Slashdot Mirror
Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body
Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."
NO!
Disconnect yourselves from it. Done and done.
The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System.
The Internet cancer.
I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.
In a word, "no". In two words "fuck no".
A governing body such as this would be co-opted in a heart beat.
How about we tell them to stop being so sensitive and they can just ignore it.
-SaNo
Can't keep your citizens in line with fear and religious nonsense anymore?
...wants to send plane loads of Vagisil over to them.
If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.
Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.
When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
We should be all in favor of this;) Content standard #1 should prohibit anything that doesn't respect equal rights for ALL and due process, since OUR "public order" is fundamental dependent upon those principles. We are offended by civilizations that don't abide by such policies.
For keep funding and supporting this brilliant representative of Islam and the Middle East.
Thank you.
(Note: By "the US" I mean the US governments and authorities, not her citizens, whom I pity much for having to make do with illusionary presidential "choices".)
Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.
It is part of a 10 year plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to make it a universal crime to speak ill of Islam or Mohammed.
Once this were to be achieved it would be easier for the Caliphate to take over the world since any rejection of Islamic expansion would be viewed as anti-Islam hate speech and thus be illegal.
The Muslim Brotherhood is already entrenched in the US Federal government due to the Obama administration.
The blaming of the killing of the ambassador and 3 others in Libya on some film most have not seen nor care about is meant to advance the agenda so that, in an attempt to placate these people, we will disavow the freedom of speech.
I really don't think that Obama was "shooting first" and thinking later necessarily as he accused Romney of doing.
I think Obama's complicity with the Muslim Brotherhood is telling.
"international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"
I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.
According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.
So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
OK, do as Saudi Arabia calls... but KISS. We only need One Rule to Rule Them All:
RELIGION HAS NO RIGHTS OVER FREEDOM OF ANY KIND BUT ITSELF.
We have freedom of speech, so telling everyone how shitty religion is is my freedom an no religion has the right to shut me down.
We have freedom of sex, so being homosexual is over that shitty religion you keep talking about.
We have freedom of mind, so I don't mind telling how stupid a people is believing in religion but I won't tolerate they attack me (driving people to commit suicide [christians], shouting I must be killed [muslims], etc.) in fact, I will do my whole to erase religion from Earth as it's the worst infection this planet suffers.
And, at last but not at least, please, do not mix "religion" with "ethic". I won't kill anything because I find it unethical not because my *own* religion forbids it. Religion can be sent without any problem to the incinerator and sent to oblivion.
Seriously, what the fuck is its point anymore? Last I check I didn't live in the United Nations. I lived in a country that has it's own sovereign rights and laws.
is like hillbillies giving out cooking tips for haute cuisine.
He must have forgotten that the US invented the internet, not Saudi Arabia.
A little here, a little there. Soon enough you have to show you have paid your media and news tax and registered your RealID before being allowed online.
Time to grow up or GTFO, as they would say on the Internet.
Policing public discussion and providing measures to deal with content that crosses the line is a good thing if implemented reasonably. I see no problem with it if the Saudi Wahabist terrorist dictatorship is treated in the same way and held to account for its arrogance, greed, and abuse of human rights. Fair's fair, as they say.
they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone, china did it, what nations should do is change their system to a nationwide LAN (sortof), and when connecting to websites served from IP address of other nations it should go through a filter if that is what they want to do, if i want to look at naked women eating barbecue pork while holding poker chips with her twat that is my business and should not be of any concern of some religious zealots in some other nation
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Saudi Arabia can go fuck itself.
You have NO RIGHT to NOT be offended.
Sure, we wouldn't want any "expression" which clearly disregards public order'". That's bad, after all. So let's start with, oh say, censoring out *any* discussion of Islam, Mohammed or the Koran. After all, popular opinion is that they are all terrorists and you can't disregard public order much more than using terrorist tactics, right?
Of course, so much of terrorism is fueled by the oil industry. You know, let's kick anything to do with that off the Internet as well. Not just discussion of oil, but any of their business transactions or automated traffic from their software. If they need to route signals from one refinery to the next, let them build an entirely new infrastructure rather than using the Internet. We need to cut down on influences which disregard the public order.
Say, aren't there links between terrorist groups and the Saudi royalty? Off the Internet for them, then! Might make it a bit hard to get at their bank accounts in Switzerland though. Well, its all for the benefit of public order.
What's that? You don't like those suggestions? Oh, I see, you only want to censor things YOU don't like. That's not really about public order then, is it though? It's about maintaining your control. Well, let us reconsider this in light of this new information. We'll get back to you.
[Sadly, the answer in a few years will be, "Sure, great idea! We can use it in our own countries too!" because the governments of the West who currently control the Internet are becoming as increasingly corrupt and misguided as to their purpose as the tyrannies in the East]
something about history repeating itself probably applies ...
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order
As a fellow religionist, let me give you my opinion about that: fuck that. Public order means somebody controlling somebody else, and I don't believe in it. Public order can go screw itself.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
neither governments or corporations can be trusted and are the enemies of individual freedom
any organization that is large enough will eventually become corrupt at the top levels
either the individuals who "earned" their positions will commit corrupt actions to retain and profit from their power and influence, or inherently corrupt individuals will seek out the existing positions of power and influence
the technology is there for a decentralized, peer to peer internet
https://github.com/Byzantium/Byzantium/wiki
(and other mesh initiatives)
be part of a solution, find an old laptop, plug it in, run a node, maybe update it every 6 months
when the normals start seeing more and more restrictions on the "public" internet they will start to look for alternatives and by then either we have an infrastructure in place which can easily accept them, or it will be too late
How about international collaboration on having some self restraint and not causing others physical harm to others any time something in the world doesn't go your way?
Welcome to the 21st century. Want to be a part of it? ...then grow the frack up.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
If your deity needs intercession by mortals to prevent others from speaking against him, he is probably not what you are thinking he is. So there's that, but the real thing I want to say, to anyone who would presume to limit my speech on religious grounds is "Piss off!". Seriously. Get a fucking clue and realize that your spiritual path is yours, and yours alone, to walk. The rest of us don't have to join you. Get it?
Censorship isn't about "protecting the people" (who are to be censored). Censorship is about expanding the business of government through both spending and power over the people (which will be leveraged to justify yet even more spending). In other words, censorship is merely one of 1000 gimmicks the ruling class uses to get rich. It's nothing but a cheap smokescreen for the real objective.
- The Constitution of the United States says that any treaty to which the United States shall be beholden must be ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.
- The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and prohibits the Congress from passing legislation limiting expression.
- Every single Senator took an oath to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.
Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold. At the very least, I can't imagine that there are 67 senators looking to retire at the end of the term in which this treaty would be voted on for ratification; to say nothing of the Supreme Court throwing it out like a 105mph fast ball...
Hey, if this thing gets passed in other countries, maybe the US will become the best place to host Internet content...
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Judging from the comments and reactions it is clearly obvious that religious nutjobs are pioneers of trolling.
Ah hell go burn some books if it makes you happy
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
The reasons for censorship are irrelevant.
Eventually there will be more and more censorship of the internet, it's already happening and cannot be stopped.
In truth that battle for "internet freedom" is a pointless fight. Like all censorship it will never be absolute, it will always fail.
People will always find ways around censorship. If I cannot speak my mind on your site, I will go elsewhere.
Of course I would argue that if you cannot bear to read thoughts which go completely against your beliefs it should not be me that has to make a change. If we were neighbors, which on the internet we might as well be because distance becomes less relevant for the purposes of communication, would I have to be considerate? of course. Would you have to respect my rights? you bet.
To my Saudi Arabia neighbors I can only say that if you don't like the neighborhood, move away. No one is forcing you to use the internet, facebook etc.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Yeah or create your own separate network for the caliphate. You can call it camelnet.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Isn't disregarding of public order just what we need?
The problem seems to be like they say this "Freedom of Expression".
People or countries should certainly not be allowed to propose such stupid things as Internet Censorship.
