Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Refuses To Remove Anti-Islamic Film Clip

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that Google officials have rejected the notion of removing a video that depicts the prophet as a fraud and philanderer and has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. Google says the video does not violate YouTube's policies, but they did restrict viewers in Egypt and Libya from loading it due to the special circumstances in the country. Google's response to the crisis highlighted the struggle faced by the company, and others like it, to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events. 'This video – which is widely available on the Web – is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube,' Google said in a statement. 'However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries.' Underscoring Google's quandary, some digital free expression groups have criticized YouTube for censoring the video. Eva Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says given Google' s strong track record of protecting free speech, she was surprised the company gave in to pressure to selectively block the video. 'It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint,' says Galperin. 'I'm not sure they did the right thing.'"

622 comments

  1. It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

    1. Re:It's already out there... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

      Doesn't matter anyway, most of these protesters are taking it word of mouth from word of mouth from word of mouth. Few have likely seen it. Few even stop to consider if it even has merit (being seen to think for yourself can be hazardous to your health in some circles.)

      It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical (to say nothing of the internet trolling) wringers. Perhaps there would be some good if it got some people to think, but see above. The people who tell these people to be angry like their control over them.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:It's already out there... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nor should they. There is freedom of speech in the US, and Google is a US based company. I have little sympathy for those "revolting" in other countries over stuff like this. Muslims who kill because their beliefs are mocked by others are horrible. Catholics who bomb abortion clinics and kill workers there are horrible. Germans who supported ethnic cleansing back in the day were/are horrible. In short, once you start to affect other people with violence, you turn horrible.

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    3. Re:It's already out there... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      There is freedom of speech in the US, and Google is a US based company.

      You are confusing "US" and "company".

      If google decides they don't want to have people inciting religious violence, it does not violate any constitutional right to free speech. Last time I checked, Google was not the US government. At least it wasn't yesterday, but things change quickly.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 0

      Do you have any sympathy for those that were killed by the army of crazy?

      If you had the power to not release that video, and the knowledge that the people would die, would you have saved their lives by not uploading the video?

      If you knew it were you that would be killed, would you have uploaded it?

      You'd have to weigh against what the world gained by seeing that video. I haven't seen it, and probably won't, so I can't really say what important truths it may contain. Uploading it does let us say "we'll support free speech with our blood", which is pretty compelling and fierce, but against that you have people basically getting torn apart by animals. Then again, there is merit in the idea that censoring it could send us down the slippery slope into more censorship, but against that we could all slide further down the slippery slope of people freaking out and tearing each other apart more often.

      Censorship sucks.
      People tearing each other apart sucks.

      In this particular case, a media bomb, with the intent of starting a voilent shitstorm among the rabble, was launched from our country and detonated in the middle east. Property damage ensued. People died. This video is the very essence of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a panic.

      How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?

      I would not upload that video. If it mattered anymore, I would support censoring it. If I had a time machine, I would go back and fix it.

    5. Re:It's already out there... by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

      Unless they are Cylon, because then it is ok.

    6. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.

      Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

    7. Re:It's already out there... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about the Ed Woodesque film anyway. These folks would just find other reasons . . . real or imagined . . . to storm anything with a whiff of America about it.

      "Hey, Abdul! America says, 'Tastes Great!' Islam says, 'Less Filling!' Let's riot!"

      These folks are in a permanent state of outrage against the US. They are just looking for any reason whatsoever to vent their unfounded anger.

      Sorry to break the news to you, America, but Islamic folks don't love you. Never have, never will.

      Maybe if someone made a Reality TV Show about it, ordinary folks would finally understand this.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:It's already out there... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      (btw, this isn't directed to AmazingRuss specifically - just an elaboration) Well, sure - if I knew my video would cause violence, I would not release it.

      I'm not defending the video in the least. The guy sounds like a class A asshole. What I am defending is the right to have it uploaded, and the right for people to protest against what they believe in. Just not the right to violence.

      Your right to act as you will stops when it invades my little sphere of being.

      I remember going to vote a few months ago. Walking home, I passed an older man that was peering at the voting posted a few blocks away. I asked him if he was going to vote - he muttered back to me "I never vote". I cheerfully replied that wasn't it nice that we lived in a country where he had that choice - he didn't respond and I wasn't looking to provoke him into a discourse on the matter. Just wanted to give him something to think about.

      I also realize that the US is not everywhere else in the world - people think and act differently based on their upbringing and their surroundings, and it should. The US is too involved with things are they are. However, I am hard pressed to cite anyone credible that advocates violence as an answer to non violence. Freedom of speech should be a universal right - many may not agree with me. But isn't it nice that we have a lovely forum like this to express our views on? ;)

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    9. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?"

      Honestly, nobody would give a shit about some video from Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. would arrest and prosecute the bible thumpers and skinheads. It's not that hard.

    10. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It IS pretty offensive.

      It's also pretty damn hilarious. These protesters must be simply being told what to do, because I can't see anyone taking this seriously if they had actually seen it. Sure, the movie completely trashes Mohammed, but in the most cartoonish way possible. I liked the part where he was like "Everyone but Muslims must die" and then there's an explosion as he puts his sword up. Sort of like he's an action hero.

      If they made the same sort of movie about Jesus, I probably wouldn't be able to stop laughing.

      This is like if they made a sequel to Borat, but where he was teleported back to 7th Century Arabia and founded a religion.

    11. Re:It's already out there... by cyfer2000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I have a close friend who works at Cairo embassy. I felt very disturbed by the people who instigated the whole thing. They ought to know that they are going to get US personnel in the muslim countries killed, and they must know that their personal safety will be protected by federal and local law enforcement. How evil can this be?

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    12. Re:It's already out there... by bobbutts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fire in the crowded theater analogy doesn't work here. When someone is informed of a fire, they act out of self-preservation at the lowest level. People choosing to view this video and then reacting violently have not been fooled into desperately saving their own lives.

    13. Re:It's already out there... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Having actually seen the movie, it much ado about nothing. Yes, it is offensive in a Monty Python sort of way. Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.

      Heck, that is giving too much credit to the producers and making the "Life of Brian" seem worse than it really is. Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

      You might get a kick out of the crazy people and their idea behind the film, to smoke out terrorists in southern california.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    14. Re:It's already out there... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is unfortunate, but nothing new to Christians who have seen their faith run through the artistic expression and philosophical

      Except that Christianity doesn't expressly forbid depictions of jesus etc. Muslims don't have free speech, it's a foreign concept to them. It was, for a long time, a foreign concept to the christian world too after all, the Christian, Asian Orthodox and Catholic and protestant churches (see what I did there, I implied eastern orthodox as the real christians not anyone else, you didn't go burning an embassy down over it?) all disagree over who's interpretation is right. But that's kind of the point. By steel and gunpowder they got themselves to the point of simply disagreeing, and not making any more of a fuss over it. Part of that of course comes from the balance in power between the state and religion, and the eternal conflict between the Catholic church particularly as a state and as a religion.

      Just about everything one christian denomination stands for one of the others disagrees with, about the only thing they agree on are that a god exists and that jesus is his son, and none of them are too fond of people pointing that out as being obvious nonsense. But beyond that, they've long since fought their wars and revolutions, inquisitions and witch hunts over it and it's just not worth it. Free speech isn't some grand ideal about why it's great to hear everyone's opinion, it's a grand ideal because I know I don't have to listen to other people's opinions. The new islamic movements are going to find it very hard to get anything done if they want to waste a week every time someone of no importance says something they don't like, but that will take some growing pains because for years they've been like sheltered children by their authoritarian states, and they just discovered that the world has porn and gays and they don't like that. Eventually they'll figure out that there are a lot of people in the world who say a lot of offensive things, and most of the time no one cares, and making a fuss over it just gives attention to people who don't deserve it.

      Granted, it may well be that we need to extend the principles of Augsburg (1555) and Westphalia (1648), importantly 'Cuius regio, eius religio' through the UN. Your state can set its own damn rules about religion but keep your nose out of anyone elses so to speak. That would require leaders in muslim states to go along with it, and they're not there yet, or at least, not all of them, but they're getting there.

    15. Re:It's already out there... by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if i yell fire in a crowded theatre, people may trample and kill others motivated out of self-preservation. so me, the one shouted fire, i'm the one culpable

      if i call mohammed a nasty word, and people start rioting and killing, they are motivated by religious extremism. do you believe a religious zealot who will kill because of his religion is a defensible position, like self-preservation? hell no! so where does the buck stop? with the religious zealot

      if i insult your mother and you kill someone, who is culpable for the dead person? you? or me because i insulted my mother? do you see how crazy this gets?

      at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    16. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 0

      Because we can blame somebody other than the perpetrator for the result.

    17. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I would watch such a show avidly.

    18. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2

      I'm sure they're hunting down the rabble over there now too, and will prosecute them in the way they do those things over there.

      And what about the people that got something horrible done to them. Any thought for them?

    19. Re:It's already out there... by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cuius regio, eius religio worked for another time. Censorship used to actually work. Now, it really doesn't, even where they try to implement it. That means that you can't keep the other countries' infectious ideas from getting in your own nice dictatorship and you can't keep your extremists from getting their hands on this stuff and inciting people over it either.

      Other than that, I have to agree that certain liberties are earned by a lot of effort, frequently with blood involved. These people don't understand that the US Government does not go around telling people what they are allowed to say. That's something they are not used to in their own countries, so they believe that since the US Government allows it to exist, it is because the US Government supports it 100%.

      They have a lot to learn about freedom of expression now that they have the chance at it. Some will hate the idea even when they see it in action and long for the days of a strongman to keep people in their places.

    20. Re:It's already out there... by reboot246 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It doesn't matter whether Google takes it down or leaves it up. The movie isn't the main cause. Every single day somewhere in the West there are dozens of insults to the Prophet. Muslims don't need the movie to hate us. It's just something the media have latched onto and they won't turn lose of it because it's an easy excuse.

      We warned about this while the "Arab Spring" was happening last year, but nobody in the Administration listened. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost now, aren't they?

    21. Re:It's already out there... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      They do have something to lose if they start censoring, however. Besides their nice freedom-oriented PR, if they start showing a tendency to censor, they will have their feet held to the fire by all sorts of people who want them to use that policy on their behalf. Better to just put your hands up and state that it is within their policies and guidelines.

    22. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Our differing lists of who is credible is at the root of the problem, and telling the rioters to cite their authority or "go on home and fer crissakes PUT that embassy staffer DOWN" isn't going to be respected.

      When the lists don't match, it inevitably comes down to force.

    23. Re:It's already out there... by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those people might well be alive today if that movie had not been released.

      On the other hand, they may well have died tomorrow anyway, because this isn't happening because of this video, it's happening because there are people out there that want this to happen and they will find and use any excuse to make it happen. They are prepared and ready for anything they can use.

      There are so many offensive things on YouTube to all sorts of people that I just don't think you can say, we'll take this down because you murdered someone. They weren't required to look at it, and for sure, they weren't required to kill anyone over it.

    24. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 0

      ...on someone that can be referred to by the pronoun 'them'.

    25. Re:It's already out there... by cyberworm · · Score: 1

      When we as americans are ready to not say what we want for fear of offending others, then all is truly lost. Where do we draw the line?

    26. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are fool .. should we bring back slavery since it may have caused the Civil War? I mean, really, how the hell do you live life cowering in a corner hopeing nothing bad ever happens?

      Free Speech is not some "abstract" thing we should use only when proper and convenient, as that defeats the whole point of Free Speech. Yelling "Fire" in a theater is so overused it is NOT funny, Yes, I have a RIGHT to yell "Fire" in a theatre, and will not even be arrested or questioned about it if it turns out to be a mistake, shit happens, but the simple fact is that if a person takes an extra minute before yelling "fire" when there is a real fire than MANY people WILL DIE!

      I'll gladly take a pause of a movie, exit and come back when it's safe versus have someone hesitate to yell Fire and have us all burn to death.... Now, if a person continue to do this, yes, then the theatre should bar that person from coming in (and yes, they do have this right, and/or have a jury decide that, Yes, he/she was being abusive of the right, but only a Jury of our peers should be able to make that decision after hearing all the facts and testimony). -- you know, another of those rights we seem to be shitting on for all the wrong reasons: Innocent until proven guilty.

    27. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey maybe it's just me, but they should be murdering ALL Egyptians because, after all, Egypt is obviously collaborating with the Western World to mock Islam and thus even the Muslims in Egypt are mocking Muhammed and as such should be tried and executed under Sharia law!

      But hey, it's cooler to murder Americans, right?

      I'm so glad they checked their facts before throwing a worldwide tantrum.

    28. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      When we tolerate as our fellow citizens assholes of that magnitude, maybe we don't deserve to say what we want.

    29. Re:It's already out there... by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due

      Have to? this statement is contradicted by the available evidence. Evidence to date suggests that "AmazingRuss" is perfectly capable of never learning anything of the sort.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    30. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the poorly cut trailer for a basement-made video, shot by amateurs on a $12 budget* and posted to YouTube, is an extraordinarily lame excuse for the murders of unrelated people, thousands of miles away.

      When degenerates need an excuse for their behavior, they will find one. This garbage video (and it is garbage) was unrelated.

      * I'm assuming someone purchased the green bed sheet.

    31. Re:It's already out there... by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh bullshit. The current dust up is merely an excuse for frustrated Muslims to show to Allah that somehow they are worthy for Heaven. And if Islam is going to be offended by freedom of speech, what does that tell you about Islam? If Allah is so fucking powerful and sacred and his Prophet so Holy, how come He doesn't, in his infinite power, deal with it Himself.

      This is yet one more expression of Islamic arrogance. They want to dictate to the rest of the world the terms of other peoples thinking. Fuck'em, take a chill pill.

      The word "gormless", the people, Muslims. They got trolled and are now feeding the troll.

    32. Re:It's already out there... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      your own nice dictatorship

      Well that's the thing, dictators can still censor stuff, but that is, as you say, futile, it's not them I'm worried about. The government of Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and a few others are mostly kinda democratic. It's about the democratic governments coming on side with being openly dismissive of crazy people in other countries and clamping down on people getting too riled up about it.

      If everytime someone chanted death to america the yanks burned down an embassy there wouldn't be a lot embassies left. People sometimes need to be given perspective by their leaders, and they need to be credible leaders - right now they have credible leaders a lot of places, they just aren't quite caught up to the 16th century yet.

    33. Re:It's already out there... by terjeber · · Score: 1

      ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

      Quite the opposite. It would show that we are willing to forego democracy whenever some superstitious lunatic goes hysterical over nothing and burns flags. If that is all that is needed to take down democracy, then we do not deserve democracy.

      The appropriate response to the demonstrations in the world about this horrendous work of manure (the crappy movie that is) is to continue to publish one such movie a week until the lunatics grow tired of acting like put-upon five year olds with overdeveloped bodies and underdeveloped brains.

    34. Re:It's already out there... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      LOL, I wasn't interested in seeing this movie...until now. BRB!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re:It's already out there... by terjeber · · Score: 2

      You are right, but Google has a motto "don't be evil", taking the video down would be "doing evil". The movie is crap. The lunatics who made it are, well, lunatics, but the people burning US flags and killing US ambassadors because of the actions of a tiny fringe group of lunatics with yet another superstition to defend are worse. Sadly, the demonstrations we currently see are (ironically, an irony the protesters do not have the capability of understanding) basically going a long way to proving the film makers right.

    36. Re:It's already out there... by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Censorship sucks.
      People tearing each other apart sucks

      On a scale of 1 to 100, censorship sucks 100. People tearing each other apart comparatively doesn't reach 20. Censorship means ultimately the government will be the one tearing us apart, and I am far more afraid of my government than I am of a bunch of un-educated superstitious lunatics who get their panties in a knot just because someone was not nice to a dude that has been dead for the best part of 1500 years. You should be too.

    37. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      20? Really?

      Cold.

    38. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I'm with you until the second paragraph. That would be a little rough on our troops, and what would we gain? A bloodbath? More terrorism? The rioters are animals. They aren't going to respond well to repeated taunting, any more than a feral cat responds well to being poked with a stick. That little plan ends in Glass Parking Lot. Is that what you want for an outcome?

    39. Re:It's already out there... by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that they would long for that, until someone shows up and starts doing it to them again.

      I'll bet their stories of how "everything was so much better under the old regime" would change awfully quick when someone shows up raping, killing, robbing, and beating the hell out of them for daring to even look at their betters.

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    40. Re:It's already out there... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Attacks on Superstition only annoy the Superstitious.

      Reject that shit. Anyone who cannot PROVE their Sky Fairie exists merits no respect.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    41. Re:It's already out there... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      If you had the power to not release that video, and the knowledge that the people would die, would you have saved their lives by not uploading the video? If you knew it were you that would be killed, would you have uploaded it?

      At this point in the saga I would re-release it, to do otherwise would signal your intention to cave in to every demand that has a death threat attached to it. OTOH: nobody would be threatening me over that particular movie, it's deliberate flame bait and I wouldn't have anything to do with it in the first place.

      I know where you are coming from "let sleeping dogs lay" and all that, google doesn't have that option, some arsehole has already woken them up. It's now a battle of ideas and you certainly won't win any converts to free speech if all you do is use it to bash them and their beliefs.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    42. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would put it at a 1, human life, is, truthfully, cheap. We all have something we will willing die for, or willingly kill for. You know, the old questions like, "If you could save 100,000 people by killing yourself, would you?" or "Would you kill Hitler to prevent WWII?". Simply put, most parents would gladly give their lives to know with certainly (or a fair degree of it) that their kids would grow up without being hated, attacked, threatened, or live their lives in fear, I know I would. Censorship is a factor of Fear, the fear of people learning stuff that some other people would rather than didn't.

      Knowledge is power, and censorship ensures only a select group can have that power... really scary when you think about it from a macro point of view.

      Of course, from that perspective, this means I have no problem with Iran having a Nuclear arsenal as well... as scary as that is, I don't see any difference between them having it, Israel having it, or the US having it. Even in the US, we are just a few fake reports and a political party that wants to "become part of history" from using it as well... If we truly want world peace, well, we all must have a weapon that puts everyone (and I mean everyone) on equal footing). Sure, a crazy person could set one off, but I don't see that risk as any higher with everyone having a nuke versus those that have one right now :( Any idea how many Nukes the US has lost? Google it, it could be very enlightening....

    43. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use videos to identify these subhuman fucks and bomb them into oblivion. Keep releasing videos until there are no more subhuman retards going insane over it.

    44. Re:It's already out there... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Censorship used to actually work. Now, it really doesn't, even where they try to implement it.

      The US has demonstrated that censorship is unnecessary. Instead of suppressing ideas, co-opt them and blame the other party when you never actually follow through. It's a lot easier to trick people into thinking they have a choice than it is to use force. Ask any magician.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    45. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads

      People in the US would make fun of their poor production values and someone would at least send them a license for Premiere or Final Cut Pro.

      But seriously FSM? Touched by His noodly appendage? Nobody is killing those guy and the media hasn't even touched it.

    46. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's something they are not used to in their own countries, so they believe that since the US Government allows it to exist, it is because the US Government supports it 100%

      That's was the attitude of the Russians during the cold war, if I recall correctly. This paranoia should be fought with really big guns and missiles. Oh, wait..

    47. Re:It's already out there... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you have any sympathy for those that were killed by the army of crazy?

      If you had the power to not release that video, and the knowledge that the people would die, would you have saved their lives by not uploading the video?

      I would save their lives by warning them to be armed to the teeth and prepared to turn the army of crazy into an army of corpses. Anyone who reacts to an expression of opinion by resorting to violence deserves no less, and the rest of the world deserves better than to have to live in danger because of them.

      This video is the very essence of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a panic.

      Ummm... no. That involves making people believe there is an immediate physical threat. Their reaction to get out of the theater is a perfectly reasonable one, but they need to not panic and exit in an orderly way. The problem with the people attacking the embassies is that they did it at all, not that they didn't draw up into orderly ranks and carry out the assault with proper discipline.

      How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?

      Actually, I expect the media would be much more enthusiastic about criticizing the beliefs of those involved. But it's much less likely that there would be that reaction. Not impossible, just much less likely. Did Christians around the world burn down embassies in response to The DaVinci Code? I believe there was one significant act of violence (in France, not usually known for its "Bible thumpers") during the run of The Last Temptation of Christ -- after huge amounts of news coverage and advertising. I don't recall any "we have to censor this or the Christians will kill people!" hysteria. And that's as it should be.

      Beyond the principle of freedom of speech in this specific instance, you're also overlooking the long-term incentive of what you espouse. If people can get things censored by resorting to violence, then the message you're sending is "if you want something censored, get violent." By giving in to one religious group's violent demands for censorship, you're telling every other religious group that if they remain well-behaved they can be mocked, but if they break out the torches they can shut up their critics.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    48. Re:It's already out there... by aevan · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, Muslims are getting those people killed..they are the ones doing it. This isn't violence in response to violence, this is mobs motivated by their religious handlers. Hellfires, is even quotes out there that summed basically to 'I have not seen the video, but I was told it was against the Prophet and so the Americans must be punished.' Riots based on hearsay.

      If the next bad thing declared was 'eating pork insults Mohammad and so kill all the pork eaters'... will you advise the banning of commercials for hotdogs? Leave accountability where it belongs: the ones being violent are at fault, regardless their ethnicity/religion/choice of food.

      Personally I find the video more insulting in it's poor quality in both writing, acting and humour and technical work- a high school AV club could have done better.

    49. Re:It's already out there... by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they made the same sort of movie about Jesus, I probably wouldn't be able to stop laughing.

      The Life Of Brian?

    50. Re:It's already out there... by canadian_right · · Score: 2

      So you think companies have no responsibly to act morally or ethically? Why is that? It is my strongly held opinion that all people, even the ones running companies, should hold themselves to the highest moral standards at all times.

      Freedom of speech is such an important right that all people, the companies made up of people, and the governments of these people should uphold this important right.

      Personally, I would not have blocked the video at all, as it will have no effect one way or the other on religious fanatics hell bent on violence.

      Basic rights are something everyone should follow, not just the government. This is just.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    51. Re:It's already out there... by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      That poorly made video, or the proposed burning of a book did not directly cause any deaths. Radical imans, and the leaders of already violent political parties have already decided they want violence. Whether they choose a poorly made video, or some other flimsy pretext they will have their violence.

      Censorship isn't going to make anyone safer.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    52. Re:It's already out there... by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      The people making bad videos are not endangering anyone. It is the radical, religious, and political fanatics that are endangering people. These people would have found some other excuse to attack.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    53. Re:It's already out there... by terjeber · · Score: 1

      what would we gain

      An end to the violence. They'd simply grow tired of the provocations and perhaps grow up in the process.

    54. Re:It's already out there... by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 2

      Thing is that it doesn't really matter what quality it is for those people. Even an illiterate 14 year old with down-syndrome is subject to violence... if she is a Christian in Pakistan. Even if it was a set-up by the imam and there are several eye-witnesses stating that he did so, she is still to blame. Any excuse, no matter how futile, to be violent towards non-muslims is good enough. No matter if a 4 yo doodled something against mohammed, or Dreamworks made a splendid animation, the result will be the same if it's published. This is not a religion of love, respect and tolerance, or at least it is not if you're not a heterosexual male muslim.

      I think Google is doing the right thing here, and I can't condemn them for taking it down for some countries, although I can't applaud it either. This is the 21st century, and there is a good chance that there is someone out there who disagrees with something you hold true. "Lets talk" seems a lot more mature to me than petrolbomb each-others brains out. Let alone RPG-ing an embassy. That is just set-up.
      Lets not succumb to the medieval doctrine of some pious adversaries to freedom of speech, already to many where killed defending that right and there is no reason to have a second round of that.
      And if you dont agree with me... well... I wont harm you for it :-)

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    55. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS pretty offensive.

      I'm not sure why it was considered offensive. It portrays Mohammed and his followers as violent, which they are proving true by their actions now.

      "No one calls us violent and lives to tell about it!!! Jihad!!!!"

      ...and, they claim it portrays Mohammed as an oversexed child molester. Of course, the historical record shows:

      a. when he was 53 he was banging an 8 year old, Aisha bint Abu Bakh, but it was OK because they were married, right?

      b. and even though the koran limits you to 4 wives, Mohammed had 16 wives, 2 concubines, and 4 mistresses.

    56. Re:It's already out there... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Fraking toasters! So say we all!

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    57. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen how shitty THEIR movies are?

    58. Re:It's already out there... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It is my strongly held opinion that all people, even the ones running companies, should hold themselves to the highest moral standards at all times.

      You must be the most disappointed man alive.

      Clearly, you are not a corporate CEO.

      The people who run companies don't really run companies. Corporations have become golems that require a suspension of moral standards.

      Regarding the "basic rights" you talk about: they come with a responsibility, too. There is a legal doctrine here in the US called "fighting words". While you are free to say whatever you want to say, you are also responsible for what you say. You are responsible for the consequences of what you say. And if you insult someone's religion or their mama you are responsible for the size 12 hush puppy that gets sent up your keister.

      I support the right of the douchebags at "Media for Christ" who made this horrible movie. I also believe they should be required to go explain themselves at a mosque in Cairo.

      See, pal, the First Amendment and the natural Right to Free Speech inalienably granted by God Almighty does not give you the right to say any kind of shit you want and not have any consequences.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    59. Re:It's already out there... by smellotron · · Score: 1

      The rioters are animals. They aren't going to respond well to repeated taunting, any more than a feral cat responds well to being poked with a stick.

      The rioters are people, not feral cats. They may not be as "enlightened" as you wish (mobs rarely are), but if you degrade them to animals then what do you expect?

    60. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you support free speech as an ideal in itself? Or just speech you're not personally offended by?

      A few years ago, Sen. Lieberman made a fuss and shamed Youtube into taking down terrorist videos. Now, I don't speak Arabic, and had never seen these videos, but, still, Google took them down.

      Now, it's saying it won't take down videos which might be considered on the opposite end of the spectrum. (Which would be fine if they hadn't censored the other videos.)

    61. Re:It's already out there... by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wasting my mod points, but it's not about Jesus. It's about the very people who show up late, learn about the miracle (or offensive video or whatever) by word of mouth and then follow the wrong guy. The "real" Jesus is even in the movie, giving the sermon on the mount, and in the beginning.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    62. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. From an interview on NPR with a reporter in Yemen at the protest there, not a single person she talked to had seen the video. They stated that their reasons for doing it are because they heard of the protests in Cairo and Benghazi. I wouldn't doubt if the others are the same; All following this idea of "Me too!"

      Aside from that, they seem to have issues understanding what the idea of "Free Speech" is, and how we [try to] treasure it.

    63. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The thin-skins of the islamic world need to grow up and shed its narcissistic naievety.

      Boo hoo, someone criticized Mohammed. Get over it, don't take it personally, then let them burn in the hell that awaits them eventually, because you do have better things to do, right?

    64. Re:It's already out there... by jimmyfrank · · Score: 1

      Do you ever watch South Park?

    65. Re:It's already out there... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Let these people protest the movie. Crazy people will be crazy people. Just don't have our government apologize for it or have our companies compromise freedom of expression over it.

      In fact, I suggest that people from all over the world make short comedy films about Islam and post them all on youtube. Nothing hateful, just offensive satirical nonsense.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    66. Re:It's already out there... by khallow · · Score: 1

      And what about the people that got something horrible done to them. Any thought for them?

      As the previous poster said:

      and the U.S. would arrest and prosecute the bible thumpers and skinheads

      He's not saying that because he doesn't like bible thumpers and skinheads. The thought for the victims is that the people responsible for harming them are brought to justice.

    67. Re:It's already out there... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, blessed are the cheese makers.....

      Wikipedia pointed out a subtlety about that scene

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python's_Life_of_Brian#Religious_satire_and_blasphemy_accusations

      The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faith. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance ("I think he said, 'blessed are the cheese makers'"). Importantly, he is distinct from the character of Brian, which is also evident in the scene where an annoying and ungrateful ex-leper pesters Brian for money, while moaning that since Jesus cured him, he has lost his source of income in the begging trade (referring to Jesus as a "bloody do-gooder").

      So in Life of Brian the comedy comes from idiots not understanding the message of peace and tolerance.

      Then again of course, Jesus discouraged stoning - "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Unlike Mohammed

      http://www.iupui.edu/~msaiupui/082.sbt.html#008.082.809

      Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

      A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess.

      "I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". How chilling is that?

      And it's clear that if Muhammad hadn't have been there the couple would have got a token punishment of face blackening, not be killed horribly.

      In fact if you don't think either Jesus or Muhammad were divine these sorts of differences in their morality make it pretty clear that Jesus as a historical figure is owed a more respectful portrayal than Muhammad. Muhammad not only had sex slaves, he actually enslaved them himself after killing their husbands.

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

      Rayhana was originally a member of the Banu Nadir tribe who married a man from the Banu Qurayza. After the Banu Qurayza were defeated by the armies of Muhammad in the Siege of the Banu Qurayza neighborhood, Rayhana was among those enslaved, while the men were executed for treason.

      According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took her as a maiden slave and offered her the status of becoming his wife if she accepted Islam, but she refused. According to his account, even though Rayhana is said to have later converted to Islam, she died as a slave.[1] According to Marco SchÃller, Rayhana either became the Prophet's concubine or, was married to him and later divorced

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    68. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it wouldn't help because the bullshit that these protests were caused by the video is just that, bullshit. There were only a handful of views of the video when the protests began, but the talking heads were quick to jump on it as the reason why 'they hate us' this time.

      That's much easier than looking at the real reasons. There's a lot of very pissed off people in the world that see the good ole US of A as the fucking great evil. It isn't about a video - it's about decades of fucking with people governments, lives and wellbeing.

    69. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, I see a lot of the same crap coming from Christians.

      If Allah is so fucking powerful and sacred and his Prophet so Holy, how come He doesn't, in his infinite power, deal with it Himself.

      If God is so powerful and sacred and his Prophet so Holy, how come He doesn't, in his infinite power, deal with [homosexuality/abortion/...] Himself?

      The answer these people give you: because they were put there by God for us to take care of as a test.

      You can't argue with these people. They are (to borrow a quote) biological robots running a holy book as software.

    70. Re:It's already out there... by mr100percent · · Score: 2

      For a lot of these protestors, YouTube = America. In countries without freedom of the press, when something gets published, they frequently assume that the government must have allowed it to be published. Thus, the US government is responsible.

    71. Re:It's already out there... by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      if i yell fire in a crowded theatre, people may trample and kill others motivated out of self-preservation. so me, the one shouted fire, i'm the one culpable

      if i call mohammed a nasty word, and people start rioting and killing, they are motivated by religious extremism. do you believe a religious zealot who will kill because of his religion is a defensible position, like self-preservation? hell no! so where does the buck stop? with the religious zealot

      if i insult your mother and you kill someone, who is culpable for the dead person? you? or me because i insulted my mother? do you see how crazy this gets?

      at some point you have to learn to put proper blame where it is properly due

      I agree, but I'm just a little reluctant to think it's quite that simple. Bear with me a moment, please.

      Let's suppose that the person who made the video acted with malice aforethought. Now, this is just a hypothetical, a fairy tale, if you will. For of course whoever made it was only expressing his opinions, sort of shouting into the wind, and quite astonished anyone heard him, I guess. But let's pretend that the guy knew exactly what would happen after he released his little piece of "art". As part of this ridiculous hypothetical, let's say that we find evidence that he was acting as an agent for a foreign intelligence service, who also—of course—knew what would happen when the "trailers" hit the web. Do you still think this man is innocent as a lamb? That he did nothing wrong, and broke no laws?

