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.'"
... google taking it down wouldn't help at this point.
If only the religious zealots realized all they had to do was lodge a false DMCA claim through a bot...
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.
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.
Good for Google... This should not be taken down any more than a video calling Jesus or Flying Spaghetti Monster a fraud should
Why is this modded -1? Other than the misspelling it is true.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
If you quote the Quoran, can it still be called hate speech?
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.
Since he wasn't well-endowed by his creator, does it even count?
Google didn't kill anyone - hang the blame where it is deserved -- the religious idealists that actually committed the acts.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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
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.
I agree with you, not with your spelling
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)
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
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.
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.
Youtube has truly been touched by His noodely appendage. Ramen.
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
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
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
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
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.
Well, fewer than died because of the radio broadcasts in Rwanda back then... more advanced tech, less deaths. Progress.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
Did you try following the link in my sig?
"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?
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
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.
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
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.
Where the hollywood establishment will mock and make fun of any religion at all. Poor islam needs to get a thicker skin.
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
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.
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.
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 */
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.
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!
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?
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
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.
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.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Just have the Muslims copyright Mohammad's image. Problem solved.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
It also caused my antimalware software to throw up red flags, so beware.
/* No Comment */
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.
One of these things doesn't belong on a list of unreasonable motivations for a riot.
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?
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.
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
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.
I'm pretty sure they value free of speech over silencing critism over their religion.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
and? They do not have the right of free speech do they? What's your point?
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 ... ... most other religions
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,
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
I'm positive they'd immediately go down to the nearest embassy and murder the ambassador.
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.
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!
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!
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.
"In particular girls"? I guess that's one way of looking at it since the preceding Bible verse says to kill all the boys.
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"?
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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
Some non complicit muslims
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
No. There are not. Hate speech laws trample the 1st amendment.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
"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: ...and so on.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure would be nice if there were a way to stop trolls from moderating.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
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.
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/
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
...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?).
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.
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.
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!).
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.
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
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.
Interesting proposal. Could it be funded through cutting down the military budget?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
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.
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.
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.
The US aid is pretty much bribery. You are already paying them to act a certain way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.")
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.
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!
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~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket ... It contains this key summary:
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
If this was a anti-christian or anti-american film clip, youtube would remove it faster than you could say hypocrite
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?
LIAR. Sahih (authentic) Bukhari clearly states she was 9.
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.
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."
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.
"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?
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.
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
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.
That man is made in god's image in the Torah whereas this would probably be considered shirk in islam.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
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.
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.
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
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.
...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 :)
... 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.)
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
Excellent comment - this video explains your last point - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-dBftRbz94&feature=related
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.
God != Religion
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.
Casteism
Human beings have been living on earth since ~200,000 years.
And they learned writing ~3000 years back.
http://goo.gl/12i7v
Casteism
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.
That would be fair.
I still have a feeling more money would be flowing in their direction... (at least at first)
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...
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
I wouldn't doubt if Al Quaida made the movie just to stir up revolt.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
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.