Two things. First, you're over-exaggerating it a bit, it is unlikely that any drastic anti-freedom legislation will be passed in the west based on the wishes of Saudi Arabia in the next decade or two. Or more, if you freedom-lovers choose to lead instead of whine.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Moreover, the US rationale for this was always the perception of the superior morality of the American way, not some logical, scientific argument. Why are you complaining when other countries notice what yours does, and try to do the same?
How about we not follow the lead of a country that routinely executes people publicly in horrific ways.
I'm no flag waver. I'm still a hippy who is hated at first sight by many of my fellow Americans but I trust this country's respect for freedom of speech more than I trust the UN to gain international consensus to respect freedom of speech.
the Global Internet Censorship Body will ensure equal unrest and humiliation for all.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Let's start with the freedom to kill and destroy in response to insulting or otherwise uncomfortable information being published. This is a form of expression which seriously needs to be addressed.
Invading Iraq for oil, did not support
Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
Nuking Saudi Arabia for stifling freedom of speech, Let me press the button.
They need to turn off the computer if they are offended but growing the fuck up would be even better.
If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it. -- Calvin Coolidge
Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.'
There is a "crying need for international collaboration" to address the livid intolerance exhibited by the Monarchists (we've been there before -- self-absorbed, lazy and inbred) pissed that 6 billion people aren't under their thumb.
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
Fuck you, and your religion too.
Your pal,
OldSport
To which the United States replied: "But if we don't let them say what they want on the internet, how is the NSA supposed to spy on everything they do?!?"
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
And now we all can see why "THE VIDEO" was relentlessly trotted out as the cause of the violence. I guarantee you that if you track down who it was in every administration who pushed the idea that "THE VIDEO" was the cause of the violence when they knew better, you'd have yourself a collection of Sharia plants. People whose goal it is for Sharia law to be the law of the world and who have infiltrated all major governments of the world at various levels.
Oh, really? So what was this all about?
How is this even theoretically possible? Oh you crazy arabs, the RIAA would've done it like a decade ago.
How about not going an burning down houses of innocent people, how about not going and killing and hurting innocent people because somebody made a drawing or a video about some stupid old fairy tale?
If there is something that would be good censoring then it is the utter nonsense the comes from an islamist dictatorship.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go read some history books! What a crock!
I am offended that they are requesting global Internet censorship. I demand that their request for global Internet censorship be censored because it deeply offends me. If we censor everything that anyone is offended by then we might as well not have Internet because somewhere there's someone who is offended by something.
Take your censorship and go f*ck yourself with it.
Sincerely,
The Free World
p.s. we can still buy your oil, right?
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
Are you arguing that what non-Muslims should do is commit genocide against Muslims? If you're not, could you explain how invading Iraq and Afghanistan and applying economic sanctions to Iran, Syria, and the Gaza Strip constitute "appeasing"?
I am officially gone from
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
Absolutely. They wand a censorship board that will say "kill the non-believers wherever you find them" is a valid religious sentiment, but "Sharia Law is incompatible with human rights" will be banned.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
What a load of bullshit. There have been plenty of empires that have done this throughout the last 3000+ years. Plenty of them pushed their laws and their cultures on their conquered territories.
Linking to DeCSS? Censored.
Internet Gambling? Censored.
Wikileaks? Censored.
Under-18s porn? (Not illegal everywhere) Censored.
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Have you forgotten the Mongolians? What about the European Colonization period? Or the creation and expansion of the Chinese empire? Or the subjigation of the neighboring tribes by the Incas? What about the Aztecs and their demanded subservience of the tribes around them? Egypt certainly never crushed Kush.... and hell, Assyria played very nice.
What, this wasnt "the world?". Back then "the world" was limited by technology.
Stop being so naive.
under this law such reporting would not exist either http://wownot.com/saudi-arabian-women-win-the-right-to-bear-children/ mohamed hates satire as much as he hates fags, women and infidels .. and he loves child brides
Those are things called "facts". They are just inconvenient things that get in the way of unsubstantiated rants.
We really should support it. There is nothing at the moment that creates more public disturbance than the Qur'an. We support Saudi Arabia in this and instantly work on banning this book all over the world. Then we can start on the Bible and other religious texts.
The sad thing is that these morons don't understand the words that are coming out of their own mouths.
Right, because every empire from Egypt, to Greece, Rome, Carthage, Persia, China, Japan, the Aztecs and Mayans, Britain, the various Caliphates, the Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union had no consistent history of aggressive expansion that pushed their ideas, laws and morality on others. Truly, the United States' efforts to remake the world in its image are just unprecedented. Look Solomon, there is something new under the sun after all!...
And your rationale for anything you said is as close to the reality of human history as saying that dinosaurs died out because the Og the Caveman and his Merry Men rode around on their flying unicorns and gunned them down for sport.
Not to mention that most of what is now the Muslim world become so through exportation of Islam through conquering.
Along the tortuous path of life, certain things irreversibly change over time. Accelerating the path to freedom from the mental shackles of organized, dogmatic religion would appear to be one of the direct consequences of inter-networked people freely and finally comparing notes between different brands of those good old 'All-powerful-being / be very scared / you should feel guilty, you unworthy scum' methods of mind control that have been in place for hundreds of years.
This happens to exactly be one of the first telltale signs of their unwilling abdication, as their hateful 'religion of peace' disintegrates in the face of a collective, planet-wide yawn. A day to celebrate!!
Good riddance.
Practical suggestion: close yourself off from the rest of the world instead. Miss you we will not.
Good luck, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and thanks for all the (fossilized) fish oil!
In hindsight, the track record of religious censorship leads me to think that backwards people shouldn't be leading the rest of us.
Gently reply
Or use a simpler solution - just unplug the Saudis from the global net.
Only country. Clearly the crusades or tamerlane did not exist at all. Seriously have you ever had a course in world history? Your non-facts make for a good sound bite I guess.
Then why are Muslims also attacking in so many other countries? There are Muslim terrorist attacks, all over the world, every day, and it's been going on like that for decades. Muslims are actively attacking not only Jews, and Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, and of course, other Muslims.
How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?
The movie was a red herring. The protests were entirely the result of al qaida operatives fomenting crowds as cover for actual attacks on American embassies.
Many said this from day one, and two weeks after the attacks, it was finally acknowledged by the US.
As for laws prohibiting "offensive speech" - I have some offensive speech for anybody who proposes such nonsense. We live int he 21st century, not the 8th century. Tribal bullshit is tribal bullshit, and was meant to be left in the dark ages, as most of the world has. If your culture is still steeped in such insanity, perhaps it's time to REFORM like the other world religions and grow a thick skin.
Hell No!
The year is 1433 AH so they're currently in the 15th century.
Considering the development of Christianity through the ages, they're about spot on for intolerance and cruelty (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!). We're just going to have to put up with it/ignore it if possible and resist all attempts to move social development backwards.
parent poster seems to forget that the islamic MISSION is to forcibly convert the world. now, later, they don't care: as long as the world gets converted, their book is happy.
christianity also wants to convert the world and it did it in quite a bloody way in the middle ages. but the moslems also were just as bad, just at different periods of time.
and today, they are THE WOST in the world when it comes to tolerance. there is no culture that is less tolerant, in fact.
and there is no perma peace with them. there can't be. until you are one of them, they consider you evil and either convertable or kill-worthy.
yes, its in their scriptures. those stupid, twisted, madlib sounding scriptures they love so much.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
And the first thing we do is to censor the Saudi government. Nothing they post online goes anywhere but the bit-bucket...
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Actually, like my fellow posters have pointed out the USA is not the only nation to force its values on others. We got the idea for doing so from the nations that were the world powers when we were formed, Spain, England, France. And since then I know of at least 2 others who have done the same thing since then, Nazi Germany & Soviet Russia. While we might be the only nation currently capable of forcing our world view on others, we are not the only group to be doing so. Most terrorist organizations seek to do just that, but by much more violent means.