      My little story is a horror story, of course. In it, people are being cynically manipulated by an intelligence service (or perhaps a terrorist cabal) to produce a certain result. The Moslems are jumping around burning up stuff and killing Americans, just as directed. The Americans are outraged and are sending in the Marines (and would, in their hearts, really like to nuke Mecca, but won't say so), exactly according to the script. Oh, and lest we forget, there is an election coming up in the USA, and which candidate suddenly looks indecisive and weak? So, my hypothetical Evil Genius has quite a score to tally up; she's done really well.

      I am so glad that the stuff in the foregoing paragraph isn't true because I know I made it all up, and will now go back to contentedly oiling my rifle, and fantasizing about nuking Mecca.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    72. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This phenomenon is not specific to Islam. In India, Hindu mobs at times slaughter muslims with the tacit encouragement of the local government. Christians have been slaughering each other in Northern Ireland (a peek into the religious wars of Europe) and the former Yugoslavia. Thugs from every group (notoriously Christians) were slaughering people in the Lebanese civil war, and similarly now in Syria.

      The main point really is the need for violence, which is one of the basic human instincts together with empathy, fear of death, shame, love, lust, curiosity, sadism etc. Not everybody has it in equal measure, but our prosperous society generally keeps the instinct for violence in check (and probably causes a great deal of frustration among those prone to violence). However, if a socially acceptable pretext comes up that seems to justify violence, the repressed violence gushes out as riots.

      Now, outrage for the honor of the Prophet is a socially acceptable pretext. It might also be indignation for the treatment of Rodney King. Or it might be a rumor that a black man has raped a white woman.

    73. Re:It's already out there... by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually you can prove that no proof can be given. That's why the accent was put on faith some thousand years ago. Now, you can think such subtlety comes from divinely inspired people, or smart ones. And then you can go on analyzing the motives behind each scenario. But what irks me is that philosophy 101 matters somehow escape both believers and unbelievers in the media. Which makes me conclude that media are trolling us.

      It's easy to be a good religious follower, It's easy to be a good atheist, just remember life it is always under Your responsibility and whoever aims to choose for you is not helping you.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    74. Re:It's already out there... by ilguido · · Score: 1

      Catholics who bomb abortion clinics and kill workers there are horrible.

      LOL what?

    75. Re:It's already out there... by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 1

      All free speech should be protected. Whether it is islam-critical, evolutionist, holocaust-denying, anti-christian, pro-choice, pro-life, racist, communistic, darwinistic, scientific, WHAT EVER it is, it shouldn't be silenced. Not by any means, it should be challenged by word, and not by sword.
      Christians understand this. That is why there are thousands, if not millions of anti-christian metal songs, and not one embassy is/was RPG-ed for it.
      Buddhists understand this. If they dont agree and have no other means to protest, they burn themselves. THEMSELVES! not killing innocent diplomats.
      Hindu's understand this. If you tell them that you don't believe a word of their religion they shrug their shoulders and say:'ok, whatever'.
      Sikh's understand this. They too just carry on, and their obliged to feed anyone no matter what religion if that person is hungry and comes to their temple.
      Jainists understand this. For them it is forbidden to use violence in any way (even self-defence), and they build the most open library's in India for anyone.
      Muslims just cant handle it. Whether it is a cartoon, a doodle, a very poorly made 'movie', anything goes to get on the streets, burn flags and buildings, topple car's over, murder, pillage, scream very loud and in general make a fool out of them selves.
      I wish the day was there that they too had their enlightenment and they too can join the ranks of religions that are too proud of making an ass of themselves. Until that time we should keep our freedom of speech from getting trumped by screaming bearded fundamentalists who want us to do as they please. Caving in is called Dhimmitude and I dread it.
      In short: option A, as an ideal in itself :-D

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    76. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just trying to pick a fight so don't be surprised when you get one.

      That's what the video did too and they got a fight: the embassies being attacked. To then say that it is wrong and violence isn't the answer is being naive. In the real world, people respond to vocal provocation with physical force.
         

    77. Re:It's already out there... by uglydog · · Score: 1

      I agree. It would be nice if people could ignore the provocation. They can on an individual level, but once you scale it up to groups, something happens.

    78. Re:It's already out there... by SonnyDog09 · · Score: 1

      These folks are in a permanent state of outrage against the US. They are just looking for any reason whatsoever to vent their unfounded anger.

      I thought that Obama's cunning plan was that he would start pronouncing it "tahl-ee-bahn" and they would stop hating us.

      --
      Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
    79. Re:It's already out there... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. From an interview on NPR with a reporter in Yemen at the protest there, not a single person she talked to had seen the video. They stated that their reasons for doing it are because they heard of the protests in Cairo and Benghazi. I wouldn't doubt if the others are the same; All following this idea of "Me too!"

      Not only are they attacking the US embassies, but other embassies, from countries that have had nothing whatsoever to do with the video or its producers -- countries that aren't even on the same continent as USA, and don't even speak English.
      Any sympathy the protesters might have had is completely gone at this point.

      My guess is that they are dejected that the Western supported revolutions didn't make everything great. They're willing to take it out on anyone, and the imams provide pretexts and targets.

      What this teaches me is that the West needs to stop interfering. No matter how good the intentions are, encouraging what we think are good causes will have consequences. Yes, the revolution and war in Libya might have taken much longer, and we wouldn't know the outcome, but there would be no ammunition for hate. Stop trying to police the world, and let people and peoples make their own calls, even when you think they are wrong or sympathize with the downtrodden. Close embassies until countries stabilize, and stop exporting weapons "for good causes".
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    80. Re:It's already out there... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Should any censorship be allowed when it is being driven by acts of terrorism by out of control mobs. Should we govern ourselves by fear, should we allow others to terrorise us and our families, should we accept curtailing of our culture by threats of physical violence from another culture.

      Should the response be, should you desire to destroy your own society by acts of violence than expect to be trolled into extinction. Should we cower or goad them into more and more self destructive acts. Should their threats of violence be allowed to limit our self expression or should we use our self expression to destroy their violence.

      Ultimately stirring up the religious hornet nest of paedophiles and misogynists, likely will end up doing more good then harm in the long run. Bit of a rough passage in the interim but ultimately cultural tolerance is a two way street and a violent response is never acceptable and will not be tolerated.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    81. Re:It's already out there... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Maybe if someone made a Reality TV Show about it, ordinary folks would finally understand this.

      They already did. It was called something like "Live War Coverage" and was on several major news networks for a few years. Didn't seem to have much of an impact though.

      --
      ~X~
    82. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you still think this man is innocent as a lamb? That he did nothing wrong, and broke no laws?

      Of course. That, we all agree on. The guy broke no laws (making this movie).

      Oh, and lest we forget, there is an election coming up in the USA, and which candidate suddenly looks indecisive and weak?

      Obama came to power on (amongst other things) a promise to make muslims act responsibly and with "mutual" respect. He essentially did his acceptance speech in Cairo to a muslim crowd. Even if this was instigated by someone (and it was, just by some random imams, not by this filmmaker), it's a pretty horrendous failure on Obama's part.

      There is a certain job position where you no longer get to claim "not my fault" and get away with it. POTUS is definitely way above that point. Whether or not he is guilty of something does not have something to do with it. He either did screw up diplomacy, or he let someone else screw up diplomacy under his watch. Both are massive failures for someone in Obama's position.

      the stuff in the foregoing paragraph isn't true

      Too bad the stuff in the movie discussed here is (somewhat) true. The islamic prophet was a paedophile, thief, rapist and slaver, both by modern standards and by the standards of the time. About the only thing the paedophile prophet does in the movie he is not believed to have actually done is homosexual sex. Not saying this, or refusing to see that this reflects extremely badly on the religion as a whole is doing injustice to the truth.

      In truth, islam is a religion pushing slavery, extreme intolerance, racism and genocide. There is no denying that.

    83. Re:It's already out there... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Try watching the extended video with the sound down. It's closer to Monte Python quality then you think and a complete riot.

      There's a scene where some Arabs or something run around with huge beards that look incredibly fake. I thought of the scene where the women are all lined up to be the stone throwers at an execution.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    84. Re:It's already out there... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. We see our efforts in the rest of the world as spreading democracy, law & order, humanitarianism, etc.
      Third world countries see us as spreading Christianity at the expense of their own religion, backed by military force, morals and customs they do not accept and often find reprehensible - as extolled by Hollywood movies etc. It doesn't help when a few US military leaders involved in the occupation of Iraq were quoted as saying something like they felt good about it because it let them spread the word of Christianity to the people of Iraq. This only gives ammunition to those who portrayed the US presence as "Crusaders".
      We smugly assume that our way is the *only* way that a human society can work, and we blithely continue to try to shove our version of reality down the throats of people who do not want it, at a rate that is faster than they can adapt to it, etc, without regard to the chaos that might cause in their society, without regard to what is lost in their society.
      Its a modern day version of the White Man's Burden that justified the European empires spread around the globe. The idea that our way is mandated as inherent true by its very nature, when what we consider to be acceptable is just as arbitrary as anyone else's set of standards really, and of course adapts and is subject to sudden changes.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    85. Re:It's already out there... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. And for those who haven't seen it, this line in thinking is put at it's best in this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_richards_a_radical_experiment_in_empathy.html

    86. Re:It's already out there... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Trolling them gives them ample opportunity to demonstrate the true aspects of their Superstition.

      The results speak volumes.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    87. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you know a bit of history. In my view. that ignorance is a major problem on this planet. Was Marx right?

    88. Re:It's already out there... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      To point something out about Christianity, there have been bombings in the name of God done by Christians, perhaps the most recent being the bombings of the Irish Republican Army and the last remaining gun killings between Catholics and Protestants. Even that could be argued as a politicization of the conflict between two Christian factions that has more to do with the politics than the religion. The religious aspects of that feud were a side line rather than the cause. The Hundred Years' War is perhaps more along the same line of thought, but religion did play a larger part of that 17th Century conflict.

      Only going back to the 10th Century do you find Christians in open conflict in the name of religion, and that is largely a response to Muslim aggression I should notes as well. After the end of the 15th Century there essentially became an armed detente between "Christendom" and "Islam" until World War I. Arguably what is happening now is the resolution of what happened after World War I, the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, and push-back by the peoples ruled by the Ottomans.

      It is fair to point out that the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth discouraged the practice of waging war in his name, while Mohammed was openly a warrior who conquered territory and enslaved people. Islam certainly doesn't have any story in its theology like Jesus healing the ear of a soldier after Peter sliced it off.

    89. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you, the white house will be calling Hollywood by the end of the day.

    90. Re:It's already out there... by Troy+from+Montana · · Score: 1

      ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

      Why should google take it down? It is their fault for the actions of others? That's like blaming the doper because your kid tried marijauna.

    91. Re:It's already out there... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Why are the people who made the movie lunatics? They are provocative, not crazy.

      I don't think it's sad that the demonstrations are proving the film makers right. The demonstrations are sad in and of themselves. The film makers are brave people who expose the true lunatics.

    92. Re:It's already out there... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Just because words lead to a fight doesn't mean they were fighting words. There are anti-gay activists who would be more than happy to outlaw any pro-gay speech on the basis that it makes them really mad and they might go kill a gay person because it's fighting words.

    93. Re:It's already out there... by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      You are just trying to pick a fight so don't be surprised when you get one.

      That's what the video did too and they got a fight: the embassies being attacked. To then say that it is wrong and violence isn't the answer is being naive. In the real world, people respond to vocal provocation with physical force.

       

      So it's justified if I'm at a bar and someone talks shit to me, for me to fly to whatever shithole you live in and beat your skull in with a hammer? Sound logic.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    94. Re:It's already out there... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      ... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.

      And why should they? Jokes about Jesus. No problem. Scientology? No Problem. Judaism ? No Problem. Catholicism ? No Problem. Druids/ well Druids, okay. Islam? They can kiss my great big, hairy, lily white, ass.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    95. Re:It's already out there... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Ok hero, you go hang out in Cairo and see how you feel about that.

    96. Re:It's already out there... by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Why are the people who made the movie lunatics?

      Ultraconservative Christians who thinks any book from 2000 years ago can be used as a reliable source for anything. They are nuts. Bonkers. Lacking a significant number of marbles.

    97. Re:It's already out there... by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Not really cold. When mobs go amok people die. In tens, hundreds even. Rarely it may go to thousands. When governments go amok hundreds of thousands dead is just "business as usual". Millions would be the norm. Comparatively, yes, the ramifications of banning such videos are significantly more troublesome than a bunch of ignorant nuts rioting.

    98. Re:It's already out there... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Bible was originally censored. It was in Latin, and only the clergy could learn Latin. The Word of God wasn't for the people to read for themselves, they wouldn't understand it anyway.

    99. Re:It's already out there... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How is that functionally different than the Christians, even if you have to look to previous actions of Christians, such as witch trials and inquisitions and crusades?

    100. Re:It's already out there... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      do you believe a religious zealot who will kill because of his religion is a defensible position, like self-preservation?

      It *is* self preservation.

      Your argument is that it's ok to taunt the mentally ill until they kill themselves because a "normal" person wouldn't have taken that action.

      In their eyes, it is a matter of self preservation. Just because you think them wrong doesn't mean that they think the same as you.

      Though given the Slashdot response to an adult targeting a child (with know mental propblems) with a deliberate (and successful) attempt to trigger a suicide "It's just words, even if intended to kill, and successful, do obviously harming, still just words", I'd say that Slashdot is firmly in the camp of harassing the mentally ill for sport is just fine, after all, they aren't like us, and we are right...

    101. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they're hunting down the rabble over there now too, and will prosecute them in the way they do those things over there.

      And what about the people that got something horrible done to them. Any thought for them?

      Fuck man, you're nitpicking a hypothetical. And yes actually, when bad shit goes down over here we do think about it. And people come out in public and condemn the actions and show support for the victims. When someone releases an offense movie or some wackjob goes nuts, other people don't turn into a mob and tear up buildings.

    102. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About to watch it, but from your comment, it sounds like it's based on fact. Their "Prophet" was nothing more than a brutal military warlord and pedophile. As he conquered Mecca, he officially renounced all "imaginary" rights to life and property for any non-muslims (worldwide).

    103. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to break the news to you, America, but Islamic folks don't love you. Never have, never will.

      Hey, just to let you in on something... they don't like any of you lot any better.

    104. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's diametrically opposed to Islam, which states that all men are "slaves" to Allah, and demands oppressing/murdering, or converting all non-muslims. Just because someone identifies themselves as Muslim, doesn't make them so. If they fail to follow the teachings, then they really are not. You're looking those who self-identify as Muslim but do not actually believe in the religion as examples of progress in Islam. There is no such progress, and never will be.

    105. Re:It's already out there... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Why are you talking about reliable sources? That doesn't make sense. They didn't write a scholarly paper about Mohammed, they made a film that makes fun of him. They did a wonderful job and got the reaction they wanted. I'd say they are successful artists and provocateurs of change and enlightenment. After enough provocation and time Muslims will come to realize that they can't fight modernity. These efforts could lead to hugely positive changes for the Muslim world, far more important than simple political unrest like the Arab Spring. We're talking about changing their underlying culture, not swapping out one group of rulers for another.

    106. Re:It's already out there... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      The US government does allow free speech. If it had not allowed free speech, not this would have happened. I think they rightfully hold the US govt responsible.

      /Joking

    107. Re:It's already out there... by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      Right. They're brown, have a different culture to ours and believe something that is different to what we believe. I'm missing the part where it follows from this that they are therefore equivalent to children or the mentally ill.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    108. Re:It's already out there... by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      Is that parking lot in Mecca? If so, hell yes. One problem, since it's possible said parking lot might be DC instead, I'll pass.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    109. Re:It's already out there... by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Think of the movie "Life of Brian" but done on a shoe string budget with bad acting, horrible editing, and obvious overdubbing.

      I think you've understated just how bad the acting is. No editing or overdubbing can save that turkey.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    110. Re:It's already out there... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The part where religion fits all parts of multiple mental disorders, even if it would not be diagnosed as one due to politics exempting religious beliefs from mental illness definitions.

    111. Re:It's already out there... by steppedleader · · Score: 0

      I think the people committing the violence are primarily to blame, but possibly not all. Whether or not any blame falls to those that made the film depends on their intent -- whether or not they were *hoping* for this to happen, based on the reaction seen after the Mohammed cartoon was published in the Netherlands. Reactions like this could aid their cause of trying to make people think muslims are the enemy of Judaism and Christianity. The question is whether the filmmakers are just idiots who want to run around yelling "fundamentalist islam bad, fundamentalist judeo-christianity good!", or if they are depraved enough to be hoping to incite violence to achieve their end of trying to convince people of what they are yelling.

      None of this should be taken to mean that that the biggest moral failing here isn't with the people that resorted to violence in response to something someone said, but if the filmmakers were intentionally encouraging that sort of evil to occur, then they were being evil themselves.

    112. Re:It's already out there... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Just because words lead to a fight doesn't mean they were fighting words.

      No, of course you're right.

      I think the Supreme Court, in 1942, said the standard was that the words had to be expected to cause the violent reaction.

      If I tell a joke about three priests that walk into a bar, I don't expect a Catholic who hears it to cut my head off. If I tell a joke about Mohammad that involves donkeys and 12 year old girls, and I do it in a fundamentalist mosque on Ramadan with a pig on my head, I expect to cause violence.

      "Media for Christ", who is behind this movie, expected violence.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    113. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that is actually happening is that the muslim world is going through their "crusades". Just like the catholic world did in the 12th century with their "crusades".

      The only difference is that in the 12th century, the available weaponry was far less efficient at killing people en-mass than the 21st century weaponry the muslim world has now.

    114. Re:It's already out there... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      They didn't produce the film in a Libyan mosque, they were in sunny California. You didn't address my example of anti-gay activists. If anti-gay activists began threatening to kill gays whenever they felt offended by pro-gay-rights speech, then anybody who knows that and engages in pro-gay-rights speech is doing so expecting violence and is thus culpable? I don't think you really believe that since it gives so much moral power to the bad guys. But based on what you're saying I don't see how you distinguish between that example and this film.

    115. Re:It's already out there... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ...[a lenthy comment about this and that ] ...

      So, you're saying that because Mohammed allegedly was not a nice man, the religion he instituted must be bad? By extension, the religion instituted by Abraham must be bad, because he too was as bad (or good, who knows?) as the people around him at the tmie, and if we examine the other founders of religions, I am sure one can find things that "prove" that they were "bad". And so on.

      The point, however, is that it makes no difference; a religion is as good and as bad as its followers. We all know of examples of people who were in every sense truly devout Christians/Jews/Muslims/..., and who were thouroughly vile people. And there plenty of examples of profoundly good people, who denied believing in any religion. Good or evil has little to nothing to do with what you believe in and everything to do with what you choose to do every day. If you seek strife, what are you? If you seek peace and consolation, what are you? Stop hiding behind the skirts of your religious dogma.

    116. Re:It's already out there... by Kavafy · · Score: 1

      There is a legal doctrine here in the US called "fighting words". While you are free to say whatever you want to say, you are also responsible for what you say. You are responsible for the consequences of what you say. And if you insult someone's religion or their mama you are responsible for the size 12 hush puppy that gets sent up your keister.

      I don't think that's quite right. Offensiveness does not qualify as "fighting words", and insulting someone's religion does not make you responsible if that person then assaults you. And that's exactly as it should be.

    117. Re:It's already out there... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If anti-gay activists began threatening to kill gays whenever they felt offended by pro-gay-rights speech, then anybody who knows that and engages in pro-gay-rights speech is doing so expecting violence and is thus culpable? I

      So, you're saying that pro-gay speech is exactly the same as anti-muslim speech?

      Have you noticed that extremist muslims don't generally riot when a pro-Christian film comes out? There simply is not a moral equivalence between supporting something and cursing something.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    118. Re:It's already out there... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I'm not focusing on the content of the speech, just the reactions from violent groups. You brought up the idea that if you give a speech with the expectation that it leads to violence, that makes you responsible. You didn't mention the content of the speech.

      So now your idea includes not only whether there will be violence, but whether the message is "morally" responsible for the violence. Pro-gay, not responsible. Anti-Muslim, responsible. What about anti-white speech? If a black civil rights activists says America has a legacy of slavery and whites have a position of privilege due to that, well, that's insulting. He's saying white people have things they don't deserve. So now if a white power group goes around killing blacks, that civil rights speech becomes illegal? Or will you make an executive decision that anti-white speech is in the "not morally responsible" category, or that wasn't anti-white "enough" to be illegal? This is why strong protection of free speech is required, so that we don't have to judge the content to determine whether it's legal. Who makes the call? you?

      Also, Muslims riot for many reasons. Possibly a pro-Christian film would do the trick.. IF they were exposed to it and whipped into a frenzy by the local imam. Certainly Christian proselytizing, which is often just pro-Christian speech that doesn't even mention Islam, is illegal in many Muslim countries. If the film were portrayed as a tool of proselytizing I'm sure you'd have no problem starting a riot.

    119. Re:It's already out there... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If a black civil rights activists says America has a legacy of slavery and whites have a position of privilege due to that, well, that's insulting.

      It's also demonstrable and historically accurate. Do you know a single historian who disagrees?

      Also, Muslims riot for many reasons. Possibly a pro-Christian film would do the trick.

      No, it has NEVER "done the trick". There is zero history of muslims directly disrespecting Christianity. A muslim might behead a Christian, but they would never associate with insulting statements about Christianity. The distinction may not mean anything to you, but it's important to them. If there is ever going to be any understanding of Islam so that we don't have to spend the next century in crazy religious wars, this is a distinction that the West is going to have to understand.

      You would never, ever hear a muslim saying anything bad about Jesus or Moses or any other figure from a religion different from theirs. They take that stuff very seriously. Religion to muslims is not like a local sports team like it is in the US, where there's trash-talking and "my god is bigger than your god".

      By the way, did you know that a sizable number of Christians participated in the demonstrations in Cairo opposing this anti-Islam movie? I'll bet you didn't know anything about that. Coptic groups angrily condemned the movie and so did mainstream Christians who live in Cairo. See, people in the Middle East take respect for the beliefs of others seriously. A lot more serious than the so-called Christians in the US. This is why I believe that what's called Christianity in the US could actually be more appropriately called the "American Civil Religion". There's very little Christ in there.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    120. Re:It's already out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a great view of freedom, the right to speak freely and shoot anyone in the face who opposes you offending them...

    121. Re:It's already out there... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

      The right to speak freely and shoot anyone in the face who reacts to that with violence.

      Either your reading comprehension is lacking, or you're being disingenuous. I suspect it's the latter.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  2. Copyright by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...

    1. Re:Copyright by erroneus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Who modded this funny? Mod it +5 Insightful / +5 Informative.

    2. Re:Copyright by Jorgensen · · Score: 1

      The religious zealots have no interest in getting the video blocked or removed: It helps drive people straight into their arms - and as a result we should expect more radicals and fodder for suicide bombings...

    3. Re:Copyright by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...

      Interesting idea. They should also consider applying for copyrights and trademarks on the Prophet Muhammad and associated works, then they can use the power of the courts to strike down anyone depicting the Prophet for violating their rights.

  3. Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.

    1. Re:Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

      The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE

      or the full version (82 mins):
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa

    2. Re:Great Response... by joelsanda · · Score: 1

      Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.

      That would make for a mighty small internet in most places.

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
    3. Re:Great Response... by toriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Islam is just "version 3" of the same desert fairy tales that Christians and Jews believe in. Many of the "opponents" to Islam are just the deluded worshipers of the other two not liking the competition.

    4. Re:Great Response... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

      The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE

      or the full version (82 mins):
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa

      Careful now. I got modded to death the other day for daring to suggest the same thing.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    5. Re:Great Response... by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      They are all just a bunch of people that believe in something that has not be proven. Honestly grow a pair even if a deity shows up tomorrow and says worship me why should you? Because they will punish you at some later date for disobeying them with the free will they were supposed to have given you? Punishing somebody for anything for eternity is morally wrong, especially when you have the power to prevent it. Hopefully we can evolve out of the fantasy of some all powerful parental figure.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:Great Response... by icebike · · Score: 1

      No, its radically different, and different radically.
      Can you see murder and burning if someone stands outside of the Basilica and insults the pope?
      The other religions are a product of their times, and have grown up.
      Not so with islam. Its still a religion lead by gangs of uneducated teenage boys.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Great Response... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.

      Why? I can say "That's a really stupid, immature, bigoted, hate mongering thing to do. You did it specifically to stir up anger and violence and it servers no other purpose. Doesn't mean I don't think you should have the right to say it, just means I think you're incredibly stupid and hateful for saying it".

    8. Re:Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that where the Tigres and Euphrates come together is called, "The Fertile Crescent," right? You know, downtown Baghdad? It wasn't always a desert. Just call it a fantasy and not a desert fantasy. These people where, 'Cray(as the kids says)' years before it was also hot and desert-y.

    9. Re:Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Islam is the "religion of peace"

      Just for the record, neither is Christianity...

      cf the crusades and various english civil wars, for starters, not to mention institutional anti-semitism (for which a recent pope apologized, bless his heart) and various other goodies like the inquisition.

    10. Re:Great Response... by jdogalt · · Score: 2

      No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons.

      This I completely agree with, though might replace the word 'fuck' with 'damn', though please don't respond to that sentiment which would make good troll-bait if that were its intent

      It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

      This is where I think you are as wrong as the people you are calling wrong. No religion is the religion of X or not the religion of X. All religions are collections of vast individuals, that have really rather varying beliefs about such things as when to be at peace and when to be at war.

      But again, I totally agree with that first sentiment. Though I sympathize _almost_ with Obama sacrificing the first ammendment to keep the lid on a shitstorm of a world region that due to the last administration, has seen over a million civilian casualties chalked up as 'collateral damage'.

    11. Re:Great Response... by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I dont disagree that Youtube has every right to show it. I do just want to point out that sometimes there is a price to pay for defending free speech, and sometimes it involves peoples lives-- other peoples lives.

      For the record, I think that while the pastor who produced the video may have been justified by the american legal system and the first amendment, and it may be a good principle, he nevertheless shares some small degree of culpability for what has happened. I wouldnt call him a murderer or anything crazy, but its absurd to say "well, I didnt actually pull the trigger, I just provoked people" and pretend you bear no responsibility.

      Im well aware that this will likely get misunderstood and buried, but it has to be said; while theres too much of the "we need to apologize for everything mentality", theres equally too much of the "my free speech exonerates me from any of the consequences it provokes" attitude.

    12. Re:Great Response... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 0

      We should be celebrating this colossal win for freedom of speech in America! Those people were martyred to prove that our right to free speech is intact!

      USA! USA! USA!

    13. Re:Great Response... by tokencode · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It shoul not be restricted anywhere. f they cannot handle watching it, let them freak out. If they kill someone or destroy something in the process, eliminate those who cause problems. Restricting information simply because a group of people are not intellectually mature enough to let others voice their opinion no matter how offensive it is, do not deserve to share this planet with the rest of us.

    14. Re:Great Response... by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Restrict the video only in places where they can't handle the freedom of speech without maniacal violence. Google got it right for the first time in a while.

      The situation in Libya is very different from Egypt. In Egypt, the people elected an Islamist President and haven't forgotten the decades of US support for oppressive regimes. It remains to be seen if the current government will tolerate mob violence or maintain the right balance between freedom of speech and rule of law.

      In Libya, the Islamist parties did not do well in elections and most Libyans are thankful for US support of the rebellion against Gaddafi. The attack that killed the American diplomats and Libyan security personnel was perpetrated by a fringe group that does not have the support of average Libyans.

      So, Google using the same policy in both Egypt and Libya does not make sense. The fact that they are voluntarily censoring content anywhere that neither violates their policy nor legal standards sets a bad precedent. I expect the video is just as poor quality and offensive as many have said, but the same could be said for a large portion of YouTube videos that nobody ever riots about. If there's any principle Americans can unhypocritically demonstrate to fledgling democracies, it's freedom of speech.

    15. Re:Great Response... by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Meh I'm Jewish(reform from orthodox). I'd be happy if Islam grew up and joined us and Christians at large after reforming. Here's the problem, they kill people wanting reformations. Those who do create reformation movements have fatwa's issued against them. They have them issued against their families. And all the rest. I really couldn't care if someone is worshiping another god, or the same god in another way, or no god at all. Good on them, let them do whatever the hell they want.

      What I have a problem with is their "rage-a-hol" and their deep indrawn desire that whenever their religion or prophet gets has a picture drawn, or someone make a comment, it's OMG RIOT! OMG CUT THEIR HEAD OFF! OMG KILL THE KUFIRS! Well that and for the most part their absolute hatred of Jews. I don't hate them, I just pity their poor understanding, and backwardness of the world at large. I'd love to get along with them, but large numbers of them would rather just kill me for being a Jew too.

      So, what can you do? Not much. Maybe they'll grow up, but I doubt it. And with the latest and greatest push and their desire to "install islam all over the world" and convert everyone to it (Hey welcome to what they've been trying against us for the last while) I'm sure you all will just have to figure out what you're going to do eventually anyway. Myself, I figure it'll end up being a world war. Whether or not you've figured it out or not, large numbers of them have been at war with us even if we're not at war with them. But maybe you'll start asking yourself, why the hell are they building all those mega mosques which can hold 2500 people, when they only have 25 worshipers,.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Great Response... by kqs · · Score: 1

      Oh, very different. As various gays and abortion doctors in the US could attest (if they we still alive).

      Humans hate. Humans like to have an enemy to hate. It wasn't so long ago that lynchings were not uncommon in many parts of the US. It wasn't so long ago that the national guard was deployed to escort children to unsegregated schools. Just in the past few years people have demonstrated against Islamic buildings in the US, and some have suffered arson. We're no better, and pretending we are just makes us ignore our own problems, Religion, skin color, whatever, it's just an excuse to hate.

    17. Re:Great Response... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion wars, let's fight to find out who as the best imaginary friend !

    18. Re:Great Response... by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      Or they were martyred because Obama's people at Foggy Bottom refused to put any non-local security at the consulate and relied on LOCKED DOORS on 9/11.

    19. Re:Great Response... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Can you see murder and burning if someone stands outside of the Basilica and insults the pope?

      Not today, but even 200 years ago? Absolutely.

      The big difference is that the West has mostly defanged its own religious institutions, and, losing their direct power, they have started to preach more tolerance to their faithful and to reform their doctrines accordingly.

    20. Re:Great Response... by HJED · · Score: 1

      In this case intent is very important, the intent of this video was to offend people and to cause riots. The person who posted it new dam well what the result would be and that is most likely why he did. In this case he is responsible for the deaths that occurred, not solely responsible, but defiantly responsible.
      And he knows this otherwise he would not have apparently disappeared off the face of the planet.

      --
      null
    21. Re:Great Response... by jimmyfrank · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll grow up? Doubtful, they've being this way for how long?

    22. Re:Great Response... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      These people live in such a sheltered world that they can't imagine that anyone on earth could possibly have a different belief than they do about anything. They behave like a young child who hasn't grown up in the world to understand the perspective of others.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    23. Re:Great Response... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I think intent increases culpability, but even if he was ignorant of the likely consequences, negligence is not an excuse. When someone makes a choice that indirectly results in others deaths, you cant get away from culpability-- you can just try to justify why it was worth it.

