hardly unique to Islam; many people also judge Christianity by groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or the Christian groups who bomb abortion clinics. Heck, the same is true of political parties or — to use a more Slashdot-relevant example — OS platform advocates. The loud lunatic ones end up being the voices outsiders notice the most readily, because they're shouting and starting fights.

      As a result, the story many take from this becomes not, "Violent lunatics seize on convenient excuse to thinly justify their attacks" but "ZOMG YOU GUYS, MUSLIMS ARE CRAZY-VIOLENT." Which is unfortunate.

      --
      --Rachel
  108. Re:Geting covered in pigblood makes one go "Carrie by Krojack · · Score: 1

    2. U.S. soldiers kill people because they have resources the U.S. needs.

    I never could understand this argument. If they would act like mature modern day people and just do business like other middle eastern nations, they would be rich beyond their dreams and no one would be dieing. Instead they still live in the 9th century.

  109. That Video by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1

    BBC Radio 4 PM probably the most respected News Programme in the one UK ran a feature on that video.

    Practically everything we've been told about it is false.

  110. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Terrorism thrives under Islam because most Muslims tacitly support it and their Superstition doesn't condemn it.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  111. Re:Batshit Crazy? Movie was a cover... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Slavery thrives under Christianity, for your same cited reasons - with as much "fact" to support it.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  112. Re:Seriously, EVE Online? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

    Ya, I have a champions character. Same people who made COH1. But there's no direct transfer over, you need to organize and so on. And it's the quirky little communities that are hard to replace. Fortunately the single server in champions means you'll definitely be with people from your server, it's just a matter of finding them.