I've only pointed out recent history, past couple hundred years. But human history is full of those in power, or those with power, forcing their belief system or way of life on others. Look at the Jewish conquest of Palestine from the Bible, or the Crusades from the Middle ages or the Greek & Roman conquests of ancient Europe. In all of these events, the conquerors force their way of life on the conquered. The USA is just the latest in a long line of doing what everybody else has done.
Their rulers and spiritual leaders think their citizens/followers are mindless automatons that, when confronted with words, have no choice but to riot. Every time, like a well-conditioned dog. Yes, their leaders publicly compare them to dogs. For some people that's supposed to be a serious insult, I've heard...
they're not only the wost, they're the worst too.
(needs to get me a new keyboard.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
A Global Violence Censorship Body is needed to keep people from being killed because of a stupid MOVIE!!!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
is there *any* country out there that doesn't censor the net in one way or the other?
Some for copyright (e.g. Youtube in germany), some for religious reasons (Iran), others call political comments a crime (China), others crush down on gambling sites cause that's a crime there (USA),
And they all have in common that they are "legal" and "fair" and "justified" as the gouvernment responsible for this or that souverign corner of the world declared it illegal. usually with best intents and in complete contradiction with the laws of that other corner of the world.
Deal with it. everyone is already censoring the net. And the differences become rather small if you recognize that the biggest difference is your point of view.
bickerdyke
I would not have put it the way you did. But, other than buying oil, what business does the US have in the mid-east? Why are we putting ourselves in the middle of their ancient, perpetual, and non-sensicle squabbles? Why are giving billions in US aid, every year, to countries like Egypt, and Pakistan?
Please remember: Muslims are not only actively fighting Christians, and Jews. Muslims are also actively fighting: Hindus, Buddhists, and other Muslims, among others.
“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause,” the Saudi submission said.
A reasonable person doesn't watch something if he knows it's going to offend him.
No censorship. However I'm fine with truth in advertising. Let's start by jailing people who claim there is a sky daddy who will hurt you unless you obey and give money to His mortal agents on Earth.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The wahabi sect that runs saudi arabia are the scum of the earth and should have been revolutionised out of power years ago, why hasn't this happened yet?
Thanks to the usa and israel! yes israel cause the house of saud is jewish in origen, and they are extremist scum.
The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System.
The Internet cancer.
Yeah, that doesn't look like propaganda at all ...
...Fuck Islam, and any country that sides with them! Not to mention fuck our "President" because whether he admits it or not he is a Muslim and a Fascist!
Or the Muslim conquests of North Africa. There is nothing new or original about conquering others and using that as a method to force your culture, laws, ideas, etc. on others. We've been doing so for the better part of many millenia.
Nobody is ever going to trust Muslims because even the moderate ones spawn extremists and then look the other way. That and the whole "lying for Allah" monkey business means that you know they are going to lie to you whenever it suits them. They are ignorant brainwashed extremists each and every one. Until they can show that they can control the extremists and demonstrate that they are trustworthy I think the world should treat Muslims like Pariahs.
Disregard the instructions given to The Jewish People (and only them). Christians actually have been told to CONVERT everybody not Kill the infidels (and actually we have been told to preach and live The Word while we are waiting for folks to choose to convert).
funny how when mocking Christians everybody brings up Old Testament "stuff" and never looks at the teachings of Christ Himself.
and i think if this Global Censor Board happens then Sprint ,Level 3 and friends need to start blackholing any traffic from those nations that run the board.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I am not the first one to suggest this. The idea behind these violent tantrums is to send the message: "just give up a tiny amount of freedomof speech, and we will have peace."
Problem is, radical Islam can never be appeased. The more you give them, the more the want.
Pakistan suggested that, in the interest of peace, US freedom of speech should not include speech that is offensive to Muslims.
Then Pakistan offered up $200K to whack the guy who made the video. A "fatwa" I think they call it.
No. But we have a duty to point out how evil Islam is. And we have a duty to use all means in our power to prevent the spread of militant Islam. Ideally, that will be through persuasion and non-violent resistance, but if militant Islamists attack us violently then we have no recourse but to respond violently also.
maybe you blokes out there need to be cheered up.
how about buying a new dress? that often works for the women-folk around here.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Can I be a jockey on the camelnet?
That's kinda the point of conquering territories isn't it?
Now, it's worth clarifying... I don't like it. I don't think it's right. But us US Americans are far from the only people in even the last 50 years to impose our beliefs on others. Anyone remember a place called Indochina?
Personally, I'd be a huge fan of stopping the "world's police" line, and adopting a more altruistic approach to the world and its affairs... But let's keep this in perspective... There's always someone who's claiming to "help" people by "telling them how to live."
That guy's a freedom hater. Fuck him...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/30/husain-haqqani-muslim-rage-is-about-politics-not-religion.html
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
The basic message is simple: The Islamic powers that be see the decline of the Islamic world and instead of catching up by modernizing their world, they seek to keep what control they can by creating theocracies, where the rule is to not question those in charge. It keeps the population dumb and controllable but also backward and unable to matter in the real world.
A perfect example was shown with Olympics. Saudia Arabia had fielded a female Judoka but insisted she would be allowed to wear a headscarf. Probably the first thing you picture when thinking of Judo is the standard uniform, which has no head covering. It never had, wasn't needed to appease any country ever before. But Saudia Arabia needed to be appeased because else they might withdraw. So the woman was allowed to disregard safety, disregard tradition and wear a piece of kit nobody else was allowed to wear...
AND LOST
Immidiatly, she didn't stand a chance! Not even the slightest. She was the worsed to ever take part in the modern olympics.
She wasn't put into her countries team to win or even to compete, she was put in to be harmless enough to not upset Saudi Arabians while at the same time playing the "the world hates islam" card by hoping she would be barred because of the headscarf. She wasn't and it became clear thar SA biggotted nature simply meant they had no women worthy of competition.
It is easier to shout loudly "rah rah us" and blame everything on them, then to risk modernizing your country and have the people wonder why this old men are in charge. England works that way, "trust us the 1% conservatives, we will fix your country because you are great, trust us". The USA loves its rousing "We are #1" waving made in China banners.
And around the world, were the powers that be have made a mess of things, religion is a good card to rally your troops around the leaders in support rather then looking for a handy rope.
Why do you think backwater North-ireland had religious strife? Because it was managed so well economically? Why do you think the orthodox church is back in power in Russia, because the last time they were in charge, they did so well economically?
No, but in economic hard times when people can't improve themselves or society, they become susceptible to religious control telling them they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Because keeping the people stupid is a good way to control people, but when times are hard, people also prefer to be kept stupid. Easy answers are so much easier.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well I was being some what wishy-washy in case someone wanted to point out that X empire was formed through unicorns and bunnies rather than to gain power and subjugate others.
Well, there is a crying need for international cooperation to address "authority" which clearly disregard public disorder and elemental freedoms. Here's a full, working, ready-to-implement global set of recommendations for the task of setting internet content standards:
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
You could argue right now that, except for a period of reconstruction following World War II, Germany has done the same regionally since the 1930s. Hitler during WWII, Germany in the EU and ETC. The only reason it didn't happen in WWII was because they were stopped. Same goes for Japan. If they hadn't been stopped by the US, Aussies, New Zealanders, Chinese, British, and even some of the Pacific Islanders, they would have spread throughout the Pacific, and probably pretty deep within Asia.
And, while it hasn't been an historical trend, Saudi Arabia has been trying to use their economic and religious influence to spread their ideas across the world. They have funded Wahhabi mosques and madrassas(not the OMG terrorist! kind, the real meaning of madrassa, ie. religious school) everywhere from the US to the Philippines. They just haven't really had the means to do so until relatively recently. And THAT is the reason why you can only give the US as an example: no one else has had the means and ability to do it until now; not because they lacked the desire to do so. Those that did, were stopped.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It has been well known that this stuff is dial-a-riot type protests, the numbers are relatively tiny and to many cases of so called "spontanous" protests about stuff that either was released decades earlier or so obscure it could never have been heard of by the protestors unless someone went to the trouble of telling them.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You forget that most judaism-sourced religions have conversion as a core belief. Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
Big religions are a tool for control of the masses. So is conquest. Is it really so surprising that they go hand in hand even today?