    24. Re:Great Response... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I disagree with a basic premise of Sam Harris and this video:

      He claims that religion is the only area of human experience from which "faith" is applied and commonly accepted in human society. If only that were true. I know people who profess a "belief" in the Apollo landings as a hoax, in UFOs, in the destruction of the World Trade Center by the U.S. Government (or the Bilderberger group, Illumaniti, Gnomes of Zurich, Free Masons, or what ever conspiracy you can think up), Barack Obama's Birth Certificate in Kenya, and a great many other areas of life.

      He did mention the "Elvis Lives!" fans, but missed those who think Adolph Hitler disaapeared in a U-boat and went to Argentina to become an adviser to Juan Perón instead of committing suicide in Berlin. Strangely there are even people who become heads of universities or get elected to Congress believing one or more of these things. It still is a matter of faith and interestingly there is a part of humanity thinking stuff of this nature.... and lie about the fact that they believe in it as well.

    25. Re:Great Response... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > Can you see murder and burning if someone stands outside of the Basilica and insults the pope?

      Yes, for many many centuries of christain history.

      > The other religions are a product of their times, and have grown up.

      If it took the best part of 2 millennia for the christains to grow out of it, then surely we should give the muslims several hundred more years leniency too?

      And how can you say that a bunch of people who play dress-up once a week, and mindlessly recite sayings that range from meaningless to contradictory, whilst pretending that some invisible big man in the sky exists and is interested in what they're doing have "grown up"?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    26. Re:Great Response... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll grow up? Doubtful, they've being this way for how long?

      Like I said, maybe. At least 1100 years. Oh, let's seen it took several crusades the last time to stop the last great attempt of the muslim purges of Europe. So who knows, and even then it was going on for nearly 200 odd years before anything was done.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  4. Good. They're keeping it up. by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is showing some spine. Good.

    I've seen the movie. It's not very well produced, but it's better than 80% of the non-pirated stuff on YouTube.

    1. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I haven't seen it, and, frankly, I don't even care what's in it. But if it provokes this kind of reaction from religious fanatics, it's done right.

    2. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the most cheesy, most poorly acted, movie you have ever seen.

      And it was all over-dubbed. The actors had no idea they were making a movie about Mohhamed.

    3. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      I just watched it. Well, part of it at least. It was so painful to watch that I had to stop after a minute or so.

      I have to believe that this movie is just an excuse to get rowdy. You would have to be an idiot to actually get so angry over such a laughably bad film.

    4. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is the most cheesy, most poorly acted, movie you have ever seen.

      Looks like it was the cheapest they could get away with while still having it work. And work it did.

    5. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      It was made to create pain. It is a media molotov.

    6. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and their reaction validates the claims.

      jr

    7. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen the movie. It's not very well produced...

      Not very well produced??!? It's so goddamned fucking awful that it can make a lifelong Buddhist fly into a murderous rage! This Sam Bacille guy makes Ed Wood look like the greatest filmmaker of all time! I watched it, and my wife had to throw a pan of frying bacon into my face to keep me from setting fire to my own house! Then she watched it, and that was it - we burned our house right to the ground because it was the only thing that made sense after seeing that godawful tripe. I'm posting this from a public library. I'm sorry that some people watched it and then killed some other people, but I can totally understand why there are now crowds of people out destroying things. If video technology can produce something this enragingly amateurish, non-funny, and with greenscreen effects that make you want to tear your own eyeballs right out of your skull, maybe it's time to seriously consider whether we should just abandon video technology in its entirety.

    8. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking hell... "Sam Bacille"... "S A Mbacille" Is A Imbecile. We've been trolled.

    9. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's done right.

      Proof that you have indeed not seen it.

    10. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      That'll be great _until_ we suddenly lose diplomatic relations with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates over this mess. And at the rate things are going, it might just happen and the diplomatic fallout will be _enormous_.

    11. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by Coffeesloth · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen it, and, frankly, I don't even care what's in it. But if it provokes this kind of reaction from religious fanatics, it's done right.

      I'm sorry... I must have misinterpreted your comment. "it's done right" So you condone the violence?

    12. Re:Good. They're keeping it up. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't condone the violence. However, the video, crappy as it is, has concisely demonstrated that its basic precept - that Islam is highly prone to violent behavior - is true.

  5. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Mahummad was a pedophile.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's so wrong with being a pedophile? It's not like they are Muslims or something.

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

      Why is this modded -1? Other than the misspelling it is true.

    3. Re:Good by Abstergo · · Score: 0

      If that's all it was (a few people getting pissy over their precious whatever-it-may-be being mocked), then censorship is bad. However, I anticipate that had Google not pulled this down, they would have to live with the knowledge that there are people who will DIE because of this movie (and already have). It's one thing to preach an "information deserves to be free" ideal, but when forced to choose between Internet Ethics and the lives of actual people, I don't see how Google could have done differently.

    4. Re:Good by bhlowe · · Score: 2

      If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since he wasn't well-endowed by his creator, does it even count?

    6. Re:Good by jcaldwel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google didn't kill anyone - hang the blame where it is deserved -- the religious idealists that actually committed the acts.

    7. Re:Good by mythix · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, not with your spelling

    8. Re:Good by toriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?

      (Child brides were rather common in the Christian Middle ages as well; the concepts of pedophilia and age of consent are relatively modern and secular, largely based on women's rights campaigners. In many religions children - in particular girls - are almost treated as property. Remember the Old Testament: "But all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves." - Numbers 31:18)

    9. Re:Good by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the world was populated through incest, polygamy is a-ok, slavery is dandy, and killing non-believers is supported. At least, that's what I get from a few passages in the Bible. What's your point again? That the Koran, like the Bible, is an origin myth massaged to also be a political and social guide to the world? Or that by pointing to the right verse, I can support whatever I want?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Youtube has truly been touched by His noodely appendage. Ramen.

    11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He waited until she was 12 before nailing her.

    12. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that?

      Yes, he consummated the relationship when she was 9. 9 year olds dude.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      There's little wrong with being a pedophile, but he wasn't actually as much a pedophile as he was a child molester.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Good by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      You should bare in mind that the film is being promoted by a right-wing extremist Steve Klein, linked with various anti-Islamic groups in California. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19572912

    15. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm getting tired of all the hassle the arabs/muslims are causing to the rest of the world, why should we deal with it? at some point, enough is enough. The world is a giant playground, they have shown time and time again that they can't play well with others, it's time to kick them off the playground.

    16. Re:Good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?

      If you selectively quote it to misrepresent what it means, then yes.
      Ironically, that is exactly what both the jihadi nutjobs and the religious bigots do - often agreeing on the same hateful misrepresentations because in both cases it furthers their symbiotic causes.

      BTW, none of Mohammed's wives are mentioned in the quran. Including Aisha, the wife that the bigots always mean when they call him a pedo. So the question is moot anyway.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    17. Re:Good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Are you sure about that? He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?

      His first wife was 15 years his senior too. What's funny is that the bigots just incorporate that into their narrative, saying that he was a total deviant because he must have had thing for cougars too.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:Good by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Just because something done long ago was common at that time doesn't make it right. "Concepts" of pedophilia and age of consent? What about basic freedoms of an individual? (Sorry, can't help it. Somehow I've always been allergic to moral relativism.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:Good by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      He married an 8-year old for political reasons, but stayed married to her long after she reached maturity. If he was a pedophile, would he not have ditched her for another child instead?

      Married her when she was 6 and consumed the marriage when she was 9.

      I do think he was a pedophile.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    20. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So was Joseph Smith...

    21. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is a concept, and a morally-deceptive one at that.

      The factor that's usually dropped from the historical rendering is that you were required to have a lifelong commitment to the individual.

      I submit that personally taking on all potential personal and financial costs to a relationship with, say, a 15-year-old, forever, versus fucking-and-dumping her at a party, are not morally equivalent. "Pedophilia" draws no such distinctions, and as such, is at odds with both religion and biology. It doesn't work for clarification as a word or concept, because it's a definition-by-nonessentials, ethically. Generally people are only to happy to accept that definition, because they don't want to contemplate there's anything else to consider about sexual decisions in general than their mere desire to have sex and them unrestrictedly fulfilling it. That psychological projection doesn't work over the time period at hand--because there simply was no such thing as "just sex" as an accepted scenario.

      Relativism comes into play when comparing things that are the same. "Sex then" and "sex now" are not comparables.

    22. Re:Good by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0

      You seem to like that word, "bigot". I'm bigoted against idiocy, hence bigoted against all religious beliefs involving mysticism. I'm pretty cool.

    23. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many bar dates today end up seeming better-treated from a female's perspective than the mandated multi-month adjustment period for her before anything can "happen" (she just had a very traumatic result from battle, after all), along with the required lifetime support, as directed by that same religious text.

      But I'm curious like that.

    24. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The factor that's usually dropped from the historical rendering is that you were required to have a lifelong commitment to the individual.

      Is this the same concept under which a rapist has to marry his victim, and then it's all OK? And you're suggesting this is a mitigating factor?

      Sorry no. The fact that the kid was raped at 9 years old is bad enough. The fact that she had no choice to ever leave her rapist makes it even worse.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    25. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Oh, so if I get married to a 50 year old woman, it's OK with you if I rape a 9 year old? I guess it all averages out or something?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, since we're using discussing a context over a wider time-period, I'll need to use the term "rape" to mean what it actually does, actually non-consensual, rather than as something declared non-consensual by definition even in contradiction to the reality of consent, by a particular government at a particular time period.

      I would object based on her age for other reasons. "Rape" isn't it. Nobody involved, Mohammed, her parents, or herself, wanted her "raped", and none would describe it that way. This is just your projection of incendiary terms for your own reasons that aren't justified by fact. I just don't have time, right now, to track down your particular rationalizations you want to support by this general mechanism of using words to mean what they don't, given the context of discussion.

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

      Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old. He slept with her when she was nine.
      How does that not make him a pedophile by every possible definition of the word?

      Sadly, Muslims are programmed to live their lives in the model of Mohammed, a murderer and a pedophile. The rest is fairly predictable I'm afraid.

    28. Re:Good by terjeber · · Score: 1

      They should be charged with inciting a riot and disturbing the peace, if not more.

      For using free speech? Rest assured, I will not be there when they come for you, you fucking deserve it. For everybody else though, when they come (if they come) I'll be there and I'll be armed. Oh, and by "them" I don't mean some under-educated superstitious num-nut throwing Molotov cocktails at soldiers, I mean the soldiers. The religious nuts are not dangerous. Government is.

    29. Re:Good by terjeber · · Score: 2

      and? They do not have the right of free speech do they? What's your point?

    30. Re:Good by Brannoncyll · · Score: 1

      Google didn't kill anyone - hang the blame where it is deserved -- the religious idealists that actually committed the acts.

      I was pondering such thoughts earlier. I imagined a caged tiger pacing around its cage and some guy deliberately acting to enrage it. The tiger breaks out of the cage and attacks nearby innocent people. There are several key players: the tiger, the guy antagonising the tiger, the people responsible for the security of the cage, the park personnel who allowed the guy to piss off the tiger, and the punters who were attacked (who clearly should not be blamed).

      We ask: who do we blame for the attacks?

      On the one hand we have the guy antagonising the tiger. Yes he knew that he was making the tiger really really mad, and probably had a good laugh doing so. He maybe even had a vague notion that unpleasant things would happen should the tiger escape. Chronologically he was certainly the person who instigated the whole thing, and yes he was an asshole, so perhaps he should be blamed? I guess, but people pissing off the animals is pretty common in zoos.

      What about the people in charge of cage security? Certainly their negligence allowed the tiger to escape. With the knowledge that a surprisingly large number of people take great pleasure in irritating their charges, and that tigers are particularly irritable creatures, they should have done a much better job of securing the cage.

      What about the park personnel who allowed the guy to continue antagonising the tiger. They could have easily prevented it from happening by giving the guy a firm scolding for his antics. However it is probably not in their job descriptions to prevent people from having a good time at the zoo. I expect that they would not be keen to kick out irritating people, lest they attract undue attention for being party-poopers and hence drive off all customers. Some might say that it is the punters right to do what he wants within the zoo providing he does not deliberately sabotage the cages or other such purposeful acts of vandalism.

      Lastly we have the tiger. Here's where the analogy breaks down. One cannot blame a tiger for doing what tigers do. However the murderers in the real scenario are supposedly intelligent creatures who must be held responsible for their actions, even if they choose to act like animals.

      I concluded that the blame should be divided between the animal and the people in charge of cage security for their negligence. The irritating guy should be criticised for being an asshole but not blamed for the attacks.

      My two cents.

    31. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 2

      actually non-consensual

      Uhuh. And what exactly do you think would have happend if Aisha had said "no"? If you're not offered a choice, you cannot consent. That's rape.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know that she wasn't offered a choice... how exactly? It is far, far more likely her parents actually did care about her welfare and happiness, than that your psychic powers regarding the personal lives of people in distant history are working for you right now.

    33. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Since when are young girls in arranged marriages given a choice? Since when is a 9 year old girl even capable of making such a choice? Be realistic.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    34. Re:Good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      Oh, so if I get married to a 50 year old woman, it's OK with you if I rape a 9 year old? I guess it all averages out or something?

      Nope. But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.

      As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    35. Re:Good by Abstergo · · Score: 0

      I feel as though I'm being misunderstood here... I don't blame Google for the deaths until now, but would blame them going forward if, given this opportunity to prevent future issues, they clung to their idealism and continued to broadcast it to these people knowingly.

      Also, hanging blame and these continuous religious pissing contests (including the producer of the movie, who looking back on previous such incidents of Islamic blasphemy could have predicted such an outcome) is only adding fuel to the fire. Instead, if we as a culture understood the moral need to not egg angry people on (I realize that, by expressing an opinion that opposes your own, that I'm doing that very thing right now), there might be far fewer such incidents.

    36. Re:Good by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      "In particular girls"? I guess that's one way of looking at it since the preceding Bible verse says to kill all the boys.

    37. Re:Good by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      You mean the movie producers?

      They were the ones who instigated it. They should be charged with inciting a riot and disturbing the peace, if not more.

      Yeah, those poor Muslims had no choice in the matter and nobody could really expect them to be responsible for their actions.

      Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet that is exactly what you are advocating: personal responsibility for everyone except adherents of the Religion of Permanent Offence

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    38. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Kyosuke's point was that pedophiles are genuinely attracted to children, and it is not their fault to exist. It is only if they do act on these impulses that makes them monsters.

      And I agree with his statement, although you might say I'm biased (and it's not my fault, either; but I can live with myself, and you might be able to guess why.)

      (It doesn't mean I don't live with a lot of depression and self-hatred, even though I've never offended in any way against a child. It is only that I can see, myself, why it would be wrong to in any way entice children that makes me realize that my impulses are unnatural, and I am unable to accept myself because of it.)

    39. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 2

      But it does indicate that it is bigotry in search of a justification that drives the mohammed was a pedo meme.

      How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?

      As for the direct issue of Aisha's age, the bigots have chosen numbers that fit their narative. It's not anywhere near so obvious as they make it out to be, with plenty of evidence that she was well into her teens.

      This is actually the first decent argument I've seen on the topic. However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true? If the Hadith is wrong about the age of Aisha, what else is it wrong about, and why should any muslim put their faith in it?

      And, just so we're clear, if the Hadith is correct about the age of Aisha, then Muhammed is reprehensible, correct?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    40. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't restate my position to something you like arguing against better. I have already stated that I'd object for other reasons at that age, my issue is with calling it "rape" given the context. She is capable of making a choice by virtue of the fact she can make choices, and there is no reason to presume her feelings on the matter were not extensively considered. Again, use words to mean what the words mean. If you mean she was unprepared to make a highly-informed choice, then say that, and we'll be right to the cause of why I said I would object at that age.

      It doesn't serve any discussion purpose to refuse to use accurate meanings for "rape" and "choice", though, any more than it does to refuse to note the distinction between arranged marriage and forced marriage. The first sentence here should help clarify...

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

      But really, let's just get down to brass tacks. If I asked you if you ever donated a dime to assist people you consider to be such nonconsensual victims, you'd say no--and if I asked what the thing you want for yourself personally that religion has a problem with, that you're attacking religion on-behalf-of-others-but-really-just-on-behalf-of-yourself, you'd be able to name it without difficulty, right?

    41. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?

      That would, in fact, be what the word "pedophile" means. Exclusive or near-exclusive attraction to prepubescents.

      But yes, just so we're clear--what basis are you referencing to conclude it's categorically "reprehensible"? Your position clearly isn't Islam, and Darwin would have no objection either, unless you're suggesting that this reduced the overall efficiency of Mohammed's DNA propagation within a "survival of the fittest" existence--which there's no reason to conclude it did. Or did you mean you're using the term with nothing at all of substance backing you, other than your personal feelings?

    42. Re:Good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Informative

      How exactly do you figure? Do you think it's impossible for a pedophile to get aroused by older women too?

      You missed my point. What I am saying is that the aisha thing, just like everything else on websites like jihadwatch, atlasshrugs, etc is all about rationalizing bigotry, not finding truth. It doesn't matter what the specifics of any event are, they will always pick and choose an intrepretation that suits their agenda. Just like extremists (of any religion) do.

      However, do muslims get to pick and choose what parts of the Hadith they believe to be true?

      Yes. It is not unknown for different hadith to be contradictory thus forcing people to pick. Intrepretations of the hadith can vary hugely between different sects - in some cases it is the difference in interpretation that defines the specific sect. This stuff is huge in the religion with all kinds of effort put into figuring out things like the "chain of custody" for the oral reports that ended up being written down and thus the quality of the reports. Some sects even deny the whole concept of hadith.

      An important thing to keep in mind is that the issue of aisha's age has always been of little importance. Nobody goes around using it as a justification for child abuse. Most muslims don't even consider it a question of any interest. Ask any average muslim how old Aisha was when she got married and you'll get "I dunno" and a guess from mid-teens to probably mid-20s because that's the Mohammed of their religion. The pedo-mohammed is just the mohammed of people with an axe to grind who aren't even muslim.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    43. Re:Good by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The old rules were pretty clear: a woman reaches maturity when she's menstruating. Having sex with a child younger than that was a strict no-no, while afterwards the woman was considered an adult -- and biologically, she is, being able to reproduce.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    44. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what he is getting that is that prior to the late 1800's the age of consent across most of the world, to put it precisely and also generally, was the onset of puberty; at the upper limits 13 or so and sometimes as low as upper single digits, 7 to 9. There have been documented pregnancies in 9 year old girls, so in that case it could have passed most definitions for consent, globally, at the time. Pregnancies for 13 year old girls and even younger were much more common and had no negative stigmas commonly associated with that fact.

      To this day human trafficking is still a large problem. Over one million children in the USA alone go missing and most are assumed to have been abducted and sold into sexual slavery every year. Most child sex-slaves are beaten and raped daily, and they then typically wind up as prostitutes as adults, if they live that long. Prostitutes have around 40 times the mortality rate compared to similarly-aged non-prostitutes.

      In one small slum in India an NGO survey reported over 600 females under the age of 18 actively engaging in prostitution(which is illegal, but nevertheless prevalent). The average age for females becoming prostitutes there is 13. Looking up "Taboo Prostitution" on YouTube if you'd like to learn more, it's a National Geographic show.

    45. Re:Good by Alex+Zepeda · · Score: 1

      So this deserves to stay up while footage of the Mars rover should be taken down? Right-o.

      Google deserves no praise for this. The making of 'Innocence of Muslim' was likely illegal because the guy who made it was legally obligated to not use the internet for the duration of his probation. As other comments have pointed out, if someone was offended by this movie and wanted it to disappear a simple DMCA takedown notice would have sufficed. Instead, people invested in seeing conflict in the Middle East want this video up so that they can stoke the flames of anti-American sentiment. Google, with all of their idiotic policies, is playing right into this. Shame on all of you.

      --
      The revolution will be mocked
    46. Re:Good by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      So you're sick of a few people being extremist and you're fucking neanderthal solution is to be far more extremist and kill a couple of billion people, yeah, insighful, fucking morons.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    47. Re:Good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Over one million children in the USA alone go missing and most are assumed to have been abducted and sold into sexual slavery every year.

      Maybe you should pause for a second and think about just how implausible that number is. There were less than 15,000 murders in the USA last year. But you are claiming nearly a million children disappear into sex-slave rings each year.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    48. Re:Good by drkim · · Score: 1

      He waited until she was 12 before nailing her.

      No. He contracted the marriage when she was 6. But he didn't bang her 'till she was 8.

      ...and he was only 53 at the time.
       
      She didn't hit puberty until 14, however.

    49. Re:Good by drkim · · Score: 1

      You mean the movie producers?

      They were the ones who instigated it. They should be charged with inciting a riot and disturbing the peace, if not more.

      You're confusing "inciting a riot" with doing something that someone might find offensive.

      "inciting a riot" would be yelling to an excited crowd, "Come on everybody! Let's burn down city hall!"

      Making an offensive movie may make people angry; but, you have a right to offend people, and their subsequent actions are their responsibility. ("Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), the United States Supreme Court held that speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.")

    50. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. But a moral person would not marry an 8 year-old for political reasons either. He also explicitly supported raping female slaves and prisoners (mamalakat aymanoukoom). Another damning fact is that he married tons of women while "restricting" marriage to four women for other Muslims.

    51. Re:Good by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what the specifics of any event are

      No, it absolutely matters if you worship a man who raped a nine year old or not. How can you say it doesn't matter?

      websites like jihadwatch, atlasshrugs, etc

      I've never been to any of those sites. It's your holy texts that say she was nine.

      An important thing to keep in mind is that the issue of aisha's age has always been of little importance

      The fact that people don't care that their prophet may have raped a nine year old is not a good thing. Islam would do well to make it an issue of importance, and categorically denounce the portions of the Hadith that suggest Muhammed was a child rapist.

      Nobody goes around using it as a justification for child abuse.
      Really? Nobody? Aren't child marriages somewhat normal in many islamic countries? Why wouldn't they use Aisha as a justification?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    52. Re:Good by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong.

      last I checked there were multiple interpretations on "what it means", so there always will be those you consider to "misrepresent what it means".

      You don't have the right to tell anyone what a written work means,

      Anyone can say the Qur'an means anything at all, or that it is a bunch of bullshit and lies, or that it is a pack of hate speach. that's all fine. if you have a problem with it, the problem is between your left ear and your right ear.

    53. Re:Good by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 88

      Narrated 'Ursa:

      The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

      Is that or is that not an accurate quote? Is Bukhari considered Sahih (authentic) or is it not? How can that passage possibly be interpreted in such a way where Muhammad does not rape a 9 year old? Is is not true that this passage is cited in many Muslim majority countries as the reason child marriages are permissible? Am I a bigot for pointing this out?

    54. Re:Good by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      LIAR. Sahih (authentic) Bukhari clearly states she was 9.

    55. Re:Good by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You are a liar. Sahih (authentic) Bukhari clearly states she was 9, as do other Sahih hadiths. I could care less what some muslim.org piece says any more than I would believe what scientology.org tells me about it's "religion". If you want the truth you have to go to the scriptures themselves and the scriptures CLEARLY say she was 9 years old.

    56. Re:Good by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No, it absolutely matters if you worship a man who raped a nine year old or not. How can you say it doesn't matter?

      I feel you are being deliberately obtuse. Other than repeating what I said before - that they do not worship pedo-mohammed, only islamophobes do - I don't think there is anything more I can do here.

      Aren't child marriages somewhat normal in many islamic countries? Why wouldn't they use Aisha as a justification?

      "Child brides" are common in all 3rd world countries, regardless of local religiions. Nobody needs a pedo-mohammed to rationalize it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    57. Re:Good by oamasood · · Score: 1

      Excellent comment - this video explains your last point - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-dBftRbz94&feature=related

  6. Good by jcaldwel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good for Google... This should not be taken down any more than a video calling Jesus or Flying Spaghetti Monster a fraud should

  7. Link to the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have a link to the video?

    1. Re:Link to the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think the full movie has been released, but search for "Innocence of Muslims" on YouTube and you'll find lots of trailers.

  8. So your telling me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People died because of a video on youtube? What a sad world we live in.

    1. Re:So your telling me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people can't really believe this is over a movie. All the other shit the US does is irrelevant? This started a year ago, and has been waiting for a spark.

    2. Re:So your telling me... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, people died because of religious fanaticism. The video was just a largely inconsequential trigger for the current round of violence. But even if said video wasn't there, they'd find another reason.

    3. Re:So your telling me... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.

      FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:So your telling me... by houghi · · Score: 1

      I see your sig and then what you wrote.

      Some people where just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and if it wasn't for 9/11, they would have found another reason.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:So your telling me... by toriver · · Score: 1

      Well, fewer than died because of the radio broadcasts in Rwanda back then... more advanced tech, less deaths. Progress.

    6. Re:So your telling me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there must be some really substantial reason:

      1) a cartoon
      2) a dream sequence in a fictional novel
      3) a truthful short video like Fitna
      4) burning of one their holy books

    7. Re:So your telling me... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      These particular people dying have nothing to do with American imperialism.

    8. Re:So your telling me... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Did you try following the link in my sig?

    9. Re:So your telling me... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.

      FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?

      Since we're quaking about the middle east, let's not leave the British & French out. Their decisions about how to divide the Ottoman empire has not helped. Nor the decision to create Israel.

    10. Re:So your telling me... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      These particular people dying have nothing to do with American imperialism.

      Malarkey - they wouldn't have been in a position to die, if not.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:So your telling me... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      No, people died because of religious fanaticism coupled with decades of American Imperialism.

      FTFY; let's call a duck a duck, shall we?

      Since we're quaking about the middle east, let's not leave the British & French out. Their decisions about how to divide the Ottoman empire has not helped. Nor the decision to create Israel.

      Fair enough - as an American citizen, I only feel right bitching about the bullshit my gov't pulls, but that by no means implies that citizens of other imperialistic nations can't or shouldn't bitch about their own.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:So your telling me... by HJED · · Score: 1

      You might argue that American imperialism did not cause the riots, but you can not argue that American embassies where chosen at random.
      Those people died due to a combination of factors, including the (partially correct) view that America is responsible for their standard of living, the view that the West is intentionally insulting their religion (partially due to cultural misunderstandings), the actions of an American who intentional tried to provoke a riot (otherwise he would not have used an alias and disappeared off the face of planet) and yes a minority group of religious extremists insighting violence in their own countries as well.

      --
      null
  9. Saw this earlier by mcgrew · · Score: 0

    Yay, Google! Glad both that they didn't knuckle under and yank it, and also glad that they care enough about the situation to restrict it in the hotspots where people are dying. Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights, but just because you can say something doesn't mean you should. You have the right both to speak, and to not speak.

    BTW, IMO the guy who made the movie is a fucking coward. Rather than hiding, he should let himself be a martyr. It was especially cowardly of him to give the actors a different script, then dub over their voices with different actors. One actress in the movie was on TV this morning decrying that; she said if she'd been given the script for "Innocence of Muslims" instead of "Desert Warrier" she would have never taken the part.

    1. Re:Saw this earlier by Abreu · · Score: 1

      BTW, IMO the guy who made the movie is a fucking coward. Rather than hiding, he should let himself be a martyr. It was especially cowardly of him to give the actors a different script, then dub over their voices with different actors. One actress in the movie was on TV this morning decrying that; she said if she'd been given the script for "Innocence of Muslims" instead of "Desert Warrier" she would have never taken the part.

      True. Independently of the question of whenever the movie was the real reason behind the attacks or just an excuse to make an attack on september 11, the movie itself is pure, disgusting, awful flamebait.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    2. Re:Saw this earlier by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't doubt if Al Quaida made the movie just to stir up revolt.

  10. Streisand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With people in Egypt and Libya working so hard to experience the Streisand Effect, it seems unfair for Google to block the video in those countries and deprive them of their due.

    P.S. I did watch the video that I otherwise never would have heard of...

  11. "ethical concerns" by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either you have free speech or you do not. "Ethical concerns" is a thinly veiled word for "censor that which offends us".

    The Onion has this pegged...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"ethical concerns" by heypete · · Score: 4, Informative

      Marking that NSFW would have been nice. Normally the Onion is pretty clean and work-safe. That image was not.

    2. Re:"ethical concerns" by toriver · · Score: 1

      So, do you also oppose the restrictions on free speech inherent in e.g. wide-ranging pornography laws, the Wikileaks debacle and so on?

    3. Re:"ethical concerns" by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Yes of course. Do you not? Not sure what you mean by "the WikiLeaks Debacle" though, in what sense do you consider it a debacle?

      I am Libertarian. The hallmark of the libertarian is consistency of thought. I am offended by censorship in ANY form.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:"ethical concerns" by ichimunki · · Score: 2

      Um, you have 5 digit UID, you should know better than to click SlashDot links expecting any type of work safety.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    5. Re:"ethical concerns" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't 4chan.

      Grow up.

    6. Re:"ethical concerns" by c · · Score: 1

      I kinda think that was the point.

          "Hey, look, here's something offensive. Doesn't that just make you feel like going out and killing strangers? No?!? But isn't that how religious people behave?"

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    7. Re:"ethical concerns" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Maybe we need NSFI / NSFM just to help those guys get along day to day.

    8. Re:"ethical concerns" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk about corporate censorship....

    9. Re:"ethical concerns" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - where do you work? For the Mormons?...

  12. Fire, meet gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're talking about giving idiots (who rioted WITHOUT HAVING SEEN the video in question) a chance to actually see said video and become even more outraged and driven to senseless violence. It's not that the censorship was intended to hide the existence of this video; but merely to keep the gasoline from the fire. The crazies that went full-bore on the mention of this video didn't need to see it to act as such, but there are many more who might be driven to similar action with the extra shove that SEEING this video would provide.

    In a perfect world, speech wouldn't need to be suppressed for any reason, but the actions of these radicals only serves to demonstrate that we will always have special cases where sacrificing the lives and well-being of others for an ideal is selfish.

    1. Re:Fire, meet gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Muslims have no morality at all

    2. Re:Fire, meet gasoline by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      So where do we draw the line? If they start rioting whenever a person who is not muslim is elected president in the US, should only muslims be allowed to run? If they go berserk when a woman has an abortion should we start stoning women just to keep them calm?

      Yes the video is a pointless pile of crap, but that's no reason to censor it. Think about how much other crap is available on youtube. And for just about anything you can find people that are against it. (how DARE they post this inferior animation, I think i'm going to go burn my neighbor.) If we start censoring everything people might object to, then we can burn down all the libraries tomorrow, since they'll be empty anyway.

  13. Let it be seen.. by bhlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ya can't prevent Muslims from going apeshit over having their delicate sensibilities offended...

    Here is a video of an Egyptian Muslim leader tearing up and burning a Bible... No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...

    FYI, the Innocence of Muslims movie is also available on LiveLeak and other sites.

    1. Re:Let it be seen.. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...

      No, all it takes for Christians to throw a tantrum is the existence of a doctor's office:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

      As for Muslims, what delicate sensibilities would you be referring to? I look around my town and I see Muslims going about their business, not killing anyone or burning anything. Do you think they have not heard of the video? What, are they a different kind of Muslim? Some of my Muslim friends moved to America from the very countries where these riots are happening and I have at least a few very orthodox Muslim friends who are not rioting.

      The issue here is not any specific religion. Muslims in America are not watching police crackdowns, they are not seeing foreign occupying forces in their lands, they did not have their government replaced with a brutal dictatorship which was then overthrown by another brutal dictatorship, etc. Life in America is nice; they have no reason to be angry, and they take offensive remarks about their religion the same way I do (and trust me, as a Jew, I see plenty of offensive things on the Internet), by shrugging it off and calling the people who made those remarks idiots.