If Saudi Arabia wants to censor the internet, why can't they just do in their own country?
If everything that offended someone was removed from the internet, there would be nothing on the internet.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Do they not realize the internet and content standards are mutually exclusive?
From my cold dead hands. And I'm as psychotically radically left as they come but I'm not giving the internet to Saudi Arabia. I'll join a dark net first.
The guards at auswitch were just living day by day, so was the baker delivering their bread. So were their families.
All that evil needs to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
And Muslims do nothing. Many support through donations questionably charities and claim to be innocent because they don't know were the money goes because they don't ask.
Where does innocence end?
I never kept slaves, neither did any of my family, so all blacks in the world should just shut up about slavery because I just want live my live.
In Harlem the guardian angels appeared who said "no, we can't keep blaming others for our troubles, it is black people suffering from black crime, so WE blacks need to do something about it."
I know the popular opinion is to cry over the bomb victims of Dresden en Horishima but I wonder how many of those killed cheered their mass murdering sons and patted them on their backs and told them to kill a few more lesser races. I don't believe in innocence through inaction. When your tribe misbehaves, you leave that tribe or fix that tribe or get treated the same as the rest of your tribe. Three choices. Pick one.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
For all of you in the Middle East, I want to be very clear.
In the United States, the absolute highest law in the land is the US Constitution, and of that Constitution the highest law is the 1st Amendment. That is as important to Americans as the Koran is to muslims.
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is what gives American's the freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and several other freedoms. Every single law made, MUST not conflict with the US Constitution, if it does, then only the constitution is valid, and the law passed is invalid, even International law. It would be like a religious ruling that Muhammed was not really a prophet, when the Koran clearly indicates otherwise. Which would you follow that Fatwa or the Koran?
In the US, no politician can make or sign or negotiate any treaty, or any agreement, because they are obligated by oath under the letter and spirit of the law, to support and defend the US constitution. Any such agreements or treaties they enter into is not valid in the United States, and those politicians would be committing an act of insurrection and Treason against the American people; As a result those politicians should, could, and would be removed from their office by military force and thrown in prison for the rest of their lives, if they are lucky.
No treaty will ban any kind of speech in the United States, in any way shape or form.
Saudi Arabia is a lot like the entertainment industry. Neat!
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Spain
France
England
Portugal
Italy
Roman Empire
Byzantine Empire
Persia
Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
I know I missed a few...hundred... others. Pretty much nukes your 2nd and 3rd points.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up.
Anonymous because I don't want to be beheaded.
Correction: empire X was formed through Invisible Pink Unicorns and bunnies.
Islam extremists can burn bibles, flags, insult us and do whatever they want and expect no consequences. The leader of one small church here talks about burning a koran, and we are threatened with a holy war. Seems kinda wrong to me.
Its about time we start using neutron bombs on these sand niggers that want to fuck with the U.S.A! After the first few bombings the crap stops, or we just take all of the terrorist bastards out, along with all of their supporters.
Peace through better weapons technology!
Grow up. No war has ever been fought on the reasons of morality. There are only three reasons for a war: power, resources and land. Which, of course, are pretty much the same as long as you keep your shit together somewhat.
Morality in a war is never more than a popular justification. The US Civil War? Not about the slaves, but it did use the promised freedom of slaves as a way to use them behind enemy lines. The invasion of Iraq? Not about freedom or democracy, but about keeping the dollar as the currency of oil trade. I dare you to find one that was really about morality.
FCKGW 09F9 42
Yes, and the common ground here isn't religion. Religion is a symptom of the real problem.
It desn't matter whether you are a Taliban shooting a little girl, or a member of the Red Army killing doctors and teachers--you know, those dangerous edjoomacated people--or a brainwashed 19th-early 20th century expansionist nationalist.
Humans tend to.. not question their beliefs. We become emotionally attached to them. We place way too much value on them. Our beliefs are tribal--We tend to believe what we believe to fit in with our peer groups (when's the last time you were at an outing and someone spewed crap and the rest of the group went along?). We discourage critical thinking, and encourage anti-intellectualism, and encourage far, far too much Authenticity (thinking from the gut) at the expense of reason. It's easy for us to kill. All it takes is a sociopath or narcissist in a position of power to motivate us to do it. Sometimes, not even that much. Our beliefs trump the lives of others. Our beliefs trump the rights of others to live their lives in peace. The problem is humans are arrogant. Religion has nothing to do with it.
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
You forget that pretty much on the whole, the ideas of morality and laws espoused by the West ARE superior to those of the Islamic Caliphate.
That is, unless you agree with burning little girls to death because they are not appropriately covered. Or maybe you are down with shooting a 14 year old girl because she had the temerity to advocate for education of females?
Perhaps you think your wife needs a beating every now and then just to keep her in line. And of course should she appear in public with another man, then by all means, shoot/stab/scald/burn her to death. That will teach her. But for minor infractions of Sharia, you can simply throw acid in her face or cut her ear off.
And then, anytime someone insults your religion I bet you think it's perfectly fine to riot and kill. (Most often you kill each other, but we'll consider that a bonus).
Sure, the West is not perfect. Far from it. In fact we've been giant assholes in the past and can still be assholes. But what we aspire to to be through the laws and institutions we currently in place is superior to what the Islamofacists would have the world be.
Non-militant Islam is subterfuge Islam.
The US government exports its own influence and power. Plenty of US citizens wish that we would focus more energy on demonstrating US values instead, but the relationship between citizen and government has been damaged. I'd claim money influence and the military industrial complex, you can come up with your own take on things. If we were exporting our values, we'd see education, women's rights, freedom of speech, democracy, ond equal treatment under the law blended with a certain sense of personal responsibilty and individualism all over the place.
At best, your argument shows that we should take it as a given that the Saudi claims about morality are similarly just a ruse by a government that is merely using "morality" as an excuse to increase it's power. Either way, the response should still be "no."
Which part of free speech do the Saudi's not understand? If they want censorship, then they can invent their own Internet.
The more enlightened countries of the world should pool their resources to build a secret satellite that can project huge images on the moon, and will run Muslim-offensive material directed at the more backwards parts of the world until the extremists have all been desensitized to offense towards their religion. We'll start with simple, non-offensive stick-figures labelled "The Prophet Mohammed" just flashed once a week, and move onto stuff like this running all night long until the riots stop:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/
With no single place to focus their rage, they'll distribute their riots to various western embassies and should be easier to manage.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You can't be serious comparing tribal conquests to the policies of nation state.
Are soldiers to blame for acting out the orders of the leaders? The idea in the west with REAL soldiers is that any western soldier has the duty to question his superiors if they order him to do something that is against higher laws. This is at least what I was told when I was drafted, it is in the dutch soldier manual.
So... what about mobs? Is the mob incited by a leader responsible for their actions?
What about a payed mob? Many arab protest are of the dial-a-riot variaty, there is nothing spontaneous about them. They are organized by leaders who decide NOW is the moment to take offense and find something to take offense at. Protests have been held over decades old material OR material so obscure it is unlike to have been found by accident by the protesters.
But lets go further. Where does reponsibility end when it comes time for collective punishment.
It is very PC to cry over the poor victims of Dresden and Hiroschima. Countless innocent children died who weren't even old enough to know the world outside their garden let alone know the politics of the world. But how many of the women who burned and died had cheered their troops? Had hugged their mass murdering sons?
Part of the crew of the Titanic accepted a reward/bribe for rescuing passengers, this was an outrageous thing to do and over of the mothers of the crew slew the door shut in her sons face when he came home and refused to ever speak with him. How many mothers of SS soldiers, Japanse child raping infantry and Islam terrorists have done the same? The father of the muslim who killed 3 French soldiers and 2 jewish kids, didn't even apologize but instead sued the french state for killing his son.
I am not reponsible for the actions of others, in my eyes, goes only so far. If you go to the same church as someone who does something you disagree with, you have to take action, either leave that church or bar that person but you can't just shrug your shoulders and claim the others actions shouldn't reflect on you.