      If those countries where the riots are happening were nice places to live, there would be no riots, regardless of this video.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Let it be seen.. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only a handful of people protest abortion clinics. How many have actually been killed - a tiny number.

      Meanwhile with Muslims you have whole nations rising in anger, wars being fought with hundreds of thousands dead. To claim the two equivalent in any way is sickening.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Let it be seen.. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because we have never seen that sort of thing out of Christians...

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

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Let it be seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, that conflict was far more politically motivated. Keep trying. Go back to the Spanish Inquisition if you have to.

    5. Re:Let it be seen.. by Empiric · · Score: 1
      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re:Let it be seen.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile with Muslims you have whole nations rising in anger, wars being fought with hundreds of thousands dead.

      Right, because only keerazy mooslims go to war.

      To claim the two equivalent in any way is sickening.

      Seems like you are the only one doing that here.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Let it be seen.. by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      Yes, because all religions incite violence when confronted with a cartoon, a book, a burned page, an editorial, or as in this case, bad acting.

    8. Re:Let it be seen.. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Rationalize away. Back at real reality, you can't get a better test case than an entire state that is atheist -by formal definition-.

      Of course there were "political motivations". There always are. That still doesn't alter the fact that this can be more directly explained as a direct consequence of worldview that in any other case you can name--including the Inquisition.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    9. Re:Let it be seen.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Yes, because all religions incite violence when confronted with a cartoon, a book, a burned page, an editorial, or as in this case, bad acting.

      Martin Scorsee would agree with you.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    10. Re:Let it be seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States should be secular and avoid the subject entirely.
      And atheism and communism are not the same thing.

    11. Re:Let it be seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism isn't a religion though

      Perhaps trying to make it one is a bad idea, as it seems like fanatics tried to do. Certainly if your religion involves hating religion, irony aside, then you're going to have problems since you are basing your worldview on "hate".

      There are no "rules" for atheism, it's simply a lack of belief. Technically not even an outright denial as one can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. All the hate and anti-religion is just added on ideology.

      I'm certainly not going to start believing in some made up thing just because there are bad people in the world.

    12. Re:Let it be seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No signs of Christians throwing a tantrum...

      No, all it takes for Christians to throw a tantrum is the existence of a doctor's office:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

      As for Muslims, what delicate sensibilities would you be referring to? I look around my town and I see Muslims going about their business, not killing anyone or burning anything. Do you think they have not heard of the video? What, are they a different kind of Muslim? Some of my Muslim friends moved to America from the very countries where these riots are happening and I have at least a few very orthodox Muslim friends who are not rioting.

      The issue here is not any specific religion. Muslims in America are not watching police crackdowns, they are not seeing foreign occupying forces in their lands, they did not have their government replaced with a brutal dictatorship which was then overthrown by another brutal dictatorship, etc. Life in America is nice; they have no reason to be angry, and they take offensive remarks about their religion the same way I do (and trust me, as a Jew, I see plenty of offensive things on the Internet), by shrugging it off and calling the people who made those remarks idiots.

      If those countries where the riots are happening were nice places to live, there would be no riots, regardless of this video.

      I can use two things to blow your pathetic moral equivalence to smithereens:

      Beslan

      Piss Christ.

      But I'll see your desperate and lame citing of SIX murderous attacks by anti-abortion fools to paint billions of Christians, and raise you 19,100 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11/2001:

      Islam: Making a True Difference in the World, One Body at a Time :

      This is just the last 30 days of Islamic violence:

      List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 30 Days
      Date Country City Killed Injured Description
      2012.09.14 Thailand Pattani 1 2 Muslim 'separatists' shoot a villager in the head in front of his wife and 7-year-old daughter.
      2012.09.13 Pakistan Quetta 3 4 A 2-year-old is among the casualties when Sunnis spray a car carrying Shias with automatic weapons fire.
      2012.09.13 Pakistan Akkakhel 4 2 Two children are among four members of a family crushed in their own home by a Lashkar-e-Islam rocket.
      2012.09.12 Somalia Mogadishu 8 10 Eight people are turned into 'pieces of meat' by a suicide bombing at a hotel.
      2012.09.11 Yemen Sanaa 12 12 Twelve people bleed out in the aftermath of a suspected al-Qaeda blast.
      2012.09.10 Iraq Bayaa 8 32 Eight people at a coffee shop are blown to bits by a Mujahid car bomb.
      2012.09.10 Syria Aleppo 17 40 The FSA claims a bombing outside a hospital and school that leaves seventeen civilians dead.
      2012.09.10 Afghanistan Kunduz 21 15 A Holy Warrior blows himself up at a demonstration, sending twenty-one other souls to Allah.
      2012.09.10 Pakistan Parachinar 14 45 Sunnis murder fourteen members of the minority Shiite sect with a car bomb that rips through a packed market.
      2012.09.10 Iraq Mussayib 3 2 Sunni bombers take down three Shiites near their shrine.
      2012.09.10 Syria Aleppo 20 0 Video surfaces of the Salman al-Farisi members executing twenty captured prisoners in cold blood while praising Allah.
      2012.09.10 India Baramulla 1 0 Islamic terrorists shoot a village head to death.
      2012.09.10

    13. Re:Let it be seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if we storm the Egyptian embassy and beat the ambassador to a dead, bloody pulp over this they would be like: "goddamn, what does that have to do with us?!?! Just some prick talking thru his ass."

    14. Re:Let it be seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whole nations? Don't think so. More protestors are in the streets of Libya denouncing these actions than have committed them in the first place. Keep up on world events.

  14. url by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the url is?

    1. Re:url by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, found
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4DjVszAn4GAyzgsjtkJONg/videos

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

  15. Egypt and Libya? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    What about the rest of the Islamic world? Do they really think this will be enjoyed and improve the Google brand in places like Saudia Arabia? How about Palestine, Indonesia, Pakistan and a host of other Islamic countries?

    Or are they going to wait for riots and then pull the video in those locations?

    1. Re:Egypt and Libya? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure why not. The madness needs to be seen as it is. The sooner the civilized world internalizes how counter-productive it is to be pandering to the zealots the further down the road we'll all be. At the risk of offending them all...All deities and cults are created equal.That is the ultimate irony.

    2. Re:Egypt and Libya? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They're not pulling it from Egypt and Libya because of fear it might undermine the Google brand in those countries, they're pulling it because the movie is being used as a pretext to kill people.

      This isn't about merely avoiding offense. This is about trying to avoid escalating an already terrible situation.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Egypt and Libya? by Desler · · Score: 1

      But blocking it won't actually stop them from using that pretext to kill more. That's the entire point.

    4. Re:Egypt and Libya? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      What about the rest of the Islamic world? Do they really think this will be enjoyed and improve the Google brand in places like Saudia Arabia? How about Palestine, Indonesia, Pakistan and a host of other Islamic countries?

      Or are they going to wait for riots and then pull the video in those locations?

      Google is only demonstrating that they will react to perceived threats to their brands as any corporation would. They don't actually believe in the principle of free speech. They know that the movie had been available for months before anyone rioted over it, only becoming controversial once it was translated into Arabic. It's clearly being exploited by anti-American opportunists and whether that will spread to the entire Muslim world isn't clear.

    5. Re:Egypt and Libya? by Jonner · · Score: 2

      They're not pulling it from Egypt and Libya because of fear it might undermine the Google brand in those countries, they're pulling it because the movie is being used as a pretext to kill people.

      This isn't about merely avoiding offense. This is about trying to avoid escalating an already terrible situation.

      Extremists and terrorists will use whatever excuses they can. It's quite likely that the attack in Benghazi would have happened regardless of the movie. Both Libya and Egypt are very young democracies and need to work out a healthy balance between freedom of speech and rule of law. It is not Google's or anyone else's responsibility to accomodate terrorists or other misguided people who use stupid YouTube videos as excuses for violence.

  16. It's not just in Cairo and Libya anymore... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

    Tunisia, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan,... and a couple others I can't remember, had quite some action going around the US embassies today. In Tunisia (where I live), the official toll is 2 dead guys and around 40 wounded.
    I do hope that they will not restrict access to the video in the mentionned countries, that's opening a dam no one can seal again. How long till the next "resricted" videos?

    1. Re:It's not just in Cairo and Libya anymore... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      If this spreads to the Persian Gulf countries, THEN Google will take it down so fast you wouldn't know what happened.

      We are now running the potential risk of losing diplomatic relations with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates over this mess.

  17. bla bla by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Cue a hundred posts on how awful Islam is, even though this is just a pretext for more hatred for the Middle East and distraction from the way the elite classes are behaving at home. Cue a dozen people mourning about the loss of another spoilt diplomat who did the nasty government's bidding while hundreds of US soldiers continue to be engaged in unnecessary military activities and civilians continue to either be killed or to die from lack of resources.

    Yes, Islam is silly.

    Yes, it's just like all dogma in this respect, whether or not accompanied by a sky fairy.

    Yes, Mohammed was just some strategically brilliant warmonger with an ego.

    But don't allow yourself to be riled up like the desperate fools who are encouraged to violently protest just so their behaviour can be used against them.

    1. Re:bla bla by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Cue a hundred posts on how awful Islam is, even though this is just a pretext for more hatred for the Middle East and distraction from the way the elite classes are behaving at home. Cue a dozen people mourning about the loss of another spoilt diplomat who did the nasty government's bidding while hundreds of US soldiers continue to be engaged in unnecessary military activities and civilians continue to either be killed or to die from lack of resources.

      Yes, Islam is silly.

      Yes, it's just like all dogma in this respect, whether or not accompanied by a sky fairy.

      Yes, Mohammed was just some strategically brilliant warmonger with an ego.

      But don't allow yourself to be riled up like the desperate fools who are encouraged to violently protest just so their behaviour can be used against them.

      You're certainly right about Libya. They all hate us there for invading and occupying the country. Wait a minute, I was momentarily confused. Actually, people of Benghazi, Libya have demonstrated against the terrorist attack on the consulated and in support of the US. If you paint Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan with the same brush, you're making the same kind of logical mistakes as demonstrators that equate a low-budget video on YouTube with US foreign policy.

    2. Re:bla bla by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the pro-US demonstration when Iraq was first occupied.

      Actually, I lie. That probably comprised a few dozen genuine hopefuls, while these people's banners suggest fear of American reprisals. Which, looking at the last decade of US foreign policy, is quite understandable.

    3. Re:bla bla by Jonner · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the pro-US demonstration when Iraq was first occupied.

      Actually, I lie. That probably comprised a few dozen genuine hopefuls, while these people's banners suggest fear of American reprisals. Which, looking at the last decade of US foreign policy, is quite understandable.

      The essential reality you're ignoring is that unlike Iraq, US troops have not invaded and will not invade Libya. There simply isn't the political will to start yet another pointless war that lasts over a decade. If the US gets involved in another war, it will be with Iran, so we certainly don't have time for Libya.

    4. Re:bla bla by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Not "people of Benghazi". Some people of Benghazi demonstrated against the attacks. You conveniently forget about the existence of other people of Benghazi, who e.g. were hoisting black Shahada flags (the very same that al-Qaeda uses) over government buildings not long ago.

    5. Re:bla bla by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Not "people of Benghazi". Some people of Benghazi demonstrated against the attacks. You conveniently forget about the existence of other people of Benghazi, who e.g. were hoisting black Shahada flags (the very same that al-Qaeda uses) over government buildings not long ago.

      Shoot. I guess we should nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    6. Re:bla bla by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, just leave them the heck alone to settle their own differences.

    7. Re:bla bla by Jonner · · Score: 1

      No, just leave them the heck alone to settle their own differences.

      I couldn't agree more. This is already generally the case in Libya and I hope it stays that way.

    8. Re:bla bla by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Indeed. They did their dirty work via NATO. The West are too well-managed to recognise an engineered regime change unless GWB spells it out carefully.

      I'm hopeful that Libya will experience less hell than Iraq, but I fear that domestic religious fanaticism is going to be used as a tool there too.

      I think we're broadly in agreement on what the West shouldn't be doing.

  18. Bläurg. by eddy · · Score: 1

    I wish I'd be surprised by how easily the "foot soldiers" of the muslim world are manipulated, but I'm not. We all know the video was manufactured for muslims to "blow up", and I realize that there's a muslim leadership on the other side who know this but don't care, feeling they have more to win than lose by using it to manipulate the masses for their ends.

    Surely there are people in the muslim world who can stand up and say "Look friends, you're being manipulated. Why are you falling for this?"

    Religion. Always festering in uneducated and thus easily manipulated populations, like a cancer on humanity.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Bläurg. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Surely there are people in the muslim world who can stand up and say "Look friends, you're being manipulated. Why are you falling for this?"

      You could say the same thing about Americans. Greater than 90% of voters vote for one of the two major parties. I wish someone would stand up and say "Look friends, you're being manipulated. Why are you falling for this?"

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Bläurg. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Surely there are people in the muslim world who can stand up and say "Look friends, you're being manipulated. Why are you falling for this?""

      A lot of them are, if not most of them. The problem is, there are still enough stupid, sensitive, and violent people left over to cause problems.

  19. Can't blame YouTube by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    I hope that someday "legal and ethical concerns" apply more to murdering rioters than YouTube nonsense.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  20. Man up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is everyone afraid to link to the video?
    Here it is!

    1. Re:Man up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know after reading about the video, none of it could prepare me for the shock of that link.

  21. I'll just leave this right here by Bryansix · · Score: 1

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

    Notice that the article has existed for a LONG time and there were no riots. Maybe because people know its true?

    1. Re:I'll just leave this right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe because the article wasn't shoved in people's faces by a religious fanatic whose sold intention is to provoke a holy war with other religious fanatics?

    2. Re:I'll just leave this right here by Desler · · Score: 1

      How was his crappy movie shoved in anyone's face? Last time I chcked you had to voluntarily choose to view the trailer.

  22. Talk about cowards by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    also glad that they care enough about the situation to restrict it in the hotspots where people are dying

    What a rube. People are not dead because of this movie. The movie is an excuse. The attack on the embassy was planned, including the followup ambush of the survivors.

    You have the right both to speak, and to not speak.

    What a morally offensive thought. Censorship by any other name stinks as poorly.

    BTW, IMO the guy who made the movie is a fucking coward. Rather than hiding, he should let himself be a martyr.

    W. T. F.

    All he did was make a movie. If he made a movie about Jesus being gang-banged by a pack of hippos nothing would happen. Yet he should die simply because of subject matter? Why should anyone die because they expressed a thought? I think the movie stinks but there would be a long list of people to die before this one if making a terrible movie should carry a death sentence.

    Why is the COWARD not the company that choses not to show the thing in countries where a few lunatics are so mentally unstable they cannot handle the viewing? There are probably people just as offended by the movie in the U.S., yet it is still available here. If people start protesting in the U.S. according to your theory, they should also stop playing it here because it's obviously hurting feelings.

    Boo-Hoo. We live in the 20th century where the most vile things imaginable by any definition cross the internet with great regularity. Learn to ignore it or you have no place in civilization.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Talk about cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If he made a movie about Jesus being gang-banged by a pack of hippos nothing would happen.

      I invoke rule 34 - Someone should make this movie.

    2. Re:Talk about cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: It's the 21st century.

  23. Icing on the cake by br00tus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite Qadaffi's efforts to appease the West in recent years, as soon as he became vulnerable, the US urged NATO to help overthrow the Libyan government. Air strikes, drone strikes, CIA officers on the ground coordinating attacks - the largest military power in the world overthrew the government of this small country - a government which has been making concession after concession to the West in recent years. Apparently not enough. Can anyone imagine the US ambassador in Libya getting blown up if the US hadn't bombed the Libyan government out of existence, working to put its own regime in? You play with fire you get burned.

    Imperialism, foreign intervention, torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib - forcing them to masturbate to the videotaped laughs of sadistic American soldiers, drone attacks, puppet governments, financing the Zionist siege of Gaza - this is what the US is doing to Muslims. Then Korans are burned, put in toilets, mocking videos are made just to rub it in. Then Americans get all indignant that their mockeries of an almost-conquered people are not taken in a light-hearted fashion.

    The real question is why is the US over there, why were they bombing Libya and arming the people who overthrew their government. If I was a Libyan patriot, and I knew US insults to Islam would help rally Libyans in an anti-imperial campaign, of course I'd use that. Libyans are responding to everything the US has done to it. The Marines hymn "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" refers to US interference in Tripoli going back to the beginning of the 19th century. None of this can be discussed of course, so it all becomes about religion, when really it has little to do with religion. Middle class Muslim Turks are nor burning down embassies. Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.

    1. Re:Icing on the cake by FudRucker · · Score: 2

      the USA/NATO/UN is over there to prop up the failing PetroDollar

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Icing on the cake by Hatta · · Score: 0

      Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.

      Indeed. The major reason why we have a military presence in the middle east is to protect Israel. The major reason we care so much about Israel is because it is prominent in evangelical end-times theology. Christianity can be blamed for much of America's war mongering.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Icing on the cake by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      maybe those end times prophecies in the bible are true, if that is the case there will be no winners in that great war, everybody loses, including all the muslems, and all organized religions that use people's faith as a way to generate revenue the USA, Israel, only a select few escape the wrath of god

      http://wrightworld.net/secondbeastofrevelation13.htm

      http://wrightworld.net/greatwhoreuponmanywaters.htm

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    4. Re:Icing on the cake by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Informative

      shores of Tripoli refers to US *interference*? Are you fucking kidding? What sort of revisionist islamo-centric history pipe are you smoking?

      You fucking idiot. America attacked the Barbary pirates for the same goddamned reason we launched into the War of 1812. American vessels at sea were being captured, American sailors were being captured, and shit was not right. They were treated no better nor worse than any other aggressor. Any treaty made with them was less a treaty and more -- actually, not just more, it was ENTIRELY nothing but a protection racket.

      You've got your shit ALL wrong, son. It was the Barbary states who were interfering with the *United States*, as well as much of Europe, because the Barbary states were strong and their victims were too weak or preoccupied to do anything about it except hand them money. Well, except for the US, who decided to say Fuck That And Fuck You.

      Yeah. WE were victimized, BY the North Africans. Not the other way around.

      You can argue the tables have turned, but don't fucking misrepresent history. There's not even any question or different take on this particular point of historical significance, there's only what happened.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    5. Re:Icing on the cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely Bullshit Too. Do not know about Barbary pirates. But War of 1812 seems a lot like your recent adventure in Iraq. IE 9/11 gave your government an excuse to do what it had previously been planing to do, take controlof Iraq and its oil. Attacks by British pirates gave your government an excuse to do what it was previously planning to do, take control of Canada.

    6. Re:Icing on the cake by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      We didn't install our own government after Gaddafi. They're still in a transitional period. I'm surprised you don't know this since you think yourself so well informed. It's likely, considering who started the revolution, that the Libyans will elect an Islamist government like the Egyptians and elsewhere. This is hardly to the US's benefit. We (and others) intervened because we knew which way the wind was blowing, that Gaddafi was going to lose, and throwing him under the bus might buy us some good will. Gaddafi was universally hated. (almost) Nobody was upset about him being overthrown. They hate us for entirely different reasons. As to your "shores of tripoli" allegation, I think Kreigaffe response was more than adequate.

  24. an old saying by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    "A man is only as big as the things that make him angry"

    those muslims reacting violently because of that stupid video is pretty damn lame, they should be hunted down and killed in a public execution without mercy as an example for the rest of them. if they want to live like wild dogs then give them law & order wild west style

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:an old saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they wouldn't have the chance to learn. One should kill only as a last resort.

    2. Re:an old saying by Jonner · · Score: 1

      "A man is only as big as the things that make him angry"

      those muslims reacting violently because of that stupid video is pretty damn lame, they should be hunted down and killed in a public execution without mercy as an example for the rest of them. if they want to live like wild dogs then give them law & order wild west style

      You're absolutely right. The only way to teach intolerant people to be more tolerant is to outdo them at their own game.

    3. Re:an old saying by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Worked for the Mongols.

  25. Why are "these people" not responsible? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?

    Sorry, but forget the "cause" because this is merely an insult at best. Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult. If you can't contain yourself after being angered in this way, you should be destroyed in the most literal sense of the word.

    1. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I think the fact the countries concerned are on the brink of anarchy is what's preventing anyone from holding the rioters responsible. At this point YouTube is simply avoiding fanning the flames in those countries - they're not holding anyone responsible.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well how would you react if a big nation printing money makes creates inflation on the primary world food market bringing you first poverty... later hunger... in order to prevent an economic breakdown that originated in some housing bubble...

    3. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its not preventing an economic breakdown even, if it were things would be improving in the US not getting worse. The BEST part is Bernake was told by Romney that if he wins election Bernake will be replaced. In retalliation Bernake is now printing $85 Billion a month in a desperate attempt to keep Obama in the White house to keep his own job. Thats right, Bernake is printing hundreds of billions, causing untold future inflation and poverty to KEEP HIS JOB. At this point I would be fine with him printing $100 million and taking it home himself. Even though it would be "more corrupt" it would cause far less long term damage. Bernake and Obama will go down in history as the worst economic politicans in the history of the US, taking the title from Carter.

    4. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?

      Is someone claiming that the perpetrators of this violence are not responsible for their own actions?

      I don't think so. People are simply wondering why YouTube would want to be associated with such gratuitously inflammatory material. Personally, I think it is a good question. Even if there were no rioting, this video serves no purpose and provides no value. Sure, it is a reminder that scumbags exist, but I didn't need that reminder. YouTube doesn't owe it a platform.

    5. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      And what does your feeble straw-man argument have to do with the movie we're all discussing, jackass?

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    6. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just one insult/provocation after another. You wouldn't do that to someone in real life an not expect a punch in the face. Yes, you can do all these things. You are entitled to burn the Koran, to piss on the Bible, etc but why would you? Probably to protest/insult that religion.

    7. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how much and how often things that "incite violence" are held responsible, but the people doing the violence aren't responsible?

      This.

      There's a lot of video material out there that I find disgusting and outright evil.
      Here's my solution: I don't watch it.

      What happened to us that our response to violence and aggression has become Appeasement again? Have the lessons already been forgotten?

      Why don't I read anything about the manhunt, arrests and upcoming trials of the murderers? Is the police even looking for them?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Actually appeasement is better than the intended response.

      I would like to qualify something before I say something that follows:

      Without exception, every Jewish person I have ever personally known has been an exceptional person. Every one... okay... not every one... (there was this particular female, but... well... female... ) But the other 90+% all triple-A as far as I am concerned. And it's not because I always agreed with them or aything of the sort. Just that they were people of admirable attributes. Before I get painted as "anti-semite" I want to make it clear that I blame individuals for the actions of individuals. And when I say "the jews" I mean only a select few.

      When I compare the evidence presented after WW2 in the nazi trials (which by today's standards would be ridiculously flimsy and would never result in a conviction) to the rest of Hollywood media propaganda and this ridiculous insulting video, I see similarities in that intelligent people should be able to see through it too easily and that it's targetted to a low-brow, prejudiced demographic who are already prepared to believe what they are told. And I mean this for BOTH sides of the demographic -- the arab side and the xtian side. The video was clearly designed to get stupid people hating each other in a way not unlike that Mel Gibson Jesus movie did. I see it as ridiculous and yet very effective.

      I say it is obvious who is behind this and what their intentions are. I also say the actors were voiced over so often that I have little doubt they were not willing participants in the END production. And it's not like they even tried hard at all.

      So I say again. Appeasement is better than the obviously intended result. When you get two stupid people fighting, the winners are the audience.

    9. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't I read anything about the manhunt, arrests and upcoming trials of the murderers? Is the police even looking for them?

      Yes, but beware of the scare quotes.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19617175

    10. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 1

      Yes, but beware of the scare quotes.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19617175

      (reposted while logged in)

    11. Re:Why are "these people" not responsible? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Actually appeasement is better than the intended response.

      That's not stupid. Getting provoked into a dumb over-reaction is certainly not the smartest thing, either. Unfortunately, thanks to Bush, it is what people in many countries expect of the USA.

      But there are alternatives inbetween. Certainly bombing Libya is not the right answer, but making it clear and obvious that attacks like that won't be tolerated, demanding clear statements from the other arab nations regarding the security of your diplomats there, and then if they don't do it, withdrawing them and all financial aid and other support would be a first step.

      Finally closing down Gitmo and putting each and every single one of its prisoners in front of a proper judge would be the next one. It might sound arbitrary, but there is a connection: Get the fuck rid of this image of yours that the US does evil things just because it can. You can't hold others to standards that you don't satisfy yourself.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  26. Unfortunately... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general. The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed, and much as I would criticize them for that sort of censorship, at least nobody would be killed.

    The rioters were angry before the video was posted. The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior; it could just as easily have been a book, idiotic comments by some preacher, a bomb dropped by the air force hitting a day school, etc. I doubt that most of the rioters had even heard of the video prior to hearing of riots elsewhere, and I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The religious zealots certainly would be content to see the videos removed

      No they wouldn't. The video was just a vessel to guide their anger. And only one in a long succession at that. If the video had never been made they would have found some other reason to be offended.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Unfortunately... by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 0

      I do not hear of this majority calling them to stop; saying, "you stop this nonsense right now, this is no way to behave." They are spoiled -- spoiled by the fact that while the minority is responsible for action, the majority sits back and lets them do it. And they do it because there's no moral calling from their religion to make peace with us.

      The Iranian Mir-Hossein Mousavi election protests a while back? The government struck down hard against them.

      I don't see the moderate Muslim population turning out en masse and saying, "Make peace not war." But then again maybe they fear their lives if they condemn these violent actions -- which, if true, should go to show you just how much in control your majority is.

    3. Re:Unfortunately... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 0

      They want to be left alone, I say grant them their wish.

    4. Re:Unfortunately... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, the religious zealots are not the problem here. Religious zealots are a minority, both of the rioters and in general.

      If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

      The video was nothing more than an excuse (perhaps to themselves) for this sort of behavior

      Anyone who uses offense to their religion as an excuse to commit violence is a religious zealot.

      I doubt that most of them have even seen the video.

      That's even worse. If "hey, I heard some guy in another country made a video that insults our prophet" is enough to get you to storm the embassy and murder people, that's not just religious zealotry that's extreme religious zealotry.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Unfortunately... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

      Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...

      • Wars in their countries.
      • Wars next to their countries.
      • Foreign governments exploiting their countries.
      • The lack of democracy.
      • The lack of democracy following a hard-fought revolution.
      • The lack of democracy following a revolution against a government installed by foreign countries that wanted to exploit them.
      • The general realities of living in those countries.

      Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Unfortunately... by Hatta · · Score: 2

      And what about that made them target the US embassy? Is the US responsible for the lack of democracy in Libya?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the embassy is being blamed for making the movie, apparently (!?!??)

    8. Re:Unfortunately... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Further, in what other culture can an insult to a long dead religious figure trigger riots and murder?

      Criticize a dead Pope? Get in line.
      Criticize Buda? You get tolerant smiles.
      Criticize a Rabbi, living or dead? Yiddish curses.
      Criticize L Ron Hubbard? hmmmm, lemmie think about that one.

      But muhammad? people have to die for that, any people, just kill someone.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Unfortunately... by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      they are specifically angry about this video. they say, not me

      why are you making excuses for this kind of behavior?

      this is where you reply to me and continue to insert your worldview into the motivations of other people who are clearly not rioting because of the reasons you think they are

      you are just as blind as they are

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:Unfortunately... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the rioters are not religious zealots, what exactly are they rioting about?

        Hm...what might people in those countries be angry about...
        Wars in their countries.
      Wars next to their countries.
      Foreign governments exploiting their countries.
      The lack of democracy.
      The lack of democracy following a hard-fought revolution.
      The lack of democracy following a revolution against a government installed by foreign countries that wanted to exploit them.
      The general realities of living in those countries.

        Really, do you need this list made for you? Do you think the rioters were sitting on their lounge chairs beneath some palm trees in their own personal gardens, and then suddenly saw this video and went nuts?

      Riots are infectious. You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement. After all, last year we had a huge riot in Vancouver, Canada over a hockey game. Or so they claim.

      None of the list are true (when you have bunch of kids wearing $300+ clothes...) - it was just a riot fueled by alcohol and a bunch of drunken idiots who felt like having a good time destroying stuff. It was, as they say, remarkably easy. And once it started, others poured in to join in the fun.

      All you need is someone to go apeshit and others will follow. Hell, who knows why the riot started - perhaps afterwards someone claimed they rioted because of the video - finding the reason after the fact to justify what they did.

    11. Re:Unfortunately... by Hatta · · Score: 1, Redundant

      No, the fact that many middle eastern muslims are violent religious zealots absolutely does not justify wars of aggression against them.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    12. Re:Unfortunately... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Shhh, don't mess with the bigot's firmly held beliefs. Reality might shock his system.

    13. Re:Unfortunately... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Don't piss him off. He might riot.

    14. Re:Unfortunately... by Zephyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement. After all, last year we had a huge riot in Vancouver, Canada over a hockey game.

      Which might also qualify as religious motivation in that country.

    15. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You spelled Buddha wrong.

      Die.

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

      "Religious zealots are a minority"

      Unfortunately, however, ignorance and poverty are not.

    17. Re:Unfortunately... by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      One also has to understand that many of these riots have happened in countries that are or just recently have been dictaturships for many many years. So in their reasoning no one in the US could have done this without the blessing and explicit order by the US gouvernment, and the US gouvernment would do it only as a hostile move against the muslim countries. Because that is how it worked/works in their countries. It will take many years for Libyans and Egyptions to think in democratic terms.

    18. Re:Unfortunately... by jwhitener · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure sure you saw the most recent coverage about this, but things are a bit more complicated than one movie = lots of violent riots.

      For instance, the Libyan assault on the US consulate wasn't protestors (in fact recent reporting says that there were not protestors), but rather a well organized militia associated with al-qaeda. The arrived in jeeps that had black al-qaeda flags. And this is 24 hours after a 9/11 al-qaeda memorial type video was released about the US killing al-qaeda's second in command. His nickname was "The Libyan".

      As for the rest of the rioters, we could start with Egypt. According to Richard Engle's latest interview on the Maddow show, the protestors are motivated by religion, yes, but mostly by conspiracy theories. And keep in mind, the ones protesting are a tiny sliver of the population. Those conspiracy theories, like the US secretly funded the creation of this movie, that our troops in Afghanistan are ordered to burn Koran's, that free masons are involved to destroy Islam, etc.. have been subtly and at times not so subtly used by various dictators over the years to create suspicion of the west and unify people under that dictator. And at the same time shifting focus from real problems at home to focusing their attention on 'the real enemy' (the west).

      Like is often the case, religion makes a nice simple excuse to act out over a what is mainly a general frustration/fear/anger about the circumstances you find yourself in. Poor economy, no job opportunities, repressive society, and you've been told all your life that their is some big conspiracy that is keeping you down...

      It sure doesn't help to tamp down the conspiracy theories when we are still in a "no ends in sight" war on terror that is conducting secret operations all over the place.

    19. Re:Unfortunately... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting
    20. Re:Unfortunately... by HJED · · Score: 1

      No, but there is a lot of anger in the Middle East against the US and the West and this was just the pin that popped the balloon it would have popped anyway because the US is doing nothing about their bad PR.
      Many people in the Middle East see the US as responsible for their current living conditions, (something which may or may not be true), but the cultural differences also cause misunderstanding of intent, which has caused many Muslims in those countries to feel the West is deliberately attacking their culture. (The SMH had an article on this a while back, after the most recent spate of 'green on blue' killings.)