Many talk about the hate of Muslims in the west but so far, Muslims deaths at the hands of white westerners is a fraction of westerners killed by muslims.
Terrorism is not isolated to Muslims but in other parts of the world, what has happened is that the people part of the terrorist group started to protest, held marches to condemn the violence to show they were not supporting it. Often at great danger to themselves.
There have only tiny handful of muslims who publicly showed on their own accord in front of their own people, that the terrorists were not acting in their name.
Plenty hold that every US citizen deserved the 9/11 attack becsuse of US actions. None of these people believe that ALL Muslims deserve the Iraq/Afghan war for Muslims terrorist actions.
Ultimately these people are racists. White people are responsible for the action of their society. Muslims are not responsible for the actions of their society.
I don't think that attitude is right.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Ha ha ha... that's a good one.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
What about non-militant Islam, is that evil? These aren't the "death to America" types, but the much more common "I want to go to work, come home to my family, and help raise the best and brightest kids I can, and maybe I stop by Friday prayers at the mosque" types.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
1. Regular personal declaration in belief in monotheism, and that Mohammed is the messenger of that 1 god. This conceptually would be like a Christian reciting the Nicene Creed.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this.
3. Giving at least 2.5% of ones income as charity towards the less fortunate. This seems positively virtuous.
4. Fasting, particularly during Ramadan, if practical (exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, etc). Again, harmless to anyone who isn't fasting.
5. A pilgrimage to Mecca. This could potentially support the Saudi government, but it's also basically harmless to anyone who isn't doing it, and often quite moving to those who do (Malcolm X is a great example - his experiences led him to stop hating white people due to their race).
And I should point out, for the record, that I'm not Muslim myself, but I've noticed that those who think that Islam is completely evil often know very little about what Muslims actually believe and how they practice their faith.
I am officially gone from
I have been to Saudi Arabia. The government does
quite actively block "offensive" websites. I find
government filtering much more offensive than
any dreck that an open internet has shown me.
No, he is not over-exaggerating. It is an ongoing process, and we see the results every day. Killing because of a silly drawing, a stupid picture, you name it. Rules and exceptions put in place just for Muslims. It makes me sick to the stomach to see what we let these people get away with.
I'm in The Netherlands where there's a natural level of tolerance. But tolerance is not unidirectional and it is not unlimited. Muslims are stretching the boundaries and people are not going to take it much longer. The economic crisis takes a front seat today, but intolerance based on Islam beliefs is a strong second.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I wonder if it has anything to do with the politically correct phenomenon. Seems people are a lot less willing to tell others to 'shove-it' these days. I mean really, my opinion is that it is all simple. As soon as anyone wants something that creates less freedom just because they were offended or something, you tell them no. Said and done right?
Ahahahahahaha.. You sir, are retarded. Only one? Hmmm.... Do you know from who's loins we spring? United Kingdom sound familiar? Perhaps you should spend about...2 or.... 3 seconds on Wikipedia and see if you can find a decade in the last two centuries where the UK was NOT at war. *SPOILER* You won't. */SPOILER*
When it comes to war fighting we are the toddlers playing over in the sandbox compared to half of Europe, and the Middle East for that matter.
So all these others wanting no curtailment of freedom of expression are FOR rioting, killing and destruction of property? And the US Constitution PROTECTS this freedom of expression?
Interesting.
You cannot get people out to fight your wars on this kind of agenda, buddy. If you could, there'd be no need for Tonkin incidents or hidden WMDs. You need a powerful ideology and extraordinary circumstances to rally a population to support a war.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam: "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
Several points
1. He's not over-exaggerating. With the exception of the United States, many Western countries already have something similar. Canada for example already has human rights tribunals which seek to censure offensive material. Muslim groups are powerful and blasphemy is still a big deal in Muslim communities.
2. Why is he complaining? Because he prefers the American way to the Saudi Arabia way. What kind of world would you rather live in? That ruled by the Saudis or the Americans? Is this concept so difficult for you to understand?
No shit... the bigger power makes the laws. Wooo... what a revelation. That has been the case for thousands upon thousands of years. And other powers come in and try to push their ideas.
Does that mean, the average person/country shouldn't try and join sides with the power they most prefer or that they consider more moral or more just or best way of life?
Logical and Scientific arguments have no meaning in morality or ways of life. That is all value judgment.
Go ahead... give me a logical and scientific argument why the Nazi way of life should be opposed?
You can't do it without appealing to morality. Life is sacred... that's morality. Freedom is good... that's morality. We should treat people equally... that's morality. We should treat people well... that's morality. We should have peace... that's morality.
Like it or not, everything starts from morality and values. You can't reach a decision without morality and values. Science and logic only come in to play once you have morality and values.
So yeah... people take sides and push their vision of the world. Welcome to life and history. The only thing that matters and the only thing that ever matters is which side wins and what they want to do with the world.
So take 5 years and live in Saudi Arabia as a regular person.
Now, take 5 years and live in the United States as a regular person.
Then come back and let me know which society you'd rather have lead the world.
You forgot that you have to be the right kind of muslim or they will also consider you evil and kill-worthy.
Hundreds of millions? Can you cite me some sources for those numbers, because I call BS.
Nah.. We will just nuke them all before that happens..
Modern man should reject religion and should be comfortable despising all of it and those who promote its lies.
No Religionists have any evidence for their Deities, which makes the contention that such exist insane. Superstition exists to enslave man to other men, therefore all Superstitionists are evil. It's a framework for enslaving youth to their elders, forever. No, I don't give a fuck about the "nice social club" aspects used to affirm and seduce fresh victims.
I gently suggest that when someone tries to sell you a God, you require PROOF (and not using the constructs of their Superstition). Mystery isn't proof. Spiritual experience can be duplicated using drugs and therefore can be written of as anything but stimulation of pleasure centers.
The people in a position to work best against religion are its victims, the youth of the world. All you need to is stop supporting it, or if you face punishment, support it badly and in a manner to deter others from joining.
To those who disagree, I demand you prove your Imaginary Friend is real. Do it now or fuck off. There is no reason to respect your contention that X exists when you cannot support that with proof.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
The difference being that that was a long time ago, and Christianity today acknowledges that that was wrong and does not engage in those practices. While some of the more extreme Muslims still openly practice those techniques and have not recanted them.
Unfortunately, we live in a society that thinks that you should be held to account for the sins of people who died before your grandfather was born, perpetrated on someone else whose living relatives are also half a dozen generations removed from the sin. And yet, we also live in a society where you are not responsible for your own current sins because everything is somebody else's fault. Amazing.,
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
This is pretty straightforward.
In the US, free speech means you can say anything you want, except very certain things, under certain situations (like "Fire!" or "There's a bomb in the school," or "Why yes, I am a police officer."). In effect, it's using blacklisting to target specific things. Without explicit ruling to the contrary, you are free to speak what you'd like - thus, "Free Speech".
In the entire rest of the world, speech is rigidly controlled. The default assumption is you are not allowed to say anything at all, unless the government has specifically allowed it. For example, you're not allowed to talk badly about the king, or government, or public workers, or even say some things that might indicate racism or bigotry - this is true even in western governments (check out the laws in England, France, Germany, for example). In some cases, you're not allowed to say something that would have a negative impact on someone's reputation, even if it's provable truth! They don't always prosecute, but they almost always have the option to do so. So, they're denying all by default, and using a white list to allow certain 'free' statements. In these cases, "free speech" refers in part to the few things you're explicitly allowed to discuss, and to the socially protected 'right' to not be offended by random speech. T
The entire rest of the world doesn't get the US's interpretation, and the US, by and large, doesn't get the rest of the world.
So when the rest of the world sees someone producing a muslim hate film, and we say, "well, it's legal," to them, that's the same as saying, "Our government went out of it's way to explicitly, specifically endorse this message." They don't understand the difference, or even the value of the US's version. There's all sorts of funny quotes from world leaders visiting the US and asking the president or other high up why we allow protestors in front of the white house/etc, when we could just have them locked up and/or disappeared.