      --
      null
    21. Re:Unfortunately... by russotto · · Score: 1

      And what about that made them target the US embassy? Is the US responsible for the lack of democracy in Libya?

      Sure, we were absolute big pals of Ghadaffi since the Reagan administration. Why, Reagan even had tons of sophisticated bombs and missiles delivered directly to his doorstep.

    22. Re:Unfortunately... by gadzook33 · · Score: 1

      In other news, a post on Slashdot leads to attacks on several US pipelines as well as a small dog wearing a red, white, and blue sweater.

    23. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riots are infectious. You can easily generate a whole mob to riot with some encouragement.

      This short lecture shows how easily the infection spreads: http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html

    24. Re:Unfortunately... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Religious zealots don't want to be left alone. They want to force their world view on others.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    25. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's obviously due to the lack of FSM images. Otherwise, it would be like Pirates of the Caribbean all over.

    26. Re:Unfortunately... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Less than 24 hours, and there has already been a fatality because of that insensitive cartoon.. Specifically, when I read it I became so pissed off I stomped on a spider. The green spider glob is on that cartoonists hands!

    27. Re:Unfortunately... by Hentes · · Score: 1

      I think the situation is quite the opposite. Like every rebellion, the ones in the Arabic countries have created unstability which offers some opportunities to the small group of radicals. And like in every rebellion, the radicals try to take this chance by mobilising the uneducated mobs. For that, they needed a rally call, and the film was a good way to play on the religious emotions of people. If they were really offended by it, they wouldn't have waited until the symbolic day of 9/11 to protest. This isn't about an offending movie, this is an attempt of radical islamists to seize power.

    28. Re:Unfortunately... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Religion breeds zealots because it uses fantasy to exalt believers over those not them.

      Superstition, ALL of it, is bad because it represents an attack on the search for truth.

      No modern man has any business believing that unsupported by EVIDENCE, and there is none for Sky Fairies.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    29. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't it just consist of a couple of guys standing out in the street saying that they weren't okay with what had happened? I think someone may/may not have knocked over a trashcan. It could've been the wind.

    30. Re:Unfortunately... by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Well, it was not as well publicized as the video. And instead of Lord Ganesha, if they had chosen some female Goddess Saraswathi or Lakshmi and made them go DP with Jesus and Buddha, I am sure India would have been in riots. (Hell when a famous Indian artist drew a naked Lakshmi, there indeed were riots)

    31. Re:Unfortunately... by oamasood · · Score: 1

      Weeeell - the tensions against the US have been festering for quite a while in the Muslim world (and for good reason - support of all the countries now being overthrown by the Arab Spring). People don't really consider the political implications of foreign events, often only relying upon whatever the media says...anyways here's a little video of my own...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-dBftRbz94&feature=related

    32. Re:Unfortunately... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Mostly, yes.

      I wouldn't exactly put up a billboard of Jesus fucking a donkey if I live in the bible belt, though. The chance to be murdered is still considerably less than doing something comparable in most muslim countries, but it is uncomfortably above zero.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    33. Re:Unfortunately... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Thanks a lot for posting that. This is one of those few comments that deserve more than +5.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    34. Re:Unfortunately... by qamerr · · Score: 1

      Just FYI to others, but the cartoon is NSFW..

  27. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by houghi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I agree if you talk at all the people believing in the same God. You know, Christians, Jews and Muslims.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  28. Closing barn doors after barn is burnt down. by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You're talking about giving idiots (who rioted WITHOUT HAVING SEEN the video in question) a chance to actually see said video and become even more outraged and driven to senseless violence.

    If anyone can be driven to violence by a video, then blocking a video will not help them. People that stupid would be drive to violence by any pretext, even just READING about the movie existing is quite enough.

    So what is the harm in censorship? How about this, the worst is being stated about this movie and now all the people in these countries have to go on is the descriptions of how offensive it is - now there is no verification possible, just slander and rage. Being able to see the film could actually DECREASE levels of violence as people just watch it and see it's just some stupid poorly made film, instead now they assume the worse and can get more and more worked up about it since the worst fears are verified by it being banned there.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Closing barn doors after barn is burnt down. by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

      In a region where cartoonists and fornicators are stoned to death for two very different acts, holding a public viewing of a movie along the lines of what got the cartoonist killed is a sure recipe for lynch mob, except this mob has RPGs and anti-vehicular weaponry in their back yards.

      Don't underestimate a religion's ability to mobilize killers. Christianity had its bout, and it would seem now it's time for Islam to try. Personally, I could live without all religions, but that's wishful thinking.

  29. Terrible precedent by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What happens when someone says, "That video might cause people to revolt against their government!" -- does Google take that down too?

    Either we have free speech, or we do not have free speech. If Google is going to be the service provider for an important communications medium, they need to respect free speech. The video did not say, "Go out and riot." People who were already angry saw the video and exploded.

    The Chinese government claims their censorship is to keep the peace as well. How ironic for Google to follow that same logic, after all they went through with China...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Terrible precedent by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Either we have free speech, or we do not have free speech.

      Then I guess we don't have free speech, because there's a couple hundred years of judicial precedents that limit your ability to incite violence or cause a breech of the peace.

      The world isn't black or white and neither are our laws.
      These are nuanced issues that call for nuanced responses.
      Stop trying to dumb everything down to an either/or situation.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Terrible precedent by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      I dunno... ask Julian Assange.

    3. Re:Terrible precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty fucking black and white, asshole:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    4. Re:Terrible precedent by ra1n85 · · Score: 1

      While you are correct that nuances exist and that there are shades of gray, I believe what the original post was referring to was the nature of granting exceptions to laws. The "heckler's veto" comes to mind here, as does the slippery slope of censorship.

    5. Re:Terrible precedent by fermion · · Score: 1
      Practically speaking we don't have freedom of speech as a pure right, but a right tightly coupled with responsibility. ll religions, christians, Mormons, jews, muslim, whoever, tend to protect their idols and tend to not to want them overly analyzed. Most of us, being religious or at least people who respect religion, know that it make no sense to go out our way and antagonize people. So, for instance, though it may make perfect sense for a bunch of LGBT activis to protest at wedding where a divorced man is marrying a divorced woman, such a thing does not happen. We all know that if a church opposes gay marriages, but promotes adultery, a protest is not going to change anything, but wil escalate. Intelligent people prefer accommodation and slow change to escalation.

      Even when attacking religions, it is often better done with a bit of finesse. For instance when south park lampooned Mormons, they did not overly focus on the seedy side of Joseph Smith. That is, they attacked the convoluted belief system over the person. They could have focused on Smiths Adultery, showing him in sexual situation with multiple women married to other people, and such a depiction would be somewhat supported by fact. But this would only antagonize and take away from the message, which was even things we don't understand have value to other people.

      Then we must remember that all this stuff, freedom of speech, is a construct we use in the US. IN Germany, for instance, the right to deny the holocaust is restricted. if we believe that the internet is international, we must act like it and not always want the benefits of US laws while whining that the responsibilities are unfair.

      One implication of this is that not everyone deals with problems the way we might. For instance, the Westboro Baptist church has every right, and maybe even a religious mandate, to protest the funerals of military personel. Now some sensitive people object to such protests and want desperately to infringe their right to express their religious viewpoints in a perfectly peaceful manner. In the US we have a process and protocol in which the courts decide what is acceptable freedom of speech. Outside of such protocols, some might come up with the bright idea that this church is simply a single family, and eliminating the family would eliminate the problem. Fortunately we do not have to resort to such a messy solution.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:Terrible precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, good. Glad it's black and white. No need for lawyers or the like to sort it out I guess...

  30. Movie is a mix of bad ernest messaging/incitement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In parts it looked like it was going to at least try to make an intellectual argument, then it devolves into an unintentionally-comic parody of Islam. Some of the scenes with Muhammed I was half expecting Benny Hill music to start blaring; it's THAT bad.

    And for those of you chomping at the bit to ridicule the Muslim reaction, go back at historical reactions of Christians to the same naked assaults on their faith.

  31. Yeah... but in fact youtube takes down a lot.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIAA... copyright material.. ( with children dancing to copyright material in the background ) ...
    I can't help.. america once more doesn't get that people in different regions of the world have different opinions..
    when was it the last time an american beaurocrat wanted to prefent the video of an american passport flushed down the toilet to be blocked because it's anti american. People have different beleaves.. Can't americans never understand that there are people thinking different then you somewhere else in the world.. And well if my house would have been bombed by a coalition of French, American, British Aircraft in Lybia just one year ago I also would be pissed of.. Just because your media told you you have supported the rebels doesn't mean that the lybians love you...

    1. Re:Yeah... but in fact youtube takes down a lot.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give a fuck about people's "different beliefs" except when your belief includes killing people because you are offended. In that case, the best thing that could happen is that a 500lb bomb is dropped on your house and obliterates you and all your spawn.

      But if you want to make a film of the flag or passports in toilet, you go right ahead dipshit. We'll all just watch and laugh at you and your stupid film.

  32. Oops, yeah, very NSFW by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Sorry, forgot to mention that was VERY NSFW. ALthough it being a cartoon would give you about 2 seconds of extra time to close it before people grasped what was being illustrated.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  33. Terrible Response by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets say you are some person in that country trying to make up your mind about how bad the video really is. Your religious neighbor says it is the worst form of blasphemy ever.

    Pre Google Ban, you could have watched it and said "well this sucks and is stupid, why should I care about this?"

    Now they have no choice but to believe the neighbor, perhaps go out and protest as a result.

    Blocking the truth from view never makes things better, especially in a situation where so many seek to inflate the importance of a single video.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Terrible Response by jimmyfrank · · Score: 1

      Excellent point.

  34. What makes it anti-Islamic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Islam's own holy books: Muhammad was a pedophile and a war monger. And his behavior is very much condoned in Muslim communities.

    Muhammad's youngest wife was six years old, although the marriage was not consummated until his wife was nine. This is very normal in Muslim communities to this day, and not just in the mid-east. There was an article out a few days ago about Muslim girls, as young as nine years old, in the UK being sold into marriage.

    Youtube is filled with Muslim clerics calmly giving instructions on how to beat your wife, or wives.

    I could go on. Why do Muslims consider the objective truth to be an insult?

  35. May be an internal matter within Islam by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One school of thought on this is that the violence is an attempt by one of the more militant branches of Islam to get attention.

    The real cause of riots in Egypt is a steadily declining standard of living since Egypt hit peak oil in 1996. Oil production has declined 45% since 1996.

    1. Re:May be an internal matter within Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that *any* oil-producing country gives its profits to the people? Dictatorships pocket the money. Even the Islamic Republic of Iran promised to share the oil wealth in 1979 and has not done so.

  36. sam Harris doesn't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love Harris and Dawkins. But they don't get it. They think that religious belief can be disputed on a rational level.

    It cannot.

    Religion appeals to our emotional primitive brain. That is why you have people who can build atom bombs and understand the physics of it still believe in the Biblical god. They have the intellectual ability - more than I - to dispute on rational and logical grounds why the Biblical God is as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and yet they do.

    And it's just not the Biblical God. Humans are predsposed to have magical thoughts. Whether it's making a deal with the Universe, Karma, or anything else for a better life or what have you. It's our brain that want's to see patterns where none exist it's our brains unable to accept that this is all there is. There must be something more to life than eating, fucking and shitting. Hence, for modern people the stubborn belief in God and other superstitions.

    1. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      That is why you have people who can build atom bombs and understand the physics of it still believe in the Biblical god.

      I'm confused. Are you saying there's anything that the biblical god is said to have done that physics does not agree can happen as a matter of quantum probability?
      Because, well, if you're saying that, you aren't among those who "understand the physics of it".

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In other words, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. House, M.D." Magical thinking is a blight upon humanity.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      But rational thinking HAS brought people to the side of reason. Pastors and priests HAVE lost their faith and embraced science and secularism. Just google "ex pastor turned atheist".

      I agree that many hard-core religious people are not going to change their mind, but reason has swayed some,and reason is the best long term cure for religion.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    4. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      There must be something more to life than eating, fucking and shitting.

      I thought for a moment this was the Slashdot Poll.

    5. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love Harris and Dawkins. But they don't get it. They think that religious belief can be disputed on a rational level.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUg-1NCCowc

      I would say they do. Great vid if you have 2hrs.

    6. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Are you saying there's anything that the biblical god is said to have done that physics does not agree can happen as a matter of quantum probability?
      Because, well, if you're saying that, you aren't among those who "understand the physics of it".

      I'm not the original poster, but I thought he was pretty clear in his very next sentence:

      "They have the intellectual ability - more than I - to dispute on rational and logical grounds why the Biblical God is as likely to exist as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and yet they do." [bold added]

      The key words there being "as likely". It's quantumly possibly that you could "tunnel" through a wall, yet the odds of that happening are essentially zero for practical purposes, and you would never claim for it to have actually happened.

      Religion = accepted mythology, as anybody with a rational brain and understanding of science would come to the conclusion to if they actually applied those skills to their religious belief.

    7. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense! It is thanks to the efforts of Harris and Dawkins that I finally freed myself from the shackles of religion in general, and Islam in particular. That was a long and painful process but it barely happened 3 years ago (and I'm supposedly a middle-aged geek!). Since then, I managed to "rationally" talk many people out of it too (Hindus, Christians and Muslims). You're simply taking the path of least resistance and it's understandable. But please stop spreading falsities. "Reasoning" with religious people increases their cognitive dissonance and in many cases, sooner or later, that translates into serious introspection and subsequent loss of faith. Islam is losing ground to reason and these tragic worldwide tantrums are an unmistakable symptom of the phenomenon. If you don't want to help the Humanist project, suit yourself. But do us all a favor and at least refrain from undermining it with unsupported statements.

    8. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      yet the odds of that happening are essentially zero for practical purposes

      In other, more accurate words, "not zero". More on the order of what one might call a miracle.

      as anybody with a rational brain and understanding of science would come to the conclusion

      I'm not even going to list the number of formal logical fallacies this sentence violates. So, I'll just give a set of directly-refuting examples.

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

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    9. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In other, more accurate words, "not zero". More on the order of what one might call a miracle.

      The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus might be real too, but you don't believe in them.

      I'm not even going to list the number of formal logical fallacies this sentence violates.

      Go ahead, list them. I didn't substantiate it with a treatise, but it doesn't violate logical fallacies. It's the summary of the ridiculous belief in primitive mythology that people hold. If I was talking about a scientist who believed in Zeus instead you wouldn't be arguing with me.

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

      That there is a minority of scientists who manage to compartmentalize there religious beliefs from their scientific and rational scrutiny means little. You'll find many papers from these scientists on their science with scientific justification. Very few, if any, will ever write a justification for their religious belief using a rational and scientific lens. I'd like to see one such paper from a scientist in that list that justified their belief in a Biblical god, and not just a feel-good justification, but a critical look at the evidence and conflicts between science and religion.

      You can start at the very beginning, where the Earth is created before the heavenly bodies, to an Earth that doesn't move, and on to ridiculous Noah's Ark stories. The Christian faith is nothing but an offshoot of ancient Hebrew mythology.

    10. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus might be real too, but you don't believe in them.

      Correct. In part, because there's no peer-reviewed studies (written by multiple PhD's and published in a journal of worldwide reknown, incidentally) which quantifies eyewitness reports of them, in the context where we would expect to find them, like this one:

      http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

      We also have a much lower demonstrable success rate at predicting future events from Santa and the Tooth Fairy, as presented here:

      http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

      I understand that some of these can be argued, such as upon a basis of supposed vagueness or the possibility of intentional fulfillment on the part of historical believers (for such cases where that would be possible). Therefore, feel free to reduce the estimated probability given by a billion times before we start our comparison with Santa's and the Tooth Fairy's published, verifiable future predictions.

      Go ahead, list them. I didn't substantiate it with a treatise, but it doesn't violate logical fallacies.

      Yes, it clearly does. At minimum, it's an Appeal to Authority and an Ad Hominem. You are projecting a group of "rational people", lacking any definition, and asserting that a position is correct or incorrect based on whether they correspond to the supposed views your constructed group, which, handily, you further imply, all agree with you, with no logical connection demonstrated between the group and the conclusion.

      It's the summary of the ridiculous belief in primitive mythology that people hold.

      That one can be called a Bare Assertion Fallacy. There is, in fact, nothing about the belief that is in the least ridiculous, and you tying it's truth-status to its age is called the Genetic Fallacy. Try learning a few of them, or at least develop to the level where you can understand the difference between an actual argument and a mere insulting characterization. You rely, apparently, entirely on the latter. It might work briefly for the easily-intimidated, but it won't work on anyone who knows the rules to reason that you do not, as our exemplar of "rationality".

      That there is a minority of scientists who manage to compartmentalize there religious beliefs from their scientific and rational scrutiny means little.

      No, -you- mean little, compared to Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Newton, Bayes, Linnaeus, Euler, Babbage, Maxwell, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, and Heisenberg, to name a few from the list. Both in general, and to science specifically.

      I'd like to see one such paper from a scientist in that list that justified their belief in a Biblical god

      Many on that list are published theologians as well. So... if you want to see one, try reading one.

      You can start at the very beginning, where the Earth is created before the heavenly bodies, to an Earth that doesn't move, and on to ridiculous Noah's Ark stories.

      Allegory, it says it is figuratively unmoving (you do realize in physics we now know there is no privileged frame of reference frame, correct?), local flood. In order, summarizing.

      The Christian faith is nothing but an offshoot of ancient Hebrew mythology.

      Once again, Genetic Fallacy with a dash of Ad Hominem. I suggest less Dawkins parrot-training books, and more Philosophy 101 class. It will help you.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    11. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In part, because there's no peer-reviewed studies (written by multiple PhD's and published in a journal of worldwide reknown, incidentally) which quantifies eyewitness reports of them, in the context where we would expect to find them, like this one:

      http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

      You cite a survey of near-death experiences that in no way whatsoever quantifies eyewitness reports of the Biblical god or Jesus.

      http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

      "Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter--no errors. "

      Ok, so where is this list of approximately 2000/2500?

      "The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error. [..] Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document"

      What a joke. The Bible doesn't even get the most basic of cosmology right, that the Earth was created after the heavens. Also, there's a Wikipedia page on prophecies, and you can see plenty of questionable accuracy with the usual variation of apologists who take different tacks to explain them.

      At minimum, it's an Appeal to Authority and an Ad Hominem. You are projecting a group of "rational people", lacking any definition, and asserting that a position is correct or incorrect based on whether they correspond to the supposed views your constructed group

      It's no different than if I said rational and scientific people don't believe in Zeus or any number of primitive mythologies.

      That one can be called a Bare Assertion Fallacy. There is, in fact, nothing about the belief that is in the least ridiculous

      I listed several in my post, which you have attempted to address in your reply.

      and you tying it's truth-status to its age is called the Genetic Fallacy.

      It's not a fallacy to note that many primitive beliefs have been dispelled with our advancements in science and reason.

      Many on that list are published theologians as well. So... if you want to see one, try reading one.

      Try naming the paper that critically looks at the issue as I asked. It's not my responsibility to uphold your side of the argument.

      Allegory, it says it is figuratively unmoving

      Ah yes, whenever something is obviously wrong in the Bible it becomes an allegory, a problem in translation, or in some other way re-interpreted to fit the facts.

      (you do realize in physics we now know there is no privileged frame of reference frame, correct?)

      If that was what the Bible was saying, then there would be no need to make special mention of the Earth, and poor Galileo could have been left alone to do his science in peace. Furthermore, the Earth's rotation means that it cannot be chosen as an inertial frame.

      local flood

      What kind of warped reading to you have to do to turn a story about wiping out all the earth's animals and mankind into a "local flood" story? More re-interpretation.

      And I can't tell, did you address the fact that the Bible has the Earth being created before the heavens as an allegory? That was given in a precise ordering of events. No allegory is going to save you from that bit of mythology.

      I suggest less Dawkins parrot-training books

    12. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      You cite a survey of near-death experiences that in no way whatsoever quantifies eyewitness reports of the Biblical god or Jesus.

      Ah, nice goalpost shift, but I'm under no illusions you will not reduce the scope of what would correspond to theistic metaphysics to whatever degree is necessary to exclude it. Referring to your original statement, though, note the degree to which the experiences described in the second table correspond better or worse to the test results (i.e. effects of death) predicted by proposing Santa or the Tooth girl.

      Ok, so where is this list of approximately 2000/2500?

      Somewhere entirely unnecessary for it to be to refute your statement. What is given is sufficient to do so, and many, many other examples are available for the cost of googling. Goalpost shift #2.

      Also, there's a Wikipedia page on prophecies, and you can see plenty of questionable accuracy with the usual variation of apologists who take different tacks to explain them.

      Goalpost shift #3. Are you acknowledging that theism is considerably more plausible than Santa, or not?

      It's no different than if I said rational and scientific people don't believe in Zeus or any number of primitive mythologies.

      Correct that it is no different--and your argument would be fallacious in that case as well. Zeus is in fact not true, but that has nothing to do with its origins as a belief or its age, or your characterization as (untrue) "mythology". Additionally, it would be literally factually wrong as a statement, though not as easily-refutable as I did earlier for Christianity's case. I assure you there is at least one scientist in existence that believes in Roman polytheism.

      It's not a fallacy to note that many primitive beliefs have been dispelled with our advancements in science and reason.

      True, it's just fallacious to say that this is relevant or determinative. Look, I'm not failing to credit you with not taking the time to obscure your fallacies with carefully-constructed language. I only questioned where this language comes from, as it seems a direct parroting of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. How old does a given position need to be before I can determine from that it is not true? Can you give me an expiration date on true concepts? That'd be very handy to have.

      Try naming the paper that critically looks at the issue as I asked. It's not my responsibility to uphold your side of the argument.

      Again, under no illusions you'll conclude anything suggested insufficient or otherwise unsuitable without even reading it. Though, any of the references would be suitable as a point of dicussion, say, Freeman Dyson's Infinite In All Directions, as a work of a theoretical physicist encompassing his presentations given as part of the Gifford Lectures, which have as their subject matter specifically what you are asking for.

      You seem to be having difficulty with the basic fact that there is no problem with events described by theism in hard physics. On this, I see no reason to make all these digressions. You are simply wrong on the science per the science.

      So, okay, since we're talking about quantum probability, please give me the specific causal factors leading to the particular values of random we observe. Preferably, weight the different causal factors in a scientific sense, such that we know the steps leading deterministically to the particular values of random.

      Yes, I know what I'm asking for there, and feel free to conclude the question is not something resolvable or even addressable within the context of "random". Then we can move on to the notion that "random" isn't a causal explanation, it is, in fact, a placeholder-word for a lack of causal explanation. Lacking causal explanation, you believe that this cannot be a hard physics-based mechanism for miracles, -for no reason whatsoever-, as neither you nor science in general can say anything about the causality at tha

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    13. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Tom · · Score: 1

      They do get it. Dawkins especially is not trying to convert anyone who already is religious. When he is discussing them, you can clearly see that he isn't trying to convince his opponent, his words are intended for the audience.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    14. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Ah, nice goalpost shift

      It's not a goalpost shift to refute what you stated. In comparing the believability of the Biblical god versus Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, you made a reference to a survey regarding "eyewitness reports". The survey says nothing about eyewitness reports for the Biblical god.

      Referring to your original statement, though, note the degree to which the experiences described in the second table correspond better or worse to the test results (i.e. effects of death) predicted by proposing Santa or the Tooth girl.

      The Biblical god is a specific creation myth. Having a near-death experience that hints at something beyond this mortal coil can be evidence for any supernatural explanation of our origins, like, for example, Buddhism.

      [where is this list of approximately 2000/2500?] Somewhere entirely unnecessary for it to be to refute your statement.

      If you're going to link to "evidence", then I'm going to critique it, especially when it makes ridiculously strong claims. If you want me to concede that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is less likely to be true then the Biblical god, I will be happy to do so, as the lie is revealed and rational, grown adults don't believe in them.

      Yet if you were to ask children about them, and evidence for them, you would get results similar to the answers you get for why people believe in the Biblical god. They've "seen" Santa Claus, or they've had first-hand experience of the miracles of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and they've been told from a reliable source about their existence. The Biblical god is Santa Claus for adults.

      Now if you told a child it was physically impossible for Santa Claus to exist, if he had knowledge of quantum physics he could say it was possible. And that is what introduced my analogy to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, as you started out this thread trying to drape your mythology in the respectability of quantum science.

      Zeus is in fact not true, but that has nothing to do with its origins as a belief or its age, or your characterization as (untrue) "mythology".

      Oh really? So let's hear your explanation why the Zeus mythology isn't true. By the way, it's standard to reference Zeus as part of a mythology, so no need for the scare quotes.

      I assure you there is at least one scientist in existence that believes in Roman polytheism.

      My claim was along the lines of applying science and reason to these kinds of beliefs, not merely having them, which is why I asked for a paper that looked at these beliefs critically under the scientific and rational lens.

      [many primitive beliefs have been dispelled with our advancements in science and reason] True, it's just fallacious to say that this is relevant or determinative.

      How is it not relevant? If you ask 1,000 people a question they don't have answer to, but they make up fantastical explanations that differ from each other, and then new evidence comes along and the answers they gave don't fit, doesn't it make sense to say those 1,000 people were making up shit based on poor evidence?

      I only questioned where this language comes from, as it seems a direct parroting of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.

      Funny how rational people can look at the same evidence and come to the same conclusion, isn't it? Maybe if you weren't so steeped in dogmatic adherence to a particular creation myth this wouldn't be so surprising.

      And one could as easily say that whenever is something is obviously wrong in science, it becomes a problem with an experiment, and it is changed to fit the facts.

      You're making the same old stupid, tired arguments that are obviously wrong. Science doesn't claim to be dogmatically correct, unlike the Bible. It's whole methodology is evidence-based reasoning. Whe

    15. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      It's not a goalpost shift to refute what you stated. In comparing the believability of the Biblical god versus Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, you made a reference to a survey regarding "eyewitness reports". The survey says nothing about eyewitness reports for the Biblical god.

      It gives specific numbers and percentages of those experiencing events specifically called for by a theistic metaphysics. It's Table 2. I thought you were arguing with the standard infinite-regress that those experiences "aren't specifically Christian enough", as if that were necessary to serve as evidence relative to Santa. If your claim is it isn't there at all, simply read Table 2. And yes, this is "eyewitness accounts", and the fact they are dead (or apparently so) at the time only adds to its value as relevant evidence. That they are eyewitnesses is a given by the fact they are reporting the experiences, personally.

      The Biblical god is a specific creation myth. Having a near-death experience that hints at something beyond this mortal coil can be evidence for any supernatural explanation of our origins, like, for example, Buddhism.

      What is this, refutation-by-asserted-category? Okay, all your stances are merely postmodern atheism, which has been extensively refuted and is merely a function of moral relativism. There, I categorized your stance--no need to actually provide substantiating argument, correct?

      If you're going to link to "evidence", then I'm going to critique it, especially when it makes ridiculously strong claims.

      Then do so, and critique it. Waving your hand at a sentence that says there are more, and your stance is likely even worse than explicitly addressed by the link, as if that addressed any point, does nothing. To critique it, you'd need to actually challenge a given claim--of which, we can toss out the majority listed a priori and it still destroys your notion of equivalence between theism and Santa, as previously stated.

      If you want me to concede that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is less likely to be true then the Biblical god, I will be happy to do so, as the lie is revealed and rational, grown adults don't believe in them.

      Except, as a matter of basic fact, adults factually do believe in them. You have no better argument here than just stating directly, obviously-false characterizations? Again, refer to the list if you need evidence adults do, and indeed adult scientists far more knowledgable on the subject than you.

      If that's what you say presents a scientific and rational justification for a belief in a Biblical god, then I will look at it. However, I don't want to spend time looking at it and then having you say he didn't address the issues, and there is another paper elsewhere that does.

      Don't worry about it. This thread will be quite over, and judging your degree of motivation, you'll be well along toward the point of you getting naturally deselected by then--at which point you and this discussion will be irrelevant.

      Quantum probability is centered around Planck's constant, an incredibly tiny value. The more mass and energy you put into equations, the more improbable that something that violates classical physics occurs.

      This does not address the question. Once again, if I wish to say a given event -can- or -cannot- happen, tell me the specific causal steps that determine that for the proposed event and context. I'm not contending the event isn't improbable. I'm contending you cannot specify the all the causal factors involved--which is true by definition, because if you could, QM would be fully deterministic by reference to those causal factors, which it is not.

      I'm not going to pretend I know much beyond those generalities, but then again I highly doubt you do either, and I doubt you even know that much. You're just appealing to it as a magic box to lend credibility to the incredulous, where anything can happen. The New Age mystics have la

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    16. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      What is this, refutation-by-asserted-category?

      If you assert by category while earlier arguing for a specific claim (not category), then my refutation will be that you didn't meet the earlier claim.

      Except, as a matter of basic fact, adults factually do believe in them.

      I was referring to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, hence "concede that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is less likely to be true then the Biblical god" and "the lie is revealed and rational, grown adults don't believe in them [Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy]".

      Waving your hand at a sentence that says there are more

      I didn't "wave my hand", I asked where they were specified, to which you waved your hand.

      still destroys your notion of equivalence between theism and Santa, as previously stated

      No, it doesn't, since going by his figure of 2500 prophecies, showing only 13 means he likely cherry-picked the best examples, but furthermore, he explicitly stated that the Bible itself claims that there were "2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter--no errors" and "God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error."

      If I asked a children about evidence for Santa Claus and documented it all, I'd get similar results. But I've already conceded the Biblical god is more likely to exist than Santa Claus in my previous post, however remotely, if only because the lie is revealed. Though, again, the main reason I stepped in was because you claimed quantum mechanics provided believability.

      Don't worry about it. This thread will be quite over, and judging your degree of motivation, you'll be well along toward the point of you getting naturally deselected by then--at which point you and this discussion will be irrelevant.

      *shrug* If you don't want to back it as the paper I was looking for, then fine.

      I'm not contending the event isn't improbable.

      Well that's the entire point. When we do experiments the particles follow a random distribution, which can be predicted in advance. To claim outlandish miracles are allowed in physics is to claim observation of things you wouldn't expect to see in the lifetime of the universe.

      No, I'm appealing to it as it properly is, as a matter of science.

      I haven't seen any quantum science out of you, other than an appeal to a magic box to drape your mythology in respectability.

      For those rare events, you are wholly assuming that the probabilities aren't manipulable, simply because you haven't seen it, and in the face of the fact you do not understand the "why" of the causality here, to be able to exclude anything.

      That isn't science, as the science shows random distributions. If you want to claim they can be manipulated by a divine origin, then that's a mythical assertion on your part, which is besides the point, since a divine being has no need to respect the physical laws anyways.

      I -noted- it is wholly supportable under hard physics, correctly.

      It absolutely isn't. Please cite the science that demonstrates it.

      Are you saying that this may have decreased the efficiency of the DNA propagation of members of the Catholic Church

      This discussion is already tedious and bizarro world enough as it is: I don't know where you got that interpretation from, so I'm going to ignore the whole "Galileo was a Christian" sidetrack. The main point is that Church doctrine based on a plain reading of the Bible caused controversy around Galileo's work.

      Cite away.

      http://bible.cc/psalms/104-5.htm : "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."