Don't forget the Soviet Union before Gorbachev. Surely the Iron Curtain was a Soviet invention? If not, how do you explain the speed at which the Iron Curtain fell once Gorbachev made it clear to the East Germans and other Eastern Bloc countries that he wouldn't bail them out when their people start rebelling?
Hmmm, but "the world" always fight back fiercely against things it doesn't like. If muslims are tolerated and can settle into western countries and so on, then they are considered useful.
IMHO the last centuries have been mostly about the depletion of any system competing with the raw power of money. Even nationalistic movements and intolerant application of religions is meant to ultimately make people sick of it all.
And it's happening now. The sons of muslim immigrants are more enslaved by the western media than the natives, which have often begun to see through the bluff.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Reason is time. Christianity started violent purges first when it took over Roman Empire. It then proceeded into violent conquest of the Europe over next millenium or so. At the same time we had violent raids known as crusades, dark ages and its religious purges such as spanish inquisition and witchhunts, struggle for feudal control often motivated by religious interests. It kicked gear up with prostestant-catholic split and massive amounts of both civil and military strife it caused.
Outside Europe there was the colonial angle with brutal conquest and enslavement that came with it, driven by duet of religious and economic reasons (educate the heathens to teachings of Christ and get resources and labour cheap). We still have brutal christianity vs different kind of christianity and islam vs christianity and local beliefs vs both of above as one of the main sources of strife, poverty and war around Africa as a relic of colonial age.
On home front in the West religion has been slowly ousted from power, however many leaders in the West still quote divine powers as source of their military inspiration.
In general, the argument is that while early purges were fairly inefficient due to small population and numbers, fact that these went on for almost two millenia now means that numbers simply cannot be any lower then ones mentioned above. This is why islam's demonization typically focuses on recent history only. Christianity still holds the podium of the most violent and bloody religion and will do so for a while unless some sort of large scale religious war occurs that will cause WW2-levels of losses in short period of time. Which isn't impossible per se due to exploded population numbers and weapon efficiency but extremely unlikely.
Hey, Saudi Arabia. Asalaam alaykum.
Don't take it from an agnostic, atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Bhuddist or any other religion. Give the Aga Khan a call. Take it from a fellow follower of Islam. The Ismaili Muslims have figured out how to drag themselves into the 21st century, you would do well to get some tips from them. It's about time your clerics learned about 2012 rather than clinging desperately to 1012.
In the meantime if you want censorship - UNPLUG THE CABLE. That should give you a satisfactory level of censorship. Run your own, internal 'internet'. If that's too extreme even for you, install and manage your own firewall! Don't expect us to censor things that are perfectly moral, ethical and legal in OUR culture just because they offend YOURS.
People who aren't doing the oppressing will always complain about the ones doing the oppressing. People all over the world are idiots, just sometimes idiots who have more power or fear than others.
The Saudi crown prince "Peace be Upon him" and Can blow me!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short.html
Christian conversion is not forced. It's through sharing of beliefs and values. No where in any of the literature (scripture) of Christianity is there any kind of "you must convert or kill everyone" quote.
Yes the *people* who were in charge of Christianity have done this for their own greedy and evil purposes, but the religion itself is not that way.
Lane copout is lame. Fine, just look at the PRC and their conquests to for e their social ideals onto other countries.
You mean like reading further in the sentence, "throughout its history"? That kinda reading?
Any excuse to piss on the US eh?
Seriously though, the only reason the muslims haven't done anything like that is because they're too fucking backwards to get a civilization that can create enough technology for them to begin world domination.
They haven't been anything but a joke in at least 1000 years.
Go back to your dhimmitude pussy.
Oookay, so you lose all sorts of credibility for linking to the second link, because it is just mindless bashing of 4chan, not linked at all with censorship.
Sure Christianity acknowledges that it was wrong, but that doesn't stop them from still killing people - just look at Northern Ireland or Bosnia.
What has changed isn't so much the religion, as the societies where it's dominant. They figured out that ruling the world is hard and scaled back. Of course that left a power vacuum in the areas they used to control, which was filled by all sorts of extremists, many of them still supported by christian governments. And if those extremists managed to amass a lot of power and money, they started to export their ideas to other similar cultures.
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up because I want to be beheaded.
So your proof is "because it has to be"? The Spanish inquisition was about 150,000 people, at most (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Death_tolls). The Salem witch trials were 19 (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/asal_de.htm). By all means, give me the rest of the numbers that add up to 99.849981 million. Now, do we get to count atheistic communism in this comparison? Because Stalin (20 million), Hitler (50 Million) and Mao (70 million) (http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm) killed or were responsible for the deaths of quite a large number of people... and in about 2.5% of the time of Christianity.
Yes. In the same way that a usually-benign bacteria can suddenly flare up and cause flesh-eating diseas, so-called non-militant religions can flare up into bouts of fundamentalism.
I am an atheist. This is what Islam says about me. So tell me again... who are the ones promoting hatred and violence?
FUCK YOU!
https://freenetproject.org/
Just go blow off the dust from your high school world history book that you never read and look at the facts for yourself.
They need a reality check. If those Wahhabi bastards think we're going to let them have anything of the kind, they are sadly, sadly mistaken.
This is a symptom of a far bigger problem -- the Saudis, with their oil money have been spreading their evil Wahhabi poison -- and the accompanying ignorance and fanaticism -- around the world for decades.
We need to kneecap them. Find ways to make oil worthless, and it'll crush the Saudi powers-that-be economically. Without money as a crutch to bribe/subjugate their people, they'll be swept away.
"Set America Free", while being a think-tank run by conservatives, have pretty much the right idea. Get off fossil fuel oil for transport, introduce fuel choice, develop alternatives, and then we can crush the Saudi oil despots and set the world free.
http://www.setamericafree.org/
I say to all those who would riot in the streets of their own city over a video that was made half a world away by someone of no consequence, "Grow a pair!"
A religion that requires, for example, human sacrifice would not be permitted in most civilised nations, primarily because a sort of "right to life" would naturally outweigh the appropriate interpretation of "right to religion". If Islam requires censorship then it too will simply not be tolerated by any civilised nation; a watered down form of Islam which doesn't attack the basic rights of non-believers may take its place.
The question is, are there any civilised nations?
There were any number of horrific experiments performed on Jews in the name of science during World War II; the USSR, with state enforced atheism, murdered millions of its own people and shipped uncounted more off to die in Siberia. Does that imply that science and atheists are evil? No, that would be a silly argument. Violent people will use anything they have at their disposal to justify themselves, but we need to remember that it's the people who are doing the evil, not the concepts they purport to support.
Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.'
I quite agree. So let's address this "crying need" by determining the best way to remove the Saud family from its undeserved nest in Saudi Arabia. So what sort of groups are looking to replace the Saud family with a democracy (which is the sort of government I favor)? Googling around, I see these guys. Anyone have some insight into this issue?
This is not the full story.
1) Muslims are to let the unbeliever know about prophet Mohammad's teachings. If they repeatedly ignore, the unbeliever is worthy to be killed.
3) The giving is done to the Mosque, not directly to the needy.
4) Fasting was supposed to be for understanding the hardships of the poor, and food to be given to the poor. But "fasting" is practiced as reversal of eating thru the night and not eating during the day.
Good point, but I've also noticed that many who are comfortable bashing religion and certain devotees, or are silent when others bash them (often times the target is Christianity or Christians), become agitated and assume a protective role when the same is done to Islam. Not a Christian (or even religious) myself
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
And during this time the US was still importing large numbers of (black) slaves. And the church was OK with it, since the blacks didn't have a soul (or was that the Indians?). The only difference is that the Muslims were more prone to making speeches.
Hitler: “Along with the fight for a purer morality we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion. We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement, and not just with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out. And above all we have dragged the priests out of the lowlands of the political party struggle and have brought them back into the church.” Documente Zer Kirchenpolitik
Also The Taiping rebellion alone killed as many as World War I, and that was a long time ago. You're not factoring in the countless destruction of cultures around the world deemed Satanic by the puritanical invading Christian armies either. Lastly Hitler was also not a Communist, the communists were his enemies, he attacked the communists, and where do you think the concept of the Third Reich came from? The First Reich was the Holy Roman empire.