    17. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is indeed tedious. So I'll respond once more, and be done, and then wait and automatically win in every possible practical sense, whether this outcome is evaluated by your worldview or mine.

      I didn't "wave my hand", I asked where they were specified, to which you waved your hand.

      It was a totally-irrelevant red-herring on your part, and unnecessary for the point at hand. Even a single one of the ones "cherry picked" or of the 2500, is sufficient in itself to counter your claim. I have to assume you already understood enough about necessary and sufficient conditions to know this, before you suggested otherwise.

      When we do experiments the particles follow a random distribution, which can be predicted in advance.

      No, the very definition of randomness that the specific outcome cannot be predicted in advance. You can wrap this conceptually in a broad self-evident statement, equivalent to "we can predict as an outcome that 100% of the time there will be an outcome", but this does not address the question. That we observe by default a given distribution of that randomness, does not mean the causality is specifiable, nor that the effects are not manipulable--as we are beginning to do with the basic notion of quantum computation--certainly, even at our basic level of utilizing it, the quantum behavior has macro effects (e.g. all the results to the world of actions proceeding from the computation). You stipulate a further range of utilization is not possible because... you say so, and without any further basis. This does not enhance your refusal to agree random means random, and that things that are possible (indeed, -certain- given time) are, because they are directly possible, therefore impossible. Nor does it enhance your overall misdirection of the probability of a given event occurring to be representative of the likelihood a worldview is correct that states the improbable events occur. Purely referencing science alone, it may be highly improbable given event will occur, though it is -100% certain- it is true we live in a context of reality where highly improbable things occur. Just stop dodging here. You're only confusing yourself.

      Except there is no reliable way to distinguish between "correct" dogma and incorrect dogma that gets relabeled as allegory or otherwise re-interpreted to fit the facts.

      If my interpretation does not correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. If it does correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. What exactly do you want?

      Which is a blatant lie. You just don't like the argument because you see the world through Bible-prism glasses.

      I don't like the argument because it doesn't work. Okay, if you prefer, I assert you haven't made a good argument--you have indeed provided -an- argument per se.

      Yet that's essentially what you are re-interpreting Genesis as. The plain facts of what God did and when are listed, then you claim what was explicitly described in a precise ordering was not intended to be described in a precise ordering. By referring to Animal Farm and allegories, how is this any different from mythology?

      Wait, this is or is not what God did? Are you stipulating that your interpretation corresponds to reality, or does not correspond to reality? You are assuming that the information conveyance proposed by Genesis is -intended to be- the information of a specific ordering. This is your assertion, and it is highly-debatable within the context of theism itself, not for the least reason that this cannot be the expectation based on the content of the book--it would, on the face of it, be internally inconsistent on a basic level given the accounts of those seven days, taken on the literal, specific level you are taking it. For instance, we have animals being described as created on multiple days. It is, indeed, -possible- that the entire history of Judaism missed multiple contradictions, a few paragraphs apart, in one of

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    18. Re:sam Harris doesn't get it. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      then wait and automatically win in every possible practical sense

      Thanks for the laugh.

      Even a single one of the ones "cherry picked" or of the 2500, is sufficient in itself to counter your claim.

      Not quite, since even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Make enough predictions and ignore all the failures doesn't mean when you are right it was by actually knowing in advance.

      Also, I note you are willing to accept his listed predictions with his assigned probabilities, but not willing to accept his statements about what the Bible says with regards to 100% accuracy required versus prophets who are occasionally right but are instead the work of Satan.

      No, the very definition of randomness that the specific outcome cannot be predicted in advance. [..] That we observe by default a given distribution of that randomness

      All I'm talking about is the distribution. To deviate significantly from that distribution becomes more and more unlikely. If somebody won a 1 in million lottery every week for a year, we would conclude that he either gamed the system through some kind of deception, or something supernatural is happening that science could not explain.

      That we observe by default a given distribution of that randomness, does not mean the causality is specifiable, nor that the effects are not manipulable

      Science hasn't shown a mechanism to manipulate them in the manner of miracles you are talking about. Doing so would either require technology beyond anything we know about or supernatural intervention. And here's the big point you keep on ignoring: a divine being has no need to respect the physical laws anyways, so the only point of your sophistry is to drape mythology in quantum science.

      If my interpretation does not correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. If it does correspond to scientific understanding, you complain. What exactly do you want?

      I want a consistent answer for what a supposedly inerrant document based on divine revelation says, so that I don't throw it in the dustbin with all the other mythologies.

      Again, if I ask a 1,000 people a question they can't answer with the evidence at hand, and they make up a bunch of fantastical stories that differs from the answer when better evidence comes along, I'm not going to bend over backwards to lend credence to their explanations.

      I don't like the argument because it doesn't work.

      Of course you think it doesn't. You're wearing Bible-prism glasses and suffering massive cognitive dissonance.

      You are assuming that the information conveyance proposed by Genesis is -intended to be- the information of a specific ordering. This is your assertion, and it is highly-debatable within the context of theism itself

      Ah, good timing. Here's another example of said massive cognitive dissonance. If I said, "On day one I did this, and on day two I did that," you'd sound like a raving lunatic to claim I didn't intend a precise ordering.

      not for the least reason that this cannot be the expectation based on the content of the book--it would, on the face of it, be internally inconsistent on a basic level given the accounts of those seven days, taken on the literal, specific level you are taking it.

      The Bible is full of inconsistent drivel, as would be expected of a mythology pulled together from various sources, which requires all sorts of pretzel twisting from the believers. However, in this case I don't believe it is inconsistent in the exact manner you specify.

      For instance, we have animals being described as created on multiple days.

      Day 5 was birds and sea creatures. Day 6 was land animals and man.

      it is possible that -a literal timeline is not being presented-

      Even if

  37. ...you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

    Even if you don't believe in bright-line ethical rules in favor of free speech, surely any consequentialist calculation of what will happen by bending this rule has to include not only the present murderers' reduced incentive to complain but also any future complaintants' increased incentive to murder.

  38. It's Called "Doing Business," Folks by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

    Don't waste your brainpower trying to extrapolate Google's rationale for pulling the video in Egypt/Libya: Google is a for profit company. If delisting a certain piece of content in certain regions is better for business than not delisting said content, they're going to delist it. Period.

    Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  39. Valid Legal Complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Galperin needs to brush up on their law! Both of those countries have extremely strict profanity laws which DO make the video in question highly illegal there, the equivalent of child pornography as ridiculous as that is to us westerners. Their politicians even use those laws the same manipulative way as ours use the child pornography laws here.

  40. Idiots like you are the problem ... by GoblinKing · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics, the nature of jewish control over the US economy and political space and the belief held by jews that it is jewish destiny to dominate the world militarily. I wonder how they would react to a documentary showing just how much contempt jews have for all non-jews.

    If you want an extremist religion that encourages its adherent to hold all others in contempt, judaism is the real place to look. Rabbis have come straight out and said that it is moral for jews to kill healthy non-jews in order to harvest organs. Here are a few links for starters:

    http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/05/rabbis-who-endorsed-the-murder-of-non-jewish-babies-wont-be-prosecuted-ag-says-345.html
    http://coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/

    Wow... where to begin?

    I would love for you to educate me on how Jews are insidiously infiltrating and controlling world politics considering the number of stone-age countries with outright mandates on Israel's destruction.

    Please explain to me how Jews control the US economy (have you seen the US economy? whomever is in control is doing a crappy job).

    I would love for you to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that is it the Jewish destiny to dominate the world militarily (seeing as Jews make up a tiny fraction of the world population)...

    I can recall maybe one or two extremist Jews that resorted to violence to make their point. I never hear of Jewish suicide bombers killing dozens of innocent non-Jews because their "leaders" told them that they would be rewarded in the afterlife or that their religious doctrine says it's OK to commit mass murder...

    Speaking as a Jew ... I only have contempt for idiots like you and religious zealots who can only speak the language of violence. Obviously why you are posting anonymously (or trolling).

    1. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Dont waste your time feeding the trolls.

    2. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by sgbett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See imho religion itself isn't bad, people can believe what they want as far as I am concerned.

      The problem is idiots. When you get idiots that start to use religion to justify their "being an idiot" then all hell breaks loose.

      Every religion has got 'em. Even the Athiests :/

      --
      Invaders must die
    3. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course religion fucking bad. read the bible to see how killing, maiming and stoning to death is recommended to please the god. The peaceful religionists are not following their religion.
      For the last time, Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Dave+Emami · · Score: 2

      Wow... where to begin?

      I would love for you to educate me on how Jews are insidiously infiltrating and controlling world politics considering the number of stone-age countries with outright mandates on Israel's destruction.

      Please explain to me how Jews control the US economy (have you seen the US economy? whomever is in control is doing a crappy job).

      I would love for you to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that is it the Jewish destiny to dominate the world militarily (seeing as Jews make up a tiny fraction of the world population)...

      Reminds me of an old joke. Two elderly Jewish guys are enjoying a sunny day in the park, sitting on a bench reading two different newspapers. The first guy is reading the New York Times, and after a while he looks over, curious to see what the second guy is reading. To his horror, he sees that it's some sort of Neo-Nazi publication. "How in the world can you stand to read that kind of garbage?" he asks in shock. The second guy smiles and says, "When I read your paper, it's 'Recession, war, crime, disaster.' But when I read this, it's 'Jews run the banks, Jews run the government, Jews run Hollywood...'"

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    5. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by manwargi · · Score: 1

      "Radical" is the term you are looking for, and you are correct, it extends into every ideology whether political or religious (same shit; the belief of, "a big man in high places will make everything perfect if we would all just agree to do what he wants"). Whether it's a vegan that proclaims "MEAT IS MURDER" and harasses anyone who eats dairy products, the "fuck science it's all magic" breed of Republican, gay guys so flamboyant that they gleefully say the most vulgar and inappropriate things in public, or the Atheist that wants to pick a fight with every Christian he meets, taking beliefs to extremes makes the entire group look bad.

    6. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 2

      I'm tired of the religious zealotry too, but consider the importance that fidelity to Israel has in American politics for a sec. An American politician who doesn't pronounce he would defend Israel to the death would get eaten alive by either party as well as several political groups. Look at the recent Democratic National Convention. There was a need to publicly proclaim that Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of Israel. If you lean to the right in the country and are evangelical, Israel factors heavily in your view on foreign policy. The United States puts forth at the very least, the perception that Israel has a strong influence over American national politics during elections. If that weren't so, American politicians wouldn't feel a need to wear a yamaka then publicly speak of their love for Israel whilst pandering for votes. We don't do this for Turkey or Egypt or Jordan. At least when we reaffirm the One China policy, we only do it when we visit with a Chinese delegation. When Romney went to Israel to do fundraising for an American presidential election, it turned heads in the U.K., and it got a lot of people asking questions. Sure, you can argue that this perception is really the fault of American politicians trying to appease evangelicals with their Temple Mount doomsday wet dreams, but either way, it looks bad and it affirms beliefs that the Jews are trying to control the world.

    7. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Atheism in NOT a religion, there is no deity involved

      A deity is not a requisite of religion. Faith in the unprovable is.

      Atheists actually DO belong to a religion, a religion equal to any they abhor, for they too accept an article of faith which cannot be proven: that having not (yet?) found objective evidence for a thing means it categorically must not and cannot exist.

      By that same criteria, if you lived in the 1500s then radio waves and X-rays "did not exist", since there did not yet exist the technology to detect, generate, or receive (in the case of radio) them.

      At least agnostics are humble and logical enough to acknowledge that they don't know what they don't have a means to test or verify.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by tbird81 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure how many times people will have to tell you this, but atheists believe in what there is evidence for. If there was any evidence of a god, then I'd believe in him. I believe in electromagnetic radiation, I'm sure we don't understand it completely (i.e. what it's 'made' of, we know a lot about how it works), but there's evidence for it.

      I even give others the benefit of the doubt. There's not that much evidence that Jesus existed, but I give Christians the benefit of the doubt, and feel he may have existed.

      There is absolutely zero evidence that gods exists. Nothing. Nothing at all that even suggests this. Most of the data about what God is meant to do (save lives, help people win reality TV shows, cure the sick, watch us masturbate, make the world in 6 days) indicates that he doesn't do any of these things. So what's the fucking point in believing in a god that does absolutely nothing?! And when looked at objectively doesn't even exist!?

      Take the blinders off. Life will be a lot better if you stopped believing in that nasty iron-age fairy tale. And that very least it means you'll be able to stop sounding like an idiot trying to justify DNA similarities, fossils, cosmic background radiation, astronomy, etc, etc etc.

    9. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when I read this, it's 'Jews run the banks, Jews run the government, Jews run Hollywood...'"

      This you wont see in the US MSM

      http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

    10. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the dumbest thing I've read all week.

      Atheism is not a religion. It's a simple belief: that no god exists.

      I also believe you are a moron. That doesn't make me a disciple of the Church of BlueStrat is a Moron.

      Religion is more complicated than that. It's a faith (believe in a god but not given any proof), a code to live by (like the 10 Commandments).

    11. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      That's the dumbest thing I've read all week.

      Atheism is not a religion. It's a simple belief: that no god exists.

      A "belief" in something with no proof and likely unprovable?

      I see.

      I also believe you are a moron. That doesn't make me a disciple of the Church of BlueStrat is a Moron.

      Religion is more complicated than that. It's a faith (believe in a god but not given any proof), a code to live by (like the 10 Commandments).

      You believe in something as an article of faith without proof.

      And yet, you don't see that as a basic tenant of religion, except when others call what they believe in as an article of faith "God".

      Yet, according to you, *I'm* a moron?

      OK there, Zippy. Whatever you say. [snicker]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

      If you lived before radio waves and x-rays had been speculated to exist you wouldn't assume they didn't, you wouldn't think about them at all. However, at a point they were hypothesised to exist, this line of reasoning was investigated, and the hypothesis was proven correct, case closed.

      Contrast this with the idea of a deity - thousands of times in humanity's past, people have seen entirely natural phenomena and said "ah, there's an invisible guy doing that, you can't see him, but he totally exists" and every single time they've been proven wrong as our understandings of the phenomena in question have developed.

      We're not left with any of that any more, we're left with a small number of only the vaguest of deities - the ones who weren't performing a function we came to understand at a later date such as pulling the sun across the sky, or making thunder. These deities don't hold up to scrutiny of course, because there's still plenty there to suggest they were nothing more than a stab in the dark - as but one example: rainbows aren't a sign of the covenant between the hebrew god and man which magically started appearing in the days after the flood, but rather are a product of entirely natural interactions between light and water.

      So we're left with deities who are vague, everywhere-and-nowhere, micromanaging every facet of our lives yet remaining completely hands-off, but we'll find out all about how real they are right after we die, yup yup, you'll see zero proof within this lifetime, but at the point your life ends you'll get so much god you'll be sick of the sight of him, that's how it works, he's totally real, I promise.

      It's not that a lack of evidence for something means it categorically does not and cannot exist, it's that when humans come up with the idea of a supernatural being and all the evidence we find over the ensuing hundreds, or thousands of years points to him not existing, we can safely file him away with every other supernatural being humans have dreamed up which don't exist.

      Are you agnostic about dragons, unicorns, werewolves and vampires? Do these supernatural human fabrications seem like they may really be there if we just look in the right places? Or do you - as atheists do with god - just accept these things as the works of fiction they are?

    13. Re:Idiots like you are the problem ... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Are you agnostic about dragons, unicorns, werewolves and vampires? Do these supernatural human fabrications seem like they may really be there if we just look in the right places?

      Yes, I'm agnostic about those things, although I tend to lean quite strongly toward doubt in their existence. Some may, like many old stories, be based around some actual facts. I don't carry holy water around or load my firearms with silver bullets, but I do not completely and utterly dismiss even the remote possibility the stories may contain or be based on some facts.

      However, mu original point stands. Atheists are members of a religion no different than any other because they accept an article of faith without proof, and the same rules regarding religion and the government and schools should apply to Atheists as they do to Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc etc.

      It's "freedom OF religion" not "freedom FROM religion".

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  41. "the prophet"? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Give me a fucking break. Do Hugh Pickens or the BBC also refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"? And should YouTube or Google also remove "The Life of Brian" or Bill Maher's "Religulous"?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  42. Troll Or Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too close to call in this case. I really can't tell if this is a troll or just a profane yet insightful comment.

    Mods, keeping in mind that profanity does not automatically make it a troll, what do you think?

    1. Re:Troll Or Insightful by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Its 100% sincere. Muslims are savages. They can not behave. They kill people over cartoons, films etc. Whens the last time you saw the world blow up over the Life of Brian?

      ALL religion sucks, but Muslims are PIECES OF SHIT.

  43. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here comes the neo-nazis.

  44. Re:The stupid Muslim shits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the funniest web site I've seen since 1999.

  45. take it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like there are good reasons to take it down, I don't know if it violates the TOS. But the guy who made the video did lots of overdubs to make the movie controversial, and the actors did not know what they were getting into. If I were in that video I'd tell him to cease and desist using my likeness.

  46. Plenty of precedent by funkboy · · Score: 2

    "It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"

    You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?

    1. Re:Plenty of precedent by drnb · · Score: 1

      "It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"

      You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?

      Nazi videos are illegal in Germany. Google is merely complying with German law.

    2. Re:Plenty of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are in response to valid legal complaints (for some definition thereof at the very least). And yes, the German law is a bit strange in that area.

    3. Re:Plenty of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is "in response to a valid legal complaint". Nazi videos are illegal in Germany.

    4. Re:Plenty of precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi propaganda *is* illegal in Germany. That law is pretty broad so it may even cover parodies, although my recollection regarding the Downfall parodies was that they were too close to the source material and therefore weren't considered legitimate parodies (which might have been OK) but derived works (which definitely are copyright violations and so run afoul of Google's terms of service, never mind German law).

  47. gee, ethics is hard work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I owned a company that hosted videos, and someone posted something blatantly racist about black people in America, I would take it down in a heartbeat.
    I don't allow people to spew that nonsense in my presence because I don't like it when people treat my friends and relatives that way. Disclaimer: I'm a quite old white southerner so I know about blatant racism and we're all related.
    I also object when people do this sort of thing to people I don't like, and trust me, I do not like people who are commit murder over a video.
    By "this sort of thing", I mean creating fictional material whose sole purpose is to hurt people's feelings. I think it's fine if you want to do that and publish it yourself, but I would not allow it on my website no matter how much money it cost me.

    So no, I do not think that google is showing a backbone by allowing this stuff to remain on their site.
    I think that Youtube is being lazy and they are taking the Pontius Pilate washing-my-hands approach.
    And yes, I'm aware that there's a ton of objectionable content regarding Christians so no need to remind me of that.

    1. Re:gee, ethics is hard work by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      That's all very well and you would be entirely within your rights. However, some people believe that freedom of expression is more important than someones hurt feelings. Sometimes they express this belief by hosting material on their servers not because they agree with what is being expressed but because they believe in the right of the author to express it.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    2. Re:gee, ethics is hard work by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      If I owned a company that hosted videos, and someone posted something blatantly racist about black people in America, I would take it down in a heartbeat.

      Nice strawman, dude. None of us have any say-so in our race or genetic make-up whereas the same can hardly be said for our beliefs (beliefs that are regularly forced upon others, often violently, nearly always hypocritically). Cultural relatively is a politically-correct load of horseshit: some belief systems are just a little bit more enlighted than others (to say the the least!).

  48. There is more to this than the video by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing excuses killing and destruction in response to a mere insult

    Funny how American Muslims, even orthodox Muslims, are not rioting, even now that they know about the video and presumably have had the chance to watch it.

    Angry people do not need much to set them off, and the rioters have been angry for a long time. They live in awful places, they have seen multiple wars (no, not "seen" as in "live from a foreign country," but actually seen tanks rolling down their streets and bombs dropping from planes), and most have not lived under any sort of democratic system. The video was just a spark, and it just happened to be right next to a crate full of dynamite.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:There is more to this than the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people are not angry, they are a hardcore militants who are waging war against America - and we don't appear to notice. In fact, it appears the State Department is on their side!

    2. Re:There is more to this than the video by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you are inserting your worldview on their actions. ask them why they are rioting, and they will say it is because of this video. but you are just as blind as them, because you don't hear what they are saying, you just wrap your worldview over them, and invent your own motivations

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:There is more to this than the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are inserting your worldview on their actions. ask them why they are rioting, and they will say it is because of this video. but you are just as blind as them, because you don't hear what they are saying, you just wrap your worldview over them, and invent your own motivations

      Really? So you asked them why they are riotting?

    4. Re:There is more to this than the video by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no. i just made up the bbc, al jazeera, cnn, nytimes, etc., in my head

      or: bbc, al jazeera, cnn, nytimes may say they are rioting because of reason {xyz}, but {xyz} does not conform with my worldview, so we'll just accuse bbc, al jazeera, cnn, nytimes of poltiically motivated distortion

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:There is more to this than the video by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Why should we listen to the rioters and believe what they say? Do you also think that we should change the legal system so that the prosecution will be silent and we should only hear the defendendts own story on why he commited the crime?

    6. Re:There is more to this than the video by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 1

      ask them why they are rioting, and they will say it is because of this video.

      And you just assume that they are not sophisticated enough to disguise their motives?

    7. Re:There is more to this than the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Maybe they were just following orders.

    8. Re:There is more to this than the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how American Muslims, even orthodox Muslims, are not rioting, even now that they know about the video and presumably have had the chance to watch it.

      Maybe because they know they'd be be arrested or killed if they tried to storm an embassy in the US and kill its occupants?

    9. Re:There is more to this than the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the riots in Sydney, Australia, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sydney-protesters-20120915-25yrb.html. Is Australia an awful, war-plagued country with no sort of democratic system? This is a problem with Muslim culture, its not something purely to do with poverty or dictatorships.

    10. Re:There is more to this than the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? No. First of all, the evolution of the Islamic meme was accelerated after 9/11. Not the spreading of the meme...but it's "evolution". In the sense of compromises Muslims were willing to make. American Muslims are primarily cultural Muslims. It's becoming an identity issue and is moving farther and farther away from religious belief. Quranism is overtaking Islam. Quranists reject the hadiths (which contain the most violent and damning aspects of the religion). Yes they're angry. But so am I when I watch the murderous riots. The difference being that they believe in a false doctrine. That's the crux of the issue.
      P.S: I just heard of the riotous assemblies of Muslims in Sydney.

  49. It's not about Islam by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Cue a hundred posts on how awful Islam is

    It's not about Islam.

    It's about radicals.

    It just happens these days most of the radicals you find, are Islamic radicals.

    And it seems to me all of the posts here are rage against censorship, not against Islam.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It's not about Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh STFU.

      Tibet has suffered under an occupation, 1.5-2 million dead, under the Chinese. They aren't blowing themselves and innocent Chinese up.

      Of course it's about the fucking religion. The problems with Islam isn't just the fundamentalists, but the fundamentals of Islam. It's not twisted into some hateful religion, it is. Just read their damn book and tell me it ain't.

      The only ones twisting it are those saying it's a religion of peace.

  50. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Abreu · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics, the nature of jewish control over the US economy and political space and the belief held by jews that it is jewish destiny to dominate the world.....

    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but yes, there's tons of antisemitic videos on YouTube.

    Most of them are malicious flamebait, just like your comment and the "innocence of muslims" video.

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  51. This is America.... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

    Where the hollywood establishment will mock and make fun of any religion at all. Poor islam needs to get a thicker skin.

  52. us (U.S.!) or "them" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sorry to put it this way... but it's either us (U.S.) or "them"!
    And since "them" can claim victory -without even a battle- in Europe, it's up to you (U.S.) for giving THE battle.
    I, as a Greek, can just remind you the words of a famous ancestor of mine to repeat when they come for your free speech : " ".

    1. Re:us (U.S.!) or "them" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry to put it this way... but it's either us (U.S.) or "them"!
      And since "them" can claim victory -without even a battle- in Europe, it's up to you (U.S.) for giving THE battle.
      I, as a Greek, can just remind you the words of a famous ancestor of mine to repeat when they come for your free speech : "COME AND GET IT".

      * reply to myself because slashdot don't like Greek characters.

  53. Constitution by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

    balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns

    Thankfully I live in a country (America) where we don't have to worry about political bullshit like that. The constitution protects popular AND unpopular speech regardless of any made up legal or ethical 'concerns'.

    --
    There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    1. Re:Constitution by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You don't have to worry? Have you read the news recently. The producer of the film just had a "voluntary" interview with the feds. How much longer do you think before they'll find some excuse to arrest him to satisfy the lunatics in the middle east?

    2. Re:Constitution by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      When the government asks you to voluntarily do anything, say 'no' and recite these words to them: George Washington didn't get rid of big British government by voting, protesting, petitioning, or using the court system. George Washington got rid of big British government by orchestrating the execution of hundreds of British government officials.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    3. Re:Constitution by oamasood · · Score: 1

      I'm an American too - but Americans only have the illusion of free speech. let me ask you, of all the talk of Osama bin Laden that was happening, how many major American news sources actually played the videos or showed the transcripts of bin Laden's addresses to the American people? There are so many examples of this. Americans are only told that they have freedom, freedom of speech, etc., so they believe it.

    4. Re:Constitution by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I'm an American too - but Americans only have the illusion of free speech.

      It's not an illusion. Do you think if I said something similar to what I said above in China or Iran that I'd still be here chatting with you?

      let me ask you, of all the talk of Osama bin Laden that was happening, how many major American news sources actually played the videos or showed the transcripts of bin Laden's addresses to the American people? There are so many examples of this. Americans are only told that they have freedom, freedom of speech, etc., so they believe it.

      I'd venture to say that none of the 'name brand' news sources played it. They're just as corrupt as the government and probably in their pocket as well. The press are supposed to be 'the fourth estate' of government, but that hasn't been true for a long time--just as we are supposed to be a constitutional republic where the government obeys the 'rule of law'.

      The big question now is what are 'the citizens' going to do about it?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    5. Re:Constitution by oamasood · · Score: 1

      Well said - however, what is freedom of speech when the masses are kept in the dark? Distract them with entertainment & irrelevant issues so they don't see what's really going on - that's the tactic of the Roman government with its citizens.

    6. Re:Constitution by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Well said - however, what is freedom of speech when the masses are kept in the dark? Distract them with entertainment & irrelevant issues so they don't see what's really going on - that's the tactic of the Roman government with its citizens.

      That's irrelevant. I can only guarantee my own freedoms and to some extent those of my neighbors. If 95% of the country wants to be ruled by the 'elite' 545 ruling members of the United States Government, I can't do anything to help them. In fact, voting for, and following those people makes them complicit in their own destruction. For when have we ever voted ourselves more freedom?

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  54. You think these riots are bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait till these protesters see 2 Girls 1 Cup.

    1. Re:You think these riots are bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2girls1mohammad(pbuh)

  55. I'll have to side with Google on this... by aklinux · · Score: 1

    From the standpoint of our laws in this country and Google's terms of service, the poster of this video seems to be within their rights.

    I think is is also OK that Google has limited it viewing geographically because when I was going to school, the teachers were still teaching that my rights stop at the end of your nose. Your rights also stop at the end of mine.

    Yes. In this country we have the right of free speech, among others. I also believe that when exercising these rights that we have a corresponding duty to avoid trampling the rights of others.

    This geographical censoring may not dampen the fire much, but I think Google is already walking a tightrope on this.

    1. Re:I'll have to side with Google on this... by Intropy · · Score: 1

      What right would be trampled by allowing the video in all regions?

  56. This is great for the USA by iONiUM · · Score: 0

    I've been watching the protests unfold all day, and I have to say, watching (a few) barbaric idiots kill and riot over a video (that I watched) is intensely irritating.

    I'm not a US citizen, and I've been pretty hard on the US about their government and decisions, and the wars they have fought. But honestly, as of today, I would strongly support any military reaction they have to these kind of ridiculousness.

    Judging by comments I see on all of the west's news posts about these events, I am not alone. The west is finally starting to get pissed off with these cry-babies. Thank you YouTube for leaving this on, and the US should embrace it as a symbol of free speech, and use it as a rallying point to get support for more war. Even if that war is simply to further political and corporate ambition. I mean, why not?

    1. Re:This is great for the USA by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

      I'd agree, if this was over a South Park episode or something. But, to pick a video made by some crazy religious nut to piss off a group of different religious nuts as the moniker of free speech for the us seams pretty unsettling.

    2. Re:This is great for the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Native born american speaking here:

      Because we're tired of war, really. We're finally getting people to come home from the middle east (whose continued presence was a very hotly debated subject), the last thing our economy needs is another war effort. The rest of the world isn't exactly doing so hot economically, but the wars did nothing good to our national debt.

      Military action would only make things worse - give the protestors a real thing to protest against (those american invaders, they come into our lands, like they did Iraq and Afganistan, we can't let them do that here too!).

      We need to take the high road here - evacuate the embassys, possibly cut off trade relations to the countries in question, and (as much as it pains me to say this) beef up security on international flights. I've heard of a protest and flag-burning outside the U.S. embassy in London England, of all places. At the very least, I'd be worried about lynch mobs looking for who-ever made the video.

      They aren't doing themselves any favors, though. As much as the American populace may be tired of war, we still have enough weaponry to level entire countries if it comes down to it, and having the protests on the anniversary of 9/11 most assuredly caused people to associate them with that horrible day.

      I fear we will once again go mad here, I can only hope we leave these incidents as internal affairs of other nations and let them do as they wish inside their own borders.

    3. Re:This is great for the USA by cpghost · · Score: 1

      Thank you YouTube for leaving this on, and the US should embrace it as a symbol of free speech, and use it as a rallying point to get support for more war.

      If that silly movie was to become the symbol of free speech, it would be a testimony to the intellectual and cultural void in the West. If you really hope that this flick will motivate anybody to go to war with those rioting barbarians, considering that the wars already in progress (Iraq, Afghanistan, ...) are not exactly going well, I'd like some of the stuff you're smoking. ;-)

      Seriously: forget it. All this is a tempest in a tea pot. The only benefit of this episode is that it has the potential to open the eyes of the West. I hope that we'll finally realize that turning our backs on Arab modernists while embracing Arab Islamists was a tremendous and strategic mistake. It may be too late to undo the damage cause by this misguided policy, but now at least, we could hit the reset button and reconsider those decisions.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:This is great for the USA by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      Speech that offends someone is the only speech that needs protection. No one wants to stop the other kind.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    5. Re:This is great for the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep the ground troops out and just send in fully loaded B-52s. You don't have to play nation builder when there's no one left.

  57. You got that right! According to Mitt et al. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please explain to me how Jews control the US economy (have you seen the US economy? whomever is in control is doing a crappy job).

    I kid! I kid! I couldn't resist!

    Actually, as an economic history buff, I think Ben is doing everything that economists wished were done in the 1930s. He's doing the right things, but they're nor working as well as they should. I wish I was CLOSE to his intellectual equal, in all seriousness.

    What Mitt and the others want to do instead was actually done in the 30s that sent us BACK into depression.

  58. Just Google? by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    The only reason that Google is in the spotlight for this is because YouTube (their property) has become such a synonymous name with web-based video. They're huge, but it is not the only place one could stream such a video. What about the other thousands of embedded-video services out there?

    --
    /* No Comment */
  59. Brings me to another question? by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    Firstly, if google took down every video that people found offensive, there would be no videos on youtube.

    Secondly, How long is this whole god obsession really going to last? I mean, I get it: you live in a cave and you don't understand shit, so it's like, must be god; the plague hits and everyone is dying, so it's like, must be god.