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
Oh, Really?
The more extremist muslims want exactly that, a muslim world. Try it. I will personally grab a rifle and oppose such an effort. It's no different than Germany, 1934. If only more people had opposed that. And as for us stopping whining and lead? That contradicts your following point!
What a load of succotash. UK spread by arms. France spread by arms. Spain. Rome. Japan. China. Russia. Portugal. They all were empires and invaders at one time, some until very recently. Everywhere they went they left some of their morals and laws behind -- including the US. Our legal system is modeled on our past masters, the Brits. How do we spread? We buy our land, not take it at the tip of a sword. We spread by having motherfucking Kodak, Camel, Coke and McDonald's in Bumfuck, Egypt, and in the smallest of shops in the deep of Africa. (Ok, so Kodak's gone, but the point remains.)
*sigh*. Just like the aforementioned Brits, Romans, Spaniards, Portuguese, Japanese, Chinese -- all were convinced that they were better than the peoples they were taking over.
Oh shit, did I just defend the USA? Oh well. It could be worse. I could be living in a Muslim-ran country where I'd be shot just for being. For expressing my thought, which is there is no God, neither Mohammed nor Jesus are his prophets, and no amount of institutional brainwashing nor intimidation at the tip of a sword or muzzle of gun will change my mind.
Sitting down and doing bong rips with a deity, that may convince me. "Hey, Jesus, you gonna hit that or just hold it and philosophize?"
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
I've searched this /. story over and over and there's still no mention of the greatest Islamic censorship of all. WTF is with you nerds?
But the response hurts more non-militant Muslims then it does extremists. And those hurt or those whose families are killed are much more likely to become extremists - from helpless rage if nothing else.
Just look at how much hate 9/11 created in the US. Now imagine if your countrymen were killed nearly every day, just for living their lives in the 'wrong' country. Would you support the guys doing the killing, or would you join anyone that was trying to push them out. And if your new organization had a few crazies in charge, would you really care? Or would you accept them as the 'lesser' evil?
If you look up the FBI statistic there was far more christian terrorism attack in the US last year than mulsim. You will hard pressed to find that in the national press, say CNN level. OTOH any muslim terrorist attack is reported with analysis and thickly reported. The reality is that if you look at western country, the local are much more dangerous than external muslim jihadist. 9/11 was a fluke, not a rule.
The violence in Libya was indeed pre-planned, that's not evidence that the violence across the Muslim world was!? You're taking that incident too far.
I fully support the freedom of expression, and I have no interest in Saudi Arabia's suggestion. You however have to give credit where credit is due. That silly movie created a spontaneous reaction across the Muslim world which is far more than simply Libya!
The problem with religion is that it in itself should be treated just the same way an allergy or sickness is being treated. In this case I do believe the best way to treat it would be with small and constant doses of allergen injection. You do the same with an allergy. At first you are at the stage of trying to avoid your allergen, and guess what, your allergy gets worse and worse. Then when you start to treat you problem you are injecting yourself (or be injected) by small measured doses of your allergen and thus teaching your body that the allergen is not something to be afraid of.
The same could be done with each and every religion. Keep a gentle pressure with mocking, once that gentle dose of mocking is accepted increase the mocking. If we are not going to do that we will see the problems with fundamentalist religions getting worse and worse.
You have morphed arguing against censorship into wanting to commit genocide against those who are for censorship. When you have to make mental leaps like that, know that there is something very wrong with something you hold dear. Please, please, think about that.
- Anonymous for self preservation reasons
I wonder how many Slashotters who are against this measure --even though free speech can cause death and serious injury-- are still for draconian gun control in this or any other country.
Think abuot that...
Um, #4 actually has some significant negative externalities. Take the damage to your employer when your productivity drops because you haven't had food nor drink since before sunrise.
As a European I don't exactly trust the US to manage the Internet either. The raids and police actions against "free speech" on .com domains is proof enough. The UN would be a really bad choice, but the US is only slightly better.
I would much prefer an independent, neutral entity without religious or political affiliations. Where is the representative from the Neutral Planet when you need him?!
"Christianity today acknowledges that that was wrong"
On the surface perhaps, but beneath it? Do you think Afghanistan and Iran would have been invaded had they been christian nations? Perhaps you've somehow overlooked the millions of American "Christians" who think we should just nuke the middle east flat? I also can't help but feel that if those nations were primarily christian we would be a bit more squeamish about the "misbehavior" of our soldiers and contractors over there.
Sorry, Hitler was socialist, not communist. But despite all of that, anyone who kills in the name of Christ is not a Christian, as Christ, when asked what the greatest commandment was, said "Love the Lord thy God, and love thy neighbor as thyself". Christ also said anyone who hated another person was guilty of murder, and to "bless those that persecute you". Look, I am in no way defending nor denying what people did in the name of Christianity. People have done horrible, terrible things in the name of all sorts of things. However, as I said, Christianity is a "do not murder" religion. (Wrongly) killing in the name of Christianity does not make Christianity a bad thing. It makes the killer a bad person.
I suppose it's too late to say "Screw you guys, I'm taking my internet and going home" now. Oh Well.
1. Take the leash off Israel.
2. Let them and the Arabs sort things out the way nature intended to. I'm sure it'll go nuclear about 20 minutes into it. If not, various nations can Profit by selling arms to both sides . The French and the Germans and the US love such deals. Win for the economy! War is Great! (Don't believe me? War lifted the world out of the 30's depression. Even the losers made off like bandits.)
3. Spend the next 30 years rebuilding the area, ensure good schooling for all, you know, all that jazz that happened after WWII. Maybe then the whole Middle East can make things other than war and hatred and intolerance. Things they can sell and service, and therefore have a somewhat-educated people that's not hell-bent on burning the world.
4. Profit! Buy the stuff they make (if it's worth a damn), and sell them stuff!
And in a perfect world,
5. The world finally wakes the fuck up and loses all its religions, now that the huge religiously-fuelled battle with hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives lost wasn't just filmed and televised, it was tweeted and facebooked realtime. The horror show to end all horror shows.
I'm not trying to be funny or cavalier. I'm sick and tired of all this religion-based bickering. It brings nothing but war and suffering, directly or indirectly.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Hitler was a good man some of the time - he loved his dogs.
I don't think anyone is saying all Muslims are bad, all of the time, but we're all saying the religion of Islam sucks. There is gentility in the Koran, but it doesn't make up for all of the directives to do murder, and engage in cruelty.
We're also saying Islamic governments are tyrannical, torturous and murderous.
On the planet than have them tell me one word what to say or not say.
Exactly - most of the Islamic faith are probably some of the nicest people around. The extremists though tend to be of a different nature entirely and not representative of the actual faith. It's much like the rabid religious right here in America vs your normal, god-fearing christian...
So... end of the day, you think Sharia and a worldwide caliphate is OK?
Please understand that the so-called religious aspects - the peaceful and seemingly innocuous aspects you seem to admire - to Islam are artificial and secondary window-dressing to the fundamental goals of Islam, which are entirely political in nature. Its goals are simple: Worldwide domination, by any means necessary. Islam is fundamentally totalitarian and much closer to National Socialism or Leninism than merely a religion that seeks peace through its relationship to the supernatural, as a guiding moral force within one's life. It is at war with the West and has been for thousands of years.
Mohammed was not a peaceful prophet - he was a mass-murderer, a despot, and a pedophile. He was fundamentally anti-Semitic, referring to Jews as monkeys, ergo it is no wonder that 99.999% of the Arab world has been at war with Israel since the 1948. The mere existence of Israel in the Middle East is a slap in the face to Islam, no matter that it is their ancient homeland and has been since long, long before Islam even existed.