    This is where I get a little lost. You find out that entire civilizations live on the other side of the world, but, alas, they know nothing of your god. At this point, how can any even sparsely logical religion say that only those who believe in it's god can go to heaven (or get like 90 bjs per/day from belly-dancers or whatever)? Let me get this straight, their god crapped out a bunch of humans that he finds ideologically despicable and incompatible? Seams a little convenient, you know, basing religious acceptance around fear and punishment and servitude. Lurking and praying off the innate human need to distrust the unknown and reject the unexplained as heresy or dogma (depending on how grand the explanations' circle jerk affect is).

    Whatever, waste your lives. Blow up crappy buildings and KFC's. Overthrow your governments. Kill your neighbor, enemies, far-away don't care-ers. Teach your kids the taste of blood in vengeance in the name of god. Just hope you are not wrong, because in the end, if there is a god your're screwed, if there isn't you have wasted your lives, and ruined your childrens. Either way, stfu and keep to yourself.

  60. Re:clear and present danger by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    Ok, so what happens when the next movie (or whatever) that causes riots in the middle east is a little less extreme. Where does the line between between clean and present danger and free speach end? Where the crazy and offended religious nuts decided?

  61. Typically Wrong Anology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a hardcore defendant of free speech, but I see this as an example of yelling "fire" in crowded theater. How much more of a "clear and present danger" can you get?

    From my perspective; if anything, it is the Islamists that are yelling fire and if the crowd fails to run in fear, they are then actually starting said fire.

    For purposes of analogy, hosting the film would be analogous to the store that sells matches. The makers of the film would be at worst the makers of the patches. But, it is the savages, claiming to be the religion of peace, that are lighting the fires.

    I'm still looking for, and I'm not finding, the rest of the Islamic followers denouncing this violence or calling for authorities to control and prosecute the "extremists". As usual the silence is a deafening cry of complicity.

  62. Blame by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    a video that ... has been blamed for sparking violence at U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi

    Personally, I would've laid the blame for violence at the feet of the violent people, not at the feet of people giving their personal opinions in a video. But I have this weird idea that people are responsible for their own actions. My idea may fade, though, as "your speech caused violence" gets proved by repeated assertion.

  63. The problem is not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem is not the video... the problem is that some people think that rioting and killing people are proper and acceptable responses to speech that you don't agree with (or anything else for that matter).

    This isn't only a problem in the middle east.

  64. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder if Larry and Sergei, both jews, would take issue with a video revealing just how insidious jewish activity is in global politics

    Since there aren't any of those movies or books in the world I guess we'll never know.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  65. The onion has jesus and others naked having sex by beltsbear · · Score: 0
  66. upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, insulting violent religious fanatics and inciting riots is fine, but having a 50 year-old record playing in the background of a video of your dog running around the backyard is completely outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.

    And using the words "super" and "bowl" together will earn you permanent banishment.

    Fucking world...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:upside-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somehow we can get the Olympics and Islam to go at it the problems will resolve themselves.

    2. Re:upside-down by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You're right. We should just respect the religious fanatics and quietly do nothing as they expand. Would't want to hurt any feelings and cause the children to throw a tantrum. After all, Arabs aren't human enough to have any real self control. We should expect less of them than the rest of society. Who is the bigot here? You are. Your bigotry of low expectations. You should be standing up for free speech and demanding the same standards from everybody. Instead, you're making excuses for barbarism and blaming somebody who, for better or worse, was well within his constitutional rights to make the film he did.

    3. Re:upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Your bigotry of low expectations.

      Did you just make that up? It's stupid.

      Instead, you're making excuses for barbarism and blaming somebody who, for better or worse, was well within his constitutional rights to make the film he did.

      I am neither "making excuses for barbarism", nor am I challenging anyone's constitutional rights.

      I am saying that words have consequences. Lobbing this film out like shit in a paper bag, and having the actors think they're making one kind of movie that you then edit and foley in different dialogue and then hiding under layers of anonymity is both cowardly and destructive. The people who perpetrated the violence should be held accountable and the people who made the movie should be held accountable. Not equally, but certainly.

      The fact that the people behind the movie call themselves "Media for Christ" shows that you just can't trust any religious fanatics. They inevitably start shit where people get killed. If you make a movie and you know full well that people will get killed over it, you bear part of the responsibility, even if you don't directly participate in the violence.

      This isn't my notion, it was the notion of a 9-0 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, they held that, "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

      Just because I want to see the cowards who made the movie held accountable does not mean I want to forgive or in any way justify the behavior of the rioters.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:upside-down by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      If you make a movie that offended Christians, and Christians rioted over it and killed people, would you be to blame? Why then do you hold Muslims to a different standard. That is your bigotry but you're too blind to see it. You'd rather prosecute free speech than see the truth that is staring you straight in the face. Is Salman Rushdie to blame for his plight? Where do you draw the line? What exactly is "fighting words" in your mind? Any words that might offend Muslims? Does that include cartoons? Soon you've banned just about any speech that could possibly offend Muslims and killed any significant non-sharia compliant dialogue about Islam. Is that what you want? To sacrifice everything this country is built on to a bunch of religious lunatics? Fuck that, and if that's what you want, fuck you too!

    5. Re:upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you make a movie that offended Christians, and Christians rioted over it and killed people, would you be to blame?

      If my movie was intended to cause the riot? Then yes, I would share the blame.

      Did you see the word "share" right there? I don't bear the same responsibility as the guys that did the killing, but I bear some responsibility.

      As I've already said, the Supreme Court of the United States said exactly the same thing over three quarters of a century ago.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:upside-down by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      But the movie was not intended to start a riot. The producers said a riot might happen as a result of the movie, but that was not the primary intent. Like I said. Because *anything* said about Islam might offend muslims in the middle east enough to riot, you might say that anything said about Islam could possibly pass your test of not being protected speech. Also, the supreme court ruled in Street v. New York that mere offensiveness does not qualify as fighting words. Also see Brandenburg v. Ohio to see exactly how far you can go without crossing the line. See also Snyder v. Phelps (yes, that Phelps). I'm glad the supreme court has the good sense not to take things as far as you would have them go.

    7. Re:upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But the movie was not intended to start a riot. The producers said a riot might happen as a result of the movie, but that was not the primary intent.

      You haven't been following the story apparently. Steve Klein and "Media for Christ" are extreme far-right anti-Islamics who believe that the world needs to be "cleansed" of Muslims. What better way than to start a war?

      Extremist Christian groups have long believed that we are in the end-times and that Christ won't return until Armageddon happens in the Middle East. They are working to make that happen. From the breeding of a pure-red bull to the build-up to a final battle over Israel.

      They're a lot more sophisticated than the violent muslim extremists, but no less twisted. And they have ties right up to today's Republican Party. Guys like Frank Gaffney and Rep Steve King and Pamela Gellar are frothing, eye-rolling crazies who wouldn't think twice about bringing about a world war. They are a lot more like the violent muslim extremists than they are different.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:upside-down by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a source for that "cleansed of Muslims" allegation. Google yielded no results at all. Most Christians who dislike Islam or support Israel don't do so, as you allege, because they want a war. On the other hand, they do see such a war in the middle east as inevitable. In other words, it's not something they'd actually participate in instigating, but if it happens, it happens (in fact, most who support Israel do so in hopes of postponing such a conflict). Israel would like nothing better to be left alone but that's unlikely to happen so long as Muslims in surrounding lands follow their religion's dictates to fight against the Jews. Have you actually read what Muhammad had to say about Jews?

      As far as Pamela Geller goes, yeah. She's a bit hyperbolic at times but she most certainly does not want a world war. I'd be interested to see if you can find a single statement to back up that allegation. She has never, ever, advocated any illegal violence that I know of (advocating US military action in, for example, striking Iran is a different story, but then again, in my view such an act would most likely prevent disaster, rather than cause it).

    9. Re:upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      As far as Pamela Geller goes, yeah. She's a bit hyperbolic at times

      That's like saying Li'l Wayne is "a bit black at times".

      She's a warmongering, hateful Islamophobe and part of the new Islamophobia industry. Pamela Gellar was a patron saint of both Anders Behring Breivik and this guy behind the inflammatory movie about Islam, Steve Klein, who are both regular commentors on her website.

      She has incited violence, illegal and otherwise, against muslims for years. She has fantasized, in her own published words, about beheading muslims and killing muslim civilians in moderate countries. She sees no distinction between violent extremist muslims in Libya and moderate American-loving muslims who are citizens of the United States.

      There's a whole industry of muslim-hating, from guys like Gaffney, who try to dress their sickness up in academic robes, and crap-on-the-floor crazies like Pam Gellar and Anders Breivik. And yes, I absolutely intentionally put those last two in the same category. The only difference is that one is pulling the trigger and the other is pulling the strings.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:upside-down by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Breivik was a fan of a lot of people. Just because he liked (some of) what Geller had to say does not mean she is guilty for her crimes. She never, ever, endorsed violence and was quick to condemn the massacre. But of course the same time you condemn her for something she did not command, you let Muhammad off the hook for something he did, as you do his followers. Pity the savage arabs you say, they simply don't know any better. Of course I don't actually expect you to read that link. It's from one of those Islamophobe sites after all. No point reading both sides of the argument when you've already made up your mind.

      Please tell me where Pamela has ever fantasized about beheading muslims or killing them in moderate countries. Citations please! Outragious accusations require substantial proof. And Pamela has never claimed to be an academic. Even in the "anti-shariah" community, she isn't looked up to as a scholar -- more as a spokesperson. If you want scholarship, look to Robert Spencer, or better yet, read the Quran and Hadiths yourself. Of course you'll never, ever, do that since you've already made up your mind that Islam is peaceful, only Christianity is violent, and there is nothing more to be said.

      You know. Personally. I have every single reason to hate Christianity and Christians. When I was younger, my parents sent me to a facility to try to "fix" my sexuality (needless to say it didn't work), and while that experience wasn't what they probably wanted for me, it nevertheless left me scarred. Christianity is homophobic, sexist, mysogynistic, in many ways intolerant, but it is not, I repeat it is not, violent. It does not endorse of promote violence. I am objective enough to say that in retrospect despite my experiences. You, on the other hand, are so stuck in your blind hate that you refuse to step back and examine the evidence objectively.

    11. Re:upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you want scholarship, look to Robert Spencer

      I think that effectively establishes where you're coming from.

      We're done here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:upside-down by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      I see you can't support your libel against Pamela Geller, so yeah. We're done here.

  67. But just let .... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... Lindsay Lohan's publicist issue a takedown notice for using her image without permission and watch YouTube jump.

    Just have the Muslims copyright Mohammad's image. Problem solved.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:But just let .... by cpghost · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That's the point here. To the US (Google/Youtube), Copyright is holy and untouchable. To the Muslims, it's the same for their prophet. And since Youtube/Google is a US company, they have to abide by the taboos of US society to the letter, and happily shun the taboos of other societies.

      Well, I'm half joking here, and I'm half sarcastic. But let's face it: there's a blatant double standard going on here. On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright. On the other hand, a couple of fat cats from the MAFIAA lose a couple of dollars and Youtube jumps proactively to their rescue with massive take downs or country-wide censorships (think GEMA). It's as if peoples' lives, US Citizens' lives, are less important than the bottom line of the copyright holders. THIS is disgusting, IMHO. Just as disgusting as those Muslim riots. Both sides are deeply entrenched in their ideologies, and are totally lacking reason and responsibility.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:But just let .... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on

      So because violent murderers are afoot, we should cower in fear? By your logic, Hitler and his merry party should be given free reign because jews could, in theory, run away?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:But just let .... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Google: "Ok guys, all you need to do if you want videos like this taken down is to copyright Mohammed."
      Zealots: "How do we do that?"
      Google: "Well, usually you get a picture or something and copyright it. Then if someone uses it without your approval you can issue a takedown notice and we'll remove it."
      Zealots: "...........God damn it!"

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:But just let .... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      On one hand, lives are being threatened and people have been killed, and this silly video causing this stays on... because it doesn't violate some copyright.

      The video isn't causing anyone to be killed.

      Following your line of reasoning, if christians want "Piss Christ" banned they should riot and murder and claim "piss christ did it". If this was another religion, would you blame the {video,cartoon,picture,article} or would you blame the rioters and murderers?

    5. Re:But just let .... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Actually, the legal principle I'm thinking of isn't copyright exactly. Its the control over the public use of an image or depiction of a celebrity by themselves or their heirs.

      We had a case some years ago where a local playwright wrote a musical about the life and times of Janis Joplin. It was produced and opened at a Seattle theater (featuring a very talented local singer, Duffy Bishop). After a few performances, the estate of Janis Joplin contacted the producer and said, "Sorry. You can't do that. We own the rights to Janis and we're not authorizing your project." That ended the musical right there.

      So, why can't some mullah just say, "Sorry. We own the rights to any and all depictions or portrayals of Mohammad. And we're not authorizing any of them." They don't need to produce one themselves for the purpose of a copyright. Joplin's estate didn't have a competing musical at the time. They owned the rights to all potential productions. And in Mohammad's case, the 'potential production' wuold be scheduled for just after Hell froze over.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  68. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree if you talk at all the people believing in the same God. You know, Christians, Jews and Muslims.

    Yes, cause they are all the same. I remember fondly when Viacom and Fox were razed to the ground and the CEO's raped, killed and dragged through the streets by Catholics because of the way that Jesus was portrayed on SouthPark and Family Guy. And the nasty stuff that Jews did to Sarah Silverman and Seth MacFarlane before cutting off their heads for not just leaving Judaism, but ridiculing Jews and God.

    Good thing that hating people for their religion is considered bigotry... well, except it is.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  69. Good for google by nurb432 · · Score: 0

    For doing the right thing.

    If you are offended by me exercising my right to free speech, go pound sand. ( and i bet you have a lot of it available if that video offended you ).

    And speaking of, we are having a neighborhood Koran burning in the honor of our fallen Americans this weekend. We plan on roasting a pig over the coals. Who else is in?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  70. Reality check by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Right, because only keerazy mooslims go to war.

    They are the only ones that go to war without provocation beyond the other side simply existing, yes.

    We did go to war with them after they attacked and killed thousands of innocent people. You cannot ignore that forever (well I guess you can but then it just grows).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Reality check by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      They are the only ones that go to war without provocation beyond the other side simply existing, yes.

      Lol. And the crusades were all about religion too.
      What a childlike view of the world you have, it must actually be pretty nice.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  71. indeed by aepervius · · Score: 1

    age of consent in england in 16th-17th century for girl was *8*, there as no age of consent for boy.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  72. Strange set of priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome that they didn't pull the film clip.

    But youtube has pulled Scientology videos because of pressure from... well... scientologists. But when innocent people are being murdered in cold blood... eh, s'all good, let the video stay up.

    I'm a pessimist, so I give it a week tops before youtube caves and removes the clip. In the long run, this issue will just be seen as having been another stepping stone towards loss of free speech, and terrorism ultimately winning globally.

  73. Re:clear and present danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, no, apparently you aren't. Panic is a natural reaction to the fear of death, murder is not a natural and irresistible result of having a differing opinion.

  74. I know it's a troll, but. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    I know this is a ridiculous troll, but I'd like to point out that Judaism is not a well organized religion like Catholicism or Mormonism. They don't have a central authority. Teachings vary widely by synagogue, and beliefs vary widely by individual. It doesn't make sense to speak of the "jews" as you do because they are not a cohesive group acting with a single central purpose.

    It's true that there are jews who hold positions of authority in the government and in the business world and in the entertainment industry. But many more people carrying out objectionable activities in these areas of society are not jewish. It's not right to try to characterize an entire group of people by the actions of just a few of them. Especially if they aren't even part of a centralized organization.

    1. Re:I know it's a troll, but. . . by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      It's not right to try to characterize an entire group of people by the actions of just a few of them. Especially if they aren't even part of a centralized organization.

      like most muslims?

      --
      ...
    2. Re:I know it's a troll, but. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you'd have to be insane to believe all muslims think and act a certain way. You'd also have to be completely ignorant about the religion.

  75. Movies don't start fires. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How would this play in the media if some guy in Saudi Arabia trolled a bunch of bible thumpers or skinheads into something horrible?

    The blame would be placed solely on the shoulders of the "bible thumpers or skinheads." It wouldn't be inappropriately misdirected at a movie trailer.

    1. Re:Movies don't start fires. by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2

      Well yeah, but bible thumpers and skinheads have agency, what with being white and all. Those witless brown folks lack the ability to make or to be held responsible for choices.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    2. Re:Movies don't start fires. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame the USA political machine. Start with the foreign policy that wastes trillions of US taxpayer dollars on BS in foreign countries. Many I speak to say that Americans do not want to be out there, but our US politicians like our zealot Hillary Clinton is out there pushing her face and BS policy. Pull her chain and bring her home, and all over BS ambassadors and politicians and US embassy's. Get the frick out.... Dumb ass US politicians, and keep the senators and other US politicians home and use webcast to visit other countries. Stop paying for trips that we can't afford. Obama should pull the chain and stop foreign travel for all diplomats. Make them come to us, since we pay for their gas tab anyhow..

  76. Palin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I find MOST amazing about this whole thing is people who made this movie are being made out to be the bad guy becase it incited violence. However, people upset with treatment of individuals, such as Sarah Palin, are treated as terrorists despite not having done anything violent and those who trashed Palin are held up as heros.

    You will notice in foreign policy the US attempts to destroy anyone attempting to make a nuke, but anyone who has one is treated like they are as pure as white snow.

    Its like treating a child, if he misbehaves and you reward him for it what will he do next time? If you punish him for behaving again what will happen next time? Liberals are actually encouraging behavior like this by blaming the film maker and saying those who killed the ambassador were only doing the reasonable thing. Funny how ACTUAL reality never seems to line up with Liberal policies, despite all their claims that reality has a liberal bias.

  77. Re:The stupid Muslim shits by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    It also caused my antimalware software to throw up red flags, so beware.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  78. Why stop there? by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    In fact, restrict those regions from seeing *ANY* video on youtube. No insults to Muhamed, and no cats on invisible bicycles. They obviously have no capacity for happiness anyway.

  79. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the christians showed they weren't true followers when they filed complaints instead of turning the other cheek, so they don't really count.

  80. One of these things is not like the others. . . by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    a book, idiotic comments by some preacher, a bomb dropped by the air force hitting a day school. . .

    One of these things doesn't belong on a list of unreasonable motivations for a riot.

  81. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite Qadaffi's efforts to appease the West in recent years, as soon as he became vulnerable, the US urged NATO to help overthrow the Libyan government. Air strikes, drone strikes, CIA officers on the ground coordinating attacks - the largest military power in the world overthrew the government of this small country - a government which has been making concession after concession to the West in recent years. Apparently not enough. Can anyone imagine the US ambassador in Libya getting blown up if the US hadn't bombed the Libyan government out of existence, working to put its own regime in? You play with fire you get burned.

    Imperialism, foreign intervention, torturing Muslims in Abu Ghraib - forcing them to masturbate to the videotaped laughs of sadistic American soldiers, drone attacks, puppet governments, financing the Zionist siege of Gaza - this is what the US is doing to Muslims. Then Korans are burned, put in toilets, mocking videos are made just to rub it in. Then Americans get all indignant that their mockeries of an almost-conquered people are not taken in a light-hearted fashion.

    The real question is why is the US over there, why were they bombing Libya and arming the people who overthrew their government. If I was a Libyan patriot, and I knew US insults to Islam would help rally Libyans in an anti-imperial campaign, of course I'd use that. Libyans are responding to everything the US has done to it. The Marines hymn "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" refers to US interference in Tripoli going back to the beginning of the 19th century. None of this can be discussed of course, so it all becomes about religion, when really it has little to do with religion. Middle class Muslim Turks are nor burning down embassies. Americans are more gullible and steeped in imperial propaganda then any Muslim is in guile to religious ideas - not that Americans should talk, as the country is crawling with fundamentalist Christianity more than any other industrialized nation.

  82. Where Are The Billion Other Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So frequently we hear the mantra; 'not all Muslims are like this, only a few extremists'. Or, my favorite load of crap; 'we are a religion of peace'.

    So, where are the billion or more peaceful Muslims calling for, well... Peace?

    I've yet to see an Al Jazeera headline where anyone (ANYONE) of the faithful are denouncing this violence or calling for peace.

    Silence IS complicity!

    1. Re:Where Are The Billion Other Muslims? by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2
      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    2. Re:Where Are The Billion Other Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail. Ten people in a crowd of thousands. Zero headlines.

      The original assertion still stands. The majority of Muslims say nothing. Yet, when accused of being a violent religion and being savages, they claim that they are not like that and that it is only a few extremists.

      It's like a billion voices suddenly failed to cry out and then failed to do anything.

      P.S. Don't bother retorting with straw men about my silly expectations that all Muslims denounce this. If only 0.05%, an insignificant percentage, of Muslims stood up and denounced this violence it would be half a million people and would definitely make the news. 10 out of one billion is not representative of the masses.

    3. Re:Where Are The Billion Other Muslims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some non complicit muslims

      Profit, haha.

      Also a lot of those signs seem to be warning people not to insult them.

  83. Wait wait wait.... by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight, the filmmaker of this isn't even a natural born American? Seriously? The middle east wants to destroy the US because an egyptian made a anti-Islam movie?

    1. Re:Wait wait wait.... by Megane · · Score: 1

      To make things even more interesting, it was overdubbed to be as offensive as it is. The original seems to be some kind of college project, using bad green-screen sets with bad acoustics. You can tell which bits were overdubbed because they sound better than the original.

      If you watch closely, you can see that when the actors are reading parts of the script that do not contain Islam-specific language, the audio from the sound stage is used (the audio that was recorded as the actors were simultaneously being filmed). But anytime the actors are referring to something specific to the religion (the Prophet Muhammed, the Quran, etc.) the audio recorded during filming is replaced with a poorly executed post-production dub. And if you look EVEN closer, you can see that the actors’ mouths are saying something other than what the dub is saying.

      For example, at 2:53, the voiceover says “His name is Muhammed. And we can call him The Father Unknown.” In this case, the whole line is dubbed, and it appears the actor is actually saying, “His name is George (?). And we can call him The Father Unknown.” I assume the filmmakers thought they were being slick, thinking that dubbing the whole line instead of just the name would make it more seamless and less noticeable to the viewer. But once you start to look for these dubs, it’s hard to see anything else.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  84. Bad comparison by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Lol. And the crusades were all about religion too.

    Wrong, childish one.

    The crusades were about land grabs and power over other regions, and of course about the loot.

    The islamic radicals to some degree also want to see expansion, but it's far more about simple punishment of infidels than the crusades were - and not at all about looting. In that way the motive is far more purely religious.

    Are you saying that is a good thing? Talk about having a loose grasp on reality.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Bad comparison by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The crusades were about land grabs and power over other regions, and of course about the loot.

      Woooooooosh! One of the biggest I've seen on slashdot in fact.

      The islamic radicals to some degree also want to see expansion, but it's far more about simple punishment of infidels than the crusades were - and not at all about looting. In that way the motive is far more purely religious.

      Name one state run by "islamic radicals" that has gone to war in the last 20 years.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  85. how did this ever go viral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are there not hate laws that coexist with the 1st amendment? How does something like this get so far into production but come out so poorly? They should be tried in a Los Angeles court, preferably hollywood. And how much of the alleged 5 million dollar budget was for paying the black girl to be in this racist filth.

    1. Re:how did this ever go viral by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      No. There are not. Hate speech laws trample the 1st amendment.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
  86. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by tokencode · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure they value free of speech over silencing critism over their religion.

  87. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by gtall · · Score: 2

    It isn't the same G-d. That idea only comes from the New Testament and the Koran accepting some or all of the Torah. Christianity added several features that Jews would never agree to. Similarly the Koran is inconsistent with the New Testament and inconsistent with the Torah. And each adheres to different principles and have different ideas on just what this G-d is.

    Both the early (non-Jewish heritage) Christians and the early Muslims where keen to separate themselves from Judism.

  88. There is to be no "balancing" by terjeber · · Score: 1

    balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events

    Free speech is the most important weapon we have to protect against tyranny. You don't "balance" it. You have it or you don't (and please, no shouting "fire" in a theater discussions please. The problem here is that the idiots protesting now do not understand that free speech includes allowing people with opinions you hate having the right to express them. They can chose not to listen and ignore the speaker, or they can prove the fringe Christians who claim Islam is a violent religion right. Sadly, they have chosen to prove the film makers right. Sadly they do not posses the brain capacity to see the irony in their actions.

    We can not, we must not and we have no intention of compromising our democracy just because some retards elect to be offended by some other retards. The problem most people have is the grasping of the fact that there is nothing anyone can say that can cause offence. To be offended is a choice the "offended one" makes, it is not caused by what was said or written, it is caused entirely by the person feeling offended. Adults do not get offended, they ignore morons who try to offend because the are childish, slightly retarded morons. As are those who get offended at stuff.

  89. The truth about God by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1, Troll

    When you are making up stuff, you can make up whatever you want. If enough people believe it, viola! A religion is born.

    Of course, when there is no objective Truth, after a while people will start making up their own stuff, so you'd better make blasphemy a serious crime or you will soon have competition on your hands, or worse yet, non-believers!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:The truth about God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If enough people believe it, viola!

      I don't believe in objective truth, except the fact that that your spelling is terrible and you're an uneducated buffoon.
      "Discovering" atheism in junior high because you didn't like going to church on Sundays doesn't automatically make you an enlightened superman.

  90. Can someone translate this please ? by fractalspace · · Score: 1
    Here is a para from YouTube 'YouTube Community Guidelines' that is quoted to be in support of free speech:
    http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

    We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).

    WTF is this ?

  91. Can't be proven ... like science ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That claim does not survive close scrutiny. Think about it : which standard of proof would you require ?

    1) can be reduced into nothing, only depends on the notation you want to use for reasoning : even math does not satisfy this one, only small parts of logic do
    2) can be reduced into basic, small axiom sets : basic maths, although only fractions are allowed, no real numbers, no infinite sets. Most calculations are possible with this standard. When working strictly with basic axiom sets and rejecting anything outside of those, Pi does not exist, for it cannot be proven to exist. Also none of the "exact" sciences work like this.
    There are variations on 2, of course : which axiom systems ? google constructivism for an example conflict about that. Or "axiom of choice".
    3) "works really well in conjunction with those basic axiom sets, but has problems with consistency, though no-one has pointed out blatant conflicts (yet)": doesn't sound all that absolute a standard anymore, does it ? Here we finally have a standard that maths satisfies.
    4) reduces into a large set of slightly-conflicting "laws", most of which have been statistically tested in the real world to great accuracy, even though there are obvious contradictions in the laws. E.g. either relativity is true or quantum mechanics. Since they make contradictory predictions, they can't both be true. That's just one well-known conflict, there are others, say thermodynamics conflicts with the standard model. Most "exact" sciences, physics would actually be the only real example.
    5) "works really well in conjunction with those 'laws'" : Most "exact" sciences, chemistry, engineering, geology...
    Here starts the line that religion, or at least Western religion, ie. Christianity, satisfies
    6) things that have been consistently written about as true for years at least : Christian religion, history
    7) things that can be observed being part of human behavior, even though human behavior changes quite rapidly : most of the humanities, languages, ...
    8) things that are believed to be true by large groups of people : psychology, sociology, biology, ... most other religions
    9) things that are simply considered interesting : art

    Those are all scientific standards of truth. It is easy to see that there is no simple answer : any religion that tries to have no conflict between science and religion easily satisfies standards 6,7,8 and 9. And things like history are in the same boat.

    There's lots of engineers here, who are generally trained to accept a slightly higher standard for truth, but the mathematician in me feels obliged to say that for example religion is "more" true than history, "more" true than any statement in psychology, ...

    Also Christianity is relatively unique in that it meshes quite well with science. God and Jesus do not have a direct conflict with science, or at least there are no theoretical problems here. Science does not exclude God's involvement through miracles, and Christians do believe in a mostly mechanical universe (they just claim it's not strictly mechanical). Most other religions, like islam, see the religion as the only valid theory of the world, even where it is obviously wrong (islam claims you can't fire an arrow in the direction of Mecca, just for kicks, I tested that. You definitely can). There are other hilarious conflicts (you could actually buy camel piss in a can last year in Egypt. You know, cans like coke, except with ...). more idiocies.

    But this is a general pattern in the religion. The bible is really careful about what claims it makes, and the exact wording of those claims, especially in the original language. There is very little in there that is outrageously and obviously wrong. The bible is quite literally a set of stories with historical significance. In contrast, all

  92. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm positive they'd immediately go down to the nearest embassy and murder the ambassador.

  93. The world needs to grow up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We need to get away from this "NANNY" world excuse for restricting everything. I mean the excuses given to filter, block, log, track edit etc is to "Protect us" from the big bad world out there, and from the possibility of being offended, upset or any react with any other human emotion.
    Like in Australia, they "ideally" want t filter all content, log all users, and limit access to "offensive" or "inappropriate" material, under the disguise of protecting us and "the children", from the big nasties. Of course THEY decide what is no appropriate! (Like Apple and other companies that believe they know better!)
    Treat everybody liike idiots and don't let people make up their own mind, we will tell them what they want and can have!

    People should have a right to post their views and ideas to the open world, and if that idea offends someone, that someone shouldn't watch it.
    I think Google does a great job of protecting free speech especially with current government trends in limiting information.
    If items are posted that are adult or 'may offend" then put a warning notice up! Like they do for adult content etc.
    People need to grow up and realise that the world is NOT a big happy content wonderland, but a big nasty, sometime violent and dangerous place, with more than 6 billion different views, ideas, and beliefs.
    The greatness of the internet is its power to bring this info to all, whether you like it or not!

  94. Re:clear and present danger by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    It isn't about having a differing opinion. Just like when you yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, the video had a very predictable outcome, both of which end up being very bad for innocent victims. Both cases people have a risk of dieing for nothing more than a moronic act. I have no religious beliefs and really could not give a shit about Christianity, islam or any other cult, but common sense and decency for others beliefs and even more important their safety should take precedence over someones right to be a douchebag.

  95. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Just let them kill each other"

    I have more humane proposal.

    We give out tons of aid money: (all amounts USD$ for 2010)
    Afghanistan = $11,446,800,000
    Pakistan = $2,853,500,000
    Iraq = $2,087,900,000
    Egypt = $1,698,900,000
    Sudan = $975,900,000
    Gaza = $693,100,000

    Why don't we just say:
    Every time you kill an American, we take $80 million of your aid money, and give it to Israel.
    Every time you attack an embassy: $200 million
    Every time you issue a fatwa (on some cartoonist or author, or filmmaker, etc.): $10 million ...and so on.

    Any time the violence stops, that aid level is restored the next year.

    If you just cut off all their aid, they have no incentive to do anything.
    This way, they have incremental rewards to act civilized.

  96. Completely incorrect by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    to balance free speech with legal and ethical concerns in an age when social media can impact world events

    No, it's oversensitive, murderous psychopaths impacting world events. They're actively looking for a reason. If there weren't so many maniacs like them following that fake, evil religion, there wouldn't be a problem. The video itself isn't doing anything. It's just a video. It can't come out of the screen and shoot something and youtube isn't reponsible for how viewers may react. Ohhhh no, Ms Peach's legendary fried chicken music video might make someone a racist who will join the KKK. Not youtube's problem.

  97. YAY!! by samantha · · Score: 2

    Google did the right thing. There is no legitimate ethical or legal ground for restricting free speech in such a case. I would have been quite disturbed if they had taken the opposite stance.

  98. Too bad it didn't have a soundtrack by BMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People being killed because of offensive hate-speech film? fuck it, lets keep it up."

    "It has a top 40 track on it? Delete!"

  99. Re:clear and present danger by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    Sure would be nice if there were a way to stop trolls from moderating.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  100. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    In what way is Koran inconsistent with Torah with respect to the nature of God?

    Christians are a special case because of that whole acid trip that is trinitarianism.

  101. Re:clear and present danger by tverbeek · · Score: 1

    I'm a hardcore defendant of free speech, but I see YouTube's action as an example of yelling "fire" in crowded theater. How much more of a "clear and present danger" can you get?

    And I've got karma to burn, so I'll repeat that down-modding my comment as "troll" is just some petty tyrants showing their contempt for free speech.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  102. Not to be culturally-insensitive... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    ...but speaking from the heart (as someone who wishes fundamentalists of every ilk would just slit their wrists and off themselves right now), I say "Hooray for the First Amendment" and "Go, Google" (you guys're .75% of the way towards redeeming yourselves but hey, its a start, right?).

  103. Wisdom of the park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim. It's Friday night, but you can't have sex, and you can't jack off. There's sand in your eyes and probably in the crack of your ass, and then some cartoon comes along from a country where people are getting laid, and mocks your prophet. Well you know what? I'd be pretty pissed off too!"

    - Mrs Garrison

  104. GET THAT IDIOT TO ISSUE A TAKEDOWN NOTICE! by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    Get some federal Marshalls to walk up to that idiot's house in California, knock (or kick down the door). Have them tell that idiot that Obama is asking him to get on the phone to Google and issue a takedown notice. (Evidently he's been cowering in fear and is regretting his actions). It's his copyrighted property no?

    This may/will not stop the rioting but will remove one problem. And it will show those idiots in the middle east that the U.S. is doing everything (legally) permissible to protect their "sacred" religion.

  105. Prosecute? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If by "prosecute" you mean "laud as a hero" and "pat on the back," then yes, these rabble will be prosecuted. After all, this is the Religion-Of-Peace-Silence-I-Kill-You! we are talking about. There's no way stinking screaming unbathed undereducated mass-murderer wannabes are going to be lionized for this, right? No, didn't think so.

  106. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yup, cut off USAID - the aid money that goes to undermine governments and support terrorism and other 'noble causes'.

    Very little of that money goes to actually helping anyone, and what does is simply for show. I'm sure many would actually start killing Americans and storming embassies just to have a little less of that 'aid' thrust upon them.

  107. Just to recap the events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to recap some of the events:
    1. An idiot loon makes a very objectionable film. Very poor taste.
    2. Posts it on youtube
    3. About 60 days go by. No one pays any attention. There are about 3 weeks worth of video posted to YouTube every day.
    4. Someone in an islamic country sees the video, is offended, translates to a local language
    5. (It seems that everyone) in the islamic world undergoes nuclear meltdown. Insanity ensues. People light fires, set off bombs, yell scream, curse, cry out death to everyone and anyone. Everything and everyone must die. Every single living person on the earth must die because one person posted a video that they find offensive.
    6. Everyone not in the islamic world is going "WTF"? Its like mass hysteria, as if someone spiked the water. In any event, we have free speech. They can shut off their end of the internet if they want. Its like TV, if you don't like it, don't watch. They can even be as draconian in their own little world as they like, but my line gets drawn when they offer advice at my end.

  108. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by kasperd · · Score: 1

    Interesting proposal. Could it be funded through cutting down the military budget?

    --

    Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  109. It depicts child rape. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I guess Google and Youtube are taking a stand against making depictions of paedophile scenes illegal, right?

    Shit, anyone remember the massive internaltional butthurt the USA had when the second LotR movie came out? What about the change to Spiderman's New York skyline?

    How about that mosque several blocks away from 11/9?

    Or Gitmo (which is the equivalent of the riots, merely endorsed by the US public and government)?

  110. Iran. Iraq. Afhganistan. Korea, Grenada.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, look, you HAVE done just that.

    Except your religion has been USA-USA-USA!!!

  111. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 1

    I'm sure many would actually start killing Americans and storming embassies just to have a little less of that 'aid' thrust upon them.

    You may be right about the general populous, but I think their governments would brutally crush any such uprising, once our billion-dollar teat starts to get pulled out of their mouth.

  112. American Lives by assertation · · Score: 1

    I see videos disappear from youtube all of the time. I guess youtube values copyright infringement of 30 year old videos of pop music performances more than they do human lives. Mabye one of the relatives of the slain Americans should have a lawyer write to youtube threatening to sue, then youtube would care enough to remove it.

  113. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by uglydog · · Score: 1

    The US aid is pretty much bribery. You are already paying them to act a certain way.

  114. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by MrL0G1C · · Score: 0

    I like the idea in principle, but I think the amounts should be doubled and the money should be paid to me instead.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  115. Use Free Speech When You Have Something To Say by assertation · · Score: 1

    Whenever I hear free speech come up in popular conversations the "speech" being defended is usually something adolescent bereft of meaning.

    The video that started all of this wasn't about meaningful ideas. It was about purposefully jerking the chains of Muslims. Childish.

    If you are going to people's lives at risk for freedom of speech, put your own life on the line and at least do it to say something meaningful.

    1. Re:Use Free Speech When You Have Something To Say by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      People can say whatever they want. It doesn't need to be meaningful. Who the hell are you to dictate what people are allowed to say?

    2. Re:Use Free Speech When You Have Something To Say by assertation · · Score: 1

      People can say whatever they want. It doesn't need to be meaningful. Who the hell are you to dictate what people are allowed to say?

      Actually, it isn't true that "people can say whatever they want", there are laws about slander, libel, yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting riots and much more.

      Who is dictating? I'm exercising MY free speech to express the opinion that if you are going to get people murdered over childishly baiting others, you should at least put your own life at risk or saying something meaningful.

      If you can't handle MY free speech without distorting what I said, maybe you aren't all that different from the angry mobs in the Mid East.

      Have a good weekend

  116. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 2

    Interesting proposal. Could it be funded through cutting down the military budget?

    It wouldn't take any additional funding at all. Zero cost.

    You just selectively divert money that would have gone to the offending country (the carrot), to their sworn enemy Israel (the stick). I'm doing it this way because each one dollar is doing two dollars worth of 'work.' Not only have they lost a dollar, they have enriched their enemy by a dollar.

    If they behave, aid flows exactly as it does now.

    The more they 'misbehave' (i.e. Embassy attacks, suicide bombings, kidnappings...) the more of their precious aid money flows to Israel that year.

    But, there is always an incentive for them to correct their behavior, as that aid money could be resumed the next year.

  117. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 2

    The US aid is pretty much bribery. You are already paying them to act a certain way.

    That's right. We're already paying them they still slaughter our citizens, and attack our embassies.

    Let's put that money to work.

  118. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 1

    I like the idea in principle, but I think the amounts should be doubled and the money should be paid to me instead.

    I thought of giving the money to you, Anne, :) but I'm doing it this way because each one dollar is doing two dollars worth of 'work.'

    Not only have they lost a dollar, they have enriched their enemy by a dollar.

  119. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what is your plan regarding Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates? Where's your leverage then?

    Oh, I remember. We're doing the good-old "let's just ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia and UAE are full of US-hating terrorists and people who routinely ignore human rights because they have oil" deal.

    Also, although I understand your point (and, from a purely "systems" perspective, it kinda makes sense), if you implement what you describe, you have to stop calling it "aid" and call it what it really is: protection money.

  120. Re:clear and present danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly are you a "hardcore defendant of free speech" when you give in like a coward at the first sign of violence? And no it's not like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Nobody should even have to explain this to you.

  121. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 2

    And what is your plan regarding Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates? Where's your leverage then?

    I'm sorry I wasn't able to solve the whole 6000 year-old middle-east crisis in one Slashdot post. I'll try to be more thorough next time! :)

    Obviously, this is just a start. I think if the whole region would start quieting down, it would create a foundation for better dialogue with all the countries in that area. We negotiate quite peacefully with Germany and Japan now; it wasn't really that long ago we were trying to destroy each other.

    If any low-budget YouTube clip or Danish cartoon can set the region ablaze we still have a long ways to go.

    I just thought of this as a first step, since we are spending the money over there anyway, seemingly with little result.

  122. Atheists "believing" science are forgetting someth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how many times people will have to tell you this, but atheists believe in what there is evidence for. If there was any evidence of a god, then I'd believe in him. I believe in electromagnetic radiation, I'm sure we don't understand it completely (i.e. what it's 'made' of, we know a lot about how it works), but there's evidence for it.

    There are big problems with your supposed standard.

    There are contradictions in science. Let's take one (of many) : The standard model, the way hardware function is designed, makes the claim that gravity doesn't exist. So according to that theory, a set of laws that govern everything, planets don't rotate around eachother, light speed is not the maximum attainable speed, there are no relativistic effects, ... etc.

    According to relativity theory quantum effects, which these days control cpu's and harddrives (starting with perpendicular recording it just doesn't work without quantum effects anymore).

    These 2 theories are obviously contradictory (and they contradict eachother in thousands of other less obvious ways) ...

    So, Mr. atheist. Which do you refuse to believe ? Planets and the solar system or computers/cell phones/harddrives ... if you believe only what can be proven, technically (mathematically) you shouldn't accept either, since neither theory is reducible to first principles at all. But an empiricist would have to chose. If you only believe what can be measured and experimented on, you can only accept one of these theories, not both. You can of course disagree on which experiments are the most accurate, so you can pick one, but you cannot be consistent and accept both (there's a "fight" over this in the physics community, let's not get into loop quantum gravity (drag other forces into relativity and explain quantum effects as consequences of light speed versus infinite forces) versus string theory (split the standard model of particles into boatloads of new particles, some of which are "ether" strings and others are vibrations on those strings), which is essentially that argument, my vote is on loop quantum gravity even though it's unpopular).

    This is but one tiny problem with your "I only accept what is proven".
    Godel's theorem states that there are 2 kinds of scientific (mathematical) theories :
    1) unprovable ones
    2) wrong ones
    The third option, provable scientific theories are a contradiction (all sorts of qualifiers apply, but you can correctly state that any theory that claims numbers exist, or calculates on numbers in any way, has to obey the second incompleteness theories. Needless to say, this necessarily includes all physical theories)

    (even that ignores the wider logical question of whether the universe follows mathematical laws at all, since we don't actually have a way to test that, and some theories claim that the universe only follows laws "on average", yet the predictive power of those theories is clearly nonzero. Furthermore if the universe follows mathematical laws the elephant in the room becomes : why. Hell, even "how ?" would be a completely unsolved and unsolvable question. Given Godel's theorems on maths, it might actually be better if the universe were to not follow mathematical laws)

    So yes, you're right. There is zero evidence that God exists, other than craploads of potentially fictional texts and even more stories about God. There is less evidence than that that the Roman empire ever existed, and there is evidence that scientific theories are wrong. So, really, God is doing pretty well in comparison, IF you actually care about the notion of proof.

    How about I launch my theory about atheists : there are very few atheists that have decent knowledge of either the notion of proof, empirical experimentation or have even basic knowledge of modern physics theories. They just accept all those things on faith from popular media, knowing full well that those articles are inaccurate at best,

  123. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Xyrus · · Score: 1, Troll

    Oh there are those in this country who would be more than happy to do so. But since our country is not (yet) brainwashed into an ignorant mass of fundamentalists who follow 2000 year old religious dogma, we see fewer instances of this.

    Don't kid yourself. The Judaic religions are just as nasty if not nastier. The difference here is not the religions themselves, it's the people. Developed nations generally have an educated population who don't just blindly follow their religious faith (indeed, when was the last time someone in this country was stoned to death for adultery?). We've "adapted" the religion to fit the times. We've made it more G rated (though there are fundamentalists out there who don't like that). Religion has it's place, but that place should be as far away from politics and power as possible.

    As a counterpoint to these demonstrations, there a plenty of places outside of these countries that have a populations of muslims, even here in the US. Yet I don't hear them bombing churches or anything in response. Now why is that, if they are all supposed to be fundamentally evil?

    It's not the religion. It's the people. It's always the people.

    --
    ~X~
  124. A famous Marine warned about it decades ago by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
    "War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit from warfare. ... It contains this key summary:
            "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes." "

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  125. Well done.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... getting all up in his face with one gray area of his otherwise legit claim: We continue to interfere and arm both sides (generally at different times) and then are surprised when a lit match thrown into this volatile situation results in American deaths. Domestically of course we have a different perspective - the Rodney King riots are more understandable because we know more about the situation on the ground...

  126. Brilliant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Just how much of this money is actually making it into the hands of the people we are trying to influence with this approach?

    1. Re:Brilliant... by drkim · · Score: 1

      ... Just how much of this money is actually making it into the hands of the people we are trying to influence with this approach?

      Probably very little, and this will, sadly, not change that.

      However, the "man in the street" doing the violence is the one we are trying to influence, but we lack any real pathway to reach him/her. The leaders (that do slurp up our money) currently has no incentive to correct their "man in the street's" behavior. In fact, since they are trying to win the popularity of the "man in the street," they currently are incentivized not to correct them.

      However, once our flow of money to the leadership is reduced, they will have a very strong incentive to reduce the violence.

      (Reposting this response I made to a similar comment. Please forgive.)

  127. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is a good strategy to let people have their say, so we can all laugh and mock them, rather than silencing them.

    Freakonomics details the one-man crusade against the KKK in the US, basically by exposing all their secret rituals and so on, essentially changing them from a truly active, vicious organization to a good ol' boys bitchfest and knitting circle.

    The human tendency is to want to shut people up, when in fact, the opposite is what's successful.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  128. hypocrite youtube strikes again by fish_sauce · · Score: 1

    If this was a anti-christian or anti-american film clip, youtube would remove it faster than you could say hypocrite

  129. What did we expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just have two things to say:
    1. It's great publicity for YouTube/Google. They have a global conflict centered around a video that is on their site, surrounded by ads.
    2. If this didn't happen now, it would have 5, 10, 15 or so years later, and so on. The entire situation is an organic fusion between technology, business, politics and religion. Of course it isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

    kthx.

  130. Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Muslims can kill American's and burn our flag. Plus, post anti-American videos.
    But, no one else can. Something does not add up.

  131. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by couchslug · · Score: 1

    It's perfectly reasonable to hate religion because Sky Fairies cannot be proven to exist, and because all religious doctrine exalts the religious and directs them to take over society based on fantastic doctrines.

    Some are worse than others, but all are unworthy of modern man.

    Prove your Sky Fairies exists NOW, and I'll recant and grovel before he/she/it. Otherwise fuck off.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  132. They will never understand multi-cultural society by Troy+from+Montana · · Score: 1

    I do not understand why anyone would take any video down...offensive...untruthful or otherwise. That should and could be unconstitutional in the USA. In the USA I also believe I have the right to not like Christians, Gays, Blacks, Muslims, Latinos, KKK, Cops, Criminals, Motorcycle Gangs, Terrorists, Etc, they are all the same to me....In general I just do not care much for anyone as they ALL want to restrict others or demand special privileges and treatment. And all are guilty of coercive acts.(Respect us or else....) Some of the religious groups are just to one sided to be involved with... even the peace loving good individuals they are capable of producing. Maybe I am just to damn rebellious against their principals...I DON'T KNOW...AND DON'T CARE! I believe that not following a religion or not worshiping some form of God is good. Whether you worship a god or don't your future generation will someday experience an extinction level event which the fanatics will say THEIR God is responsible for....WHICH I believe to simply not be the case. As far as You Tube taking the video down...I do not believe that is right. No one group should have the power to restrict or influence another groups actions...just totally UNAMERICAN! Even if the group you are persecuting is UNAMERICAN! People have become so weak and fearful of the INTIMIDATORS! They reach and grasp for a catch all law that they believe will protect them and give them a basis for punishing the wrong doers when, in the end all they do is restrict the innocent. As far as the demonstrations.... no country will allow violent and/or destructive protests to go unpunished, even if their government hates the USA. The symbolism of flag burning sickens me as people hide behind the laws when doing so hoping to provoke a confrontation with someone...I say give it to them with drones and bombs, not risking valuable citizens on them. Wasting the money on these parasites is bad enough. Burn a Bible or Koran in public and see how hostile they get.... And then observe the actions they will take against you socially in your community.

  133. Re:idiot by lpq · · Score: 1

    "Anti-Christian"? What does that mean? Any of the tons of films supporting faiths other than Christianity are anti-Christian. As for Anti-American? What's that? Anti-Republican or anti-Democrat -- cuz usually it's republicans decrying anti-GOP rhetoric.

    Most americans realize they suck except for the small GOP and christian right who live in fantasy land. How can you insult us?

  134. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Stormthirst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've "adapted" the religion to fit the times.

    Oh, so that's why homosexuals can get married in any state in the US?
    Or that abortion clinics are allowed to conduct their perfectly legal business without harassment.

    Whilst religions have adapted in other western countries, the US is alone in it's Christian fundamentalism.

  135. The movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't watched "The Movie" but the comments from friends who have watched it are that it is beyond stupid, poorly made, and not worth the trouble. The Movie is a lame excuse for violence. And frankly, that's all it's for –an excuse. If you think your religion justifies killing noncombatants, or anyone else, for some reason other than defense of yourself and your family, you've read it wrong.

  136. The world cannot handle freedom by pebear · · Score: 1

    Most of the world does not how to handle freedom. Most people on the earth freak out when it comes to issues of freedom, it just goes way the f above their heads and they can't wrap their 13th century brains around it. I guess the hole 17 Century enlightenment just flew past all these guys. You think God, the God of the Universe really needs people getting mad on his behalf? I don't think so. If there was a God who was so big that he created the Universe, then we humans must appear to be ants in his sight. These people freaking on a movie that was so bad that it gives B moves a bad name if you cal it a B movie. I'm sure most of it is real. I'm sure Mohammed is a complete fraud and that is why it's instilled in Islam to freak out if there is any criticism of Mohammed. Me being a Christian if I got mad every time I saw Christ being depicted in a bad light. Every time I saw an image purporting to be that of Christ, there would be an endless trail of dead carcases across the earth. Jesus at least was not a pedophile, a bigamist, war monger, whore monger. At least Christ said turn the other cheek and go the extra mile. He taught us to love our enemies. One more thing. The New testament at the end of Revelations said that this is it and not to add one more Jot or Tiddle to the Holy scriptures. So I guess the Koran or the book or Mormon is out when it comes to Holy writ.

    --
    Paul E. Bahre
  137. All Hate speech against a religion is against TOS by davidorourke · · Score: 1

    Any and all hate speech towards any religious group or organization is against the Youtubes TERMS OF SERVICE. I guess they forgot to look at it through that side of things. Youtube is breaking it's own TOS by still allowing the video to be viewed. Bet the Federal Attorney Generals Office could show them their own TOS concerning the hate speech towards any religion. Youtube usually would take such a video down unless they SUPPORT THE ISLAMIC VIEWPOINTS OF WHAT WAS SPOKEN. Of course not too long from now all the false religion groups and leaders are going to reap the rewards from the TRUE GOD in his wrath against all wickedness. He would rather you all repented but he also knows alot of you arent even going to try. So, back to the dust you will all go. The word in the Bible called tormentor means Jailor. Tormented forever means jailed forever. So, tormented in Hell forever means Literally this: You will be jailed in the common grave of death forever. Hell means the grave of mankind in general. The Hebrew word is Sheol, Greek word is Hades. They both mean Grave not some fiery place. If Hell is the place of fire, explain this scripture: Revelation 20:14: 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. First you cannot literally take a place and cast it into another place. And even if that was possible. what effect would fire have on fire?.......................NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. This shows how misled many false religions have twisted the meaning of the word Hell for so many years. By what Jesus said about the rich man and Lazarus, did Jesus teach torment of the wicked after death? Is the account, at Luke 16:19-31, literal or merely an illustration of something else? The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself. What does the parable mean? The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31,32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54. I appreciated commenting. And I appreciate shedding some light upon the darkness that has been spread out for so long a time.

  138. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by rohan972 · · Score: 1

    That man is made in god's image in the Torah whereas this would probably be considered shirk in islam.

  139. Re:Atheists "believing" science are forgetting som by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

    There is less evidence than that that the Roman empire ever existed, and there is evidence that scientific theories are wrong.

    I was trying to understand your angle, until I read the above. And realised you're completely bat shit crazy.

    I think you need to learn what the word "theory" actually means, rather than what you think it means.

  140. The Egyptian Response by andersh · · Score: 1

    The Egyptian government has publically stated that they don't hold the US government or its people responsible. That's quite something! They directed their anger at the people who "abused" (sic.) freedom of speech.

    They also said they would take measures against violent protests, and the Brotherhood seems to have directed their people to the mosques and peaceful protests. It obviously didn't stop others or wasn't the whole truth.

    To quote the US administration; Egypt might not be our ally, but they're not our enemy either. It's good that two states can have an adult relationship. Especially in these times.

  141. Hindsight Is Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hindsight is great! The consequences of American actions in Iraq, Pakistan and support for Israel were quite predictable. I don't think we can compare the two.

    The old Empires laid the groundwork for some of this, but the Americans poked the nest(s)!

    1. Re:Hindsight Is Great! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Hindsight is great! The consequences of American actions in Iraq, Pakistan and support for Israel were quite predictable. I don't think we can compare the two.

      The old Empires laid the groundwork for some of this, but the Americans poked the nest(s)!

      The old empires laid the ground work for ALL of this. Most of this fighting would not even be occurring had former countries not been divided up in no meaningful way to their inhabitants. Or people who no longer had a country to call their own at all for that matter.

      The Shah of Iran was put back into power by the Eisenhower administration at the request of the British for the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which is now BP.

  142. Why the riots? by Keith+Henson · · Score: 1

    It is worth considering why riots are so easy to set off in that part of the world.

    I expect that the poor economic conditions are more of a factor than the particular flavor of religion.

    --
    End MGM. Get prospective parents of boys to Google: Men do complain
  143. One problem with your proposal... by mha · · Score: 2

    ...and that is that those doing the violence are not the ones getting that money.

    That's the fallacy of falling for the "too much of the wrong abstraction" hole: you group people by (artificial, not existing in the REAL world) nationality, instead of asking "Cui bono?" (who actually benefits)? I see this all the time in the German newspapers, "Germany looses/wins" - what BS. WHO excatly is that "Germany" guy??? Same thing with your not very well though through proposal, I'm sorry to have to say :)

    1. Re:One problem with your proposal... by drkim · · Score: 1

      One problem with your proposal and that is that those doing the violence are not the ones getting that money.

      A good point - but you will see, I account for that:

      Of course the "man in the street" doing the violence is the one we are trying to influence, but we lack any real pathway to reach him/her. The leaders (that do slurp up our money) currently has no incentive to correct their "man in the street's" behavior. In fact, since they are trying to win the popularity of the "man in the street," they currently are incentivized not to correct them.

      However, once our flow of money to the leadership is reduced, they will have a very strong incentive to reduce the violence.

    2. Re:One problem with your proposal... by mha · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works either :)

      Sure, SOME of that money may be such bribes (not directly, of course, but it goes to businesses owned by.. exactly.)

      HOWEVER, very often a LOT of money is given with the condition that it is spent on money and/or services of the GIVING country. The Germany gave hundreds of millions to Greece - who bought German military hardware. Where do you think Pakistan and Egypt buy from? Military and other.

      So, as usual, such simple explanations fail. If you don't give the money, you hurt YOUR OWN economy. And don't say that if it isn't given in the first place, but used directly in YOUR economy, you would be better off. Unfortunately ( I guess) that's not how the system works. Do you think the US is a really capitalist country? With most of ALL the nations money going to the military? To protect the US (from Mexico, Canada and another attack of Japan on Pearl Harbor)? They would not have all the problems they fight abroad if they would not have that army in the first place. It all benefits juts a few people controlling those industries that benefit from those kinds of flows of money. This is RISK FEE money flow, compared to doing risky and expensive research for REAL innovation - mostly because you can easily convince gullible humans (all of them) they need weapons, compared to anything else, which is because we really DON'T need much else but a house, food, and friends. In comparison, investments in medical research, the only other thing people are always willing to pay for (indirectly through taxes still is something the population has to endorse in the first place!), is sooo risky and incredibly long-term.

    3. Re:One problem with your proposal... by drkim · · Score: 1

      They would not have all the problems they fight abroad if they would not have that army in the first place.

      So if we disband our military, we won't have any more problems...?

      Yeaaaaaaaaaah... I think I'll pass on that idea.

      Best of luck in Antarctica!

  144. I'm a Muslim /.er, and... by oamasood · · Score: 1

    The violence/protests is more probably due to political reasons. The US, unfortunately, has a long history of supporting the oppressive governments in the Muslim world (with only a couple exceptions such as Libya), as well as supporting Israel, which basically treats the Palestinian civilian population as military targets. Combined with the fact that two million Iraqi children died due to sanctions (which was "worth it") so the US could protect its oil supply, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan & the torture camps they put up there (Bagram air base), I mean....basically tensions have been festering for a long time, and it's safe to say that, were it not for US-imposed tyrannical regimes in that area, there wouldn't even have been a need for an "Arab Spring".

    That being said, I think the video being put up on YouTube is actually a good opportunity for Muslims to dispel myths/misconceptions about the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), such as the violence, marriage with a young Aisha, etc...

    And regarding that last point - the hardcore right-wing conservatives have only been bringing this up ever since the controversy erupted over priests molesting children. They've repeated the lie so many times, it's become "true" - without anyone ever verifying the information (a sad testament to the level of gullibility of the masses). Here's a little video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-dBftRbz94&feature=related

  145. Re:It's already out there,.Jesus vs Muhammad et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to see Jesus and Muhammad sitting down looking at each other... Maybe the middle east would be up for that video and the rest of the world. Might as well ad Buddha to the peace talks.

    Of course the Muslims would complain about anything not in their scope of reference. Die and be gone. Cancer, no, parasite, maybe.

  146. Wisdom by NewYork · · Score: 1

    God != Religion
    Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.

  147. Religions were created just 3000 years back. by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Human beings have been living on earth since ~200,000 years.
    And they learned writing ~3000 years back.
    http://goo.gl/12i7v

  148. Renewd my faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The posts here have renewed my faith in the /. crowd.

    Pretty impressive

  149. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only fair if similar conditions are imposed on Israel -- e.g. build a house in the Occupied Territories forteit $x aid money.

  150. Zombie Apocalyps by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    I tell you, this IS the Zombie Apocalypse ... these mind-less nutjobs are going to take over the world based on the simple math that says they kill us for any excuse and we only kill them if we have to. [conspiracy alert] I wonder if the West's strategy is as simple as (1) insult some 1800-year old belief structre, (2) wait for the nut jobs to stick up their heads, (3) shoot them, (4) repeat 1-3 till silence prevails.[/conspiracy alert]

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  151. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 1

    That would be fair.

    I still have a feeling more money would be flowing in their direction... (at least at first)

  152. Didn't hear about it until now by skaag · · Score: 1

    Well, I personally didn't hear about it until the riots started and it suddenly became news. Now I've seen it, and I believe that chances are, if they just kept their mouths shut, nobody would have noticed the (extremely) poorly produced video.

    The reason they hate it so much, is that deep inside, they feel the same way; that their own religion is inadequate and ridiculous and based on the ramblings of a false prophet. But it's so popular now in Arab countries, they really can't do anything about it without looking even more ridiculous. The difficult part is admitting that the religion you and your parents and grandparents grew up believing in, is absolute crap.

    Muslims are spiritual people, which is great - they just need to understand that Islam is not the only way. Maybe they should consider the Bahai faith - it at least preaches true peace and harmony between humans of all faiths and paths in life.

    --

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

  153. Reason does not oppose God's existence by gottabeme · · Score: 0

    I reason that it is much more likely that God exists and created the universe and human beings than it is that the universe spontaneously came into existence, and that life, leading to the inexplicable complexity that is humanity, happened as a result of random occurances.

    Sound reasoning reaches the conclusion that one cannot conclusively disprove God's existence any more than one can conclusively prove it. The least faithful view that one could call even slightly reasonable is agnosticism.

    The fundamental reason to advocate athiesm is that it allows one to justify any behavior, because without God there is fundamentally no basis for morality. Thus an athiest can do whatever he can get away with and not feel guilt, because, hey, we're fundamentally nothing more than masses of randomly-generated goo which will amount to nothing in the end--therefore human life has no value.

    This is why, for example, communist nations heavily restrict religion: without religion, people are nothing more than resources to be used up by those in power and discarded or eliminated whenever they become inconvenient.

    Without God, there is no hope for anyone on this planet, and life has no meaning whatsoever. If you truly advocate athiesm, you are promoting nihilism. Look yourself in the mirror tomorrow morning and admit to yourself that you believe there is no purpose or meaning or sense in life, that nothing means anything at all. Then ask yourself, "Now what?" You need to come face-to-face with your utter hopelessness.

    You need to go to the very bottom and think about epistemology, about reason and knowledge themselves. If you truly are seeking the Truth, you need to start over with an open mind, one that is truly reasonable.

    If you've already made up your mind, if you're sure you already know, then you are truly hopeless, because the only hope anyone has is to seek the Truth.

    --
    "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  154. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by Tom · · Score: 1

    Interesting proposal, but you forget something:

    That money isn't given as free gifts. The US buys something with it. Influence, mostly.

    Not that I'm not with you. Basically, here's what I think would really, really help world peace:

    a) stop all that aid money, to everyone (including Israel!)
    b) get all soldiers back home
    c) let them simmer for a decade or two
    d) if they come to us and want something, e.g. trade, then we can tell them terms. Like "sure you can get computers, but we would first like you to give women equal rights. No? Ok, if you want to remain in the middle ages, you don't need computers."

    Of course, that doesn't work because they have so darn much of our(*) oil and our companies want to sell them stuff for profit, especially weapons and such.

    (*) that's a satirical comment, if you didn't catch the reference

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  155. Re:Just let them kill each other, then we get peac by drkim · · Score: 1

    I actually kind of agree with you.

    I see the middle east as a rowdy Irish local pub, where the patrons have been drinking together, and brawling with each other, for generations.
    If you leave them alone, they will (sadly) keep brawling and giving each other black eyes, and broken ribs forever.

    However, if an outsider (imagine an upper-class British twit) starts hanging out in the bar, constantly trying to break up the brawls, pretty soon he will be the one getting his ass pounded.

    Unfortunately, as you mentioned, the oil is the wildcard in this equation; and short of us implementing non-oil based energy systems, it will be very difficult to extricate ourselves from there.

  156. Re:Atheists "believing" science are forgetting som by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    LOL WUT?

    Do you believe in Buddha too? And the Ghost of Christmas Past? The Easter Bunny? What about Thor? And how could I forget, Him, and his noodly appendage, The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    Because your "argument" applies equally to them.

    I don't care about Julius Caesar, I don't care about the evidence of that. It never really interested me. I'm not going to argue about evidence for his existence. But your mind seems twisted. I assume it must be to believe in this "God" of yours.

  157. Islamic film is Only an Excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The film is only an excuse to kill and plunder by extremists and the rest are just uncivilized enough to follow. Hell, this stuff has been going on in the Middle East forever. That's all they know. It's worse than the one-sided Media in the US!