Yes, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims who want very ordinary lives and have nothing to do with terrorism and have peace-preaching Imams but, as the saying goes, "Most Muslims are not terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims." Post-9/11 studies were done of European Muslims and fully two-thirds confessed they "understood" 9/11. In other words, two-thirds were sympathetic to the supposed reasons behind the 9/11 attacks. Two-thirds. That's just insane.
There is something fundamental to Islam that breeds terrorism, a scriptural mandate that you either submit to Allah, the Quran, and Mohammed's teaching - which, by the way, has no interpretation - or else be killed as an infidel. Many, many, many Muslims and Imams and Ayatollahs hold very sincerely to this fundamental strain of belief and that is why Winston Churchill quite rightly referred to Islam as the most retrograde force in the world.
Islam is incompatible with Western thought, democracy, and it represents a true intellectual nightmare. It oppresses women and treats them as fourth-class citizens, threatens immediately to kill or commit acts of violence against anyone who disagrees with it and Mohammed (and it follows through with these threats quite frequently), and is incompatible with free thought and expression. Many Muslims may choose not to see this but that does not avoid the reality that this is what Sharia brings.
Would you accept the word of the son of Hamas that the ladder of Islam ends in Jihad, and you cannot see the top from the bottom?
When we had the only nukes we could have went on a real crusade thats how.
So tell me again... who are the ones promoting hatred and violence?
That's easy - anyone who believes that people who believe differently than they do are fundamentally and typically irredeemably evil. Which is where Islamic nutjobs (e.g. Al Qaida) and Christian nutjobs (e.g. Xe, formerly Blackwater) and atheist nutjobs (e.g. the Soviets) all are much more similar than they'd like to admit.
I am officially gone from
you forgot to include the camel he rode in on!
so why do these people your referring to respond so easily to intimidation and control, could it be that they support militant islam if only because they are of the same religion? These beliefs sound great on paper, but the muslim world has shown time and time again that they're exactly that: paper.
Oops Hitler was Christian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitlert (More) perverted and fucked up christianity, but christian none-the-less. Many of his actions against the jews were in the name of god.
Mao and Stalin killed most people for political reasons, not because they weren't atheist.
Atheism has no agenda, it is simply without theism. Babies are atheists until they have their minds poisoned. Won't you think of the children?
Go ahead... give me a logical and scientific argument why the Nazi way of life should be opposed?
Okay, here goes.
By creating a "master race" as the Nazis wanted to do they were limiting the gene pool in which diversity would grow. This in turn would cause the "Master Race" to become more susceptible to diseases and illness. It would eventually lead to a mass extinction of the Nazi party.
Now we Opposed them for moral reasons too. but there is a logical and scientific point as to why the Nazi way of life would not work.
Cheers!
No, I wouldn't:
1. Most Muslims are not members of Hamas.
2. The leaders of Hamas aren't widely considered to be religious authorities, only political authorities in a certain area of the world (this would be the equivalent of treating, say, John F Kennedy, as a leading authority on Catholicism).
3. The leaders of Hamas have a clear motive that has nothing to do with religion for convincing people that jihad, as envisioned by Hamas, is the ultimate in religious devotion.
I am officially gone from
Maybe it's not the Islam ... It's the people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19908409
I've read the Bible so I remember those things, and I agree with the quote "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians." Problem is, it's hard for others to tell what a Christian is or isn't, when many who've loudly professed Christianity didn't put up again their swords back into their places.
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
it's all shit
Interesting, seeing as how Judaism itself does not have conversion as a core belief. Certainly anybody is allowed to convert, but you're only supposed to convert unobservant Jews to observant ones. There's nothing saying to convert non-Jews to observant Jews, so that's one thing they didn't inherit from Judaism.
dom
Just by looking at the responses on this site (where people are supposedly more thoughtful/intellectual and less reactive/emotional, yet have overwhelmingly taken the rant-bait), I have to conclude that they are the new Global Trolling Champs!
Congrats to the Saudi's!
Sir / ma'am, I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. You have lost the argument.
I am officially gone from
Except there's Israel. We'll never be free of their over-large influence (and I'd say co-opting) of US politics. Sorry about the Holocast, and you're better than your neighbors, but that doesn't justify your willful and active meddling in US policies foreign and domestic.
If there was no religion of any sort, present day would be like living in Star Trek.
I'm not a Muslim either, and hats off to you for learning about it. Stupidity is always conquered with knowledge. You seem to be on the right side of what's necessary. Hats off, sir/ma'am.
Internet censorship isn't about Religion, it's about keeping power by controlling what people can know. Just like China.
It's called "divide-and-conquer", or xenophobia. It's an effective tool of control, because it relies on generalization, equivocation, and stereotypes drawn from ambiguous definitions, and FUD from any number of real or percieved threats, to pit against one another people who otherwise would have had no particular quarrel, if at all.
We all could stand to take a step back every so often and make sure it isn't being applied to us, and if so, to determine if we've fallen for it in any way. .
There is a special circle of Hell reserved for those who purposefully employ this technique to manipulate and control others. It can even be convened temporaly, too.
Wilhelm Reich argues that fascism is a religion in some ways, you should read “Mass psychology of fascism” some day, it’s quite interesting.
I don't necessarily thing Islam (and I did know all this about Islam) is evil as much as ALL religion is evil. If we, as a species are to progress, we kind of have to wipe out all of this ridiculous bullshit from our culture.
I got here through a series of tubes
Please explain how the Iraq conflict benefited the US? The US didn't get billions of barrels of cheap oil. If anything, the price skyrocketed and hurt the US even more. As far as I can tell, the US didn't gain a single thing WRT Afghanistan/Iraq.
No worries, because this will never come to pass. The free thinking world would require that any such law would ban anti-israel hate on the internet, since it clearly fits the definition of "freedom of expression which clearly disregards public order", and muslim hate mongers like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad *who ironically enough was born jewish* would never allow for their preferred form of vile hate to be restricted.
as being ruled by those christian nutjobs that currently stick their noses into everything, but without the hypocrisy.
> What about non-militant Islam, is that evil?
There's evil and then there's evil and then there's evil.
On the one hand, all false religions (and false secular philosophies, for that matter) are evil, because they teach fallacy as truth, and that's bad. So yes, in that sense, non-militant Islam is still evil, after a fashion... or at least wrong. (Is there a difference between wrong and evil? Perhaps a difference of degree, with a fuzzy line between them? Really I think they're basically the same phenomenon.)
But that's not even remotely the same category of evil as the militant stuff that seeks to connect religion with the state and force conversion on pain of death. We call that "Sharia law" in the case of Islam, but the Roman Catholic state church in medieval Europe also qualifies, as does any human government that executes people for declining the official state-sanctioned religion. This sort of thing is much more evil, much more outright _wicked_, than merely propagating falsehood to people who are willing to listen.
If God himself comes tangibly to Earth and sets up a divine government in person, one that is not run by men but directly by God himself, fine. He, being God, would have the right to do that and, presumably, would also have the ability to do it in a just and right way. Men, manifestly, don't, and every time it's ever been tried, however well intentioned at first, the results have consistently been horrific in the long term. Evil.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
More recently you can go all the way up to the British Empire, who's laws and political systems US law is based on.
Most of that "own image" isn't even from the US, most of that has deep British roots.
Mass convertions were not what Inquisition and witch trials were about. You should instead go and look at the various articles on Wikipedia, the names of which start with "Christianization of ...". I don't think it'll add up to hundreds of millions even so, despite what OP says, but in proportion to the total world population, and considering the less efficient means of genocide at their disposal at the time, it's still an impressive death toll.
Oh, and "atheistic communism"? Please. Communism is its own ideology, and parallels religions in some way, but atheism is not a core and necessary part of it. And Hitler was certainly not a communist, and most likely not an atheist.
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
I doubt the Saudis are deluded enough to think this proposal will go anywhere. In the extremely unlikely event that something were accomplished in the UN, it would be ignored by everyone who isn't already interested in censorship of this kind.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this. What ? This brainwashing is totally harmless for anyone else ? Are you serious ? These people are because of this middle-age policy almost always fanatic. In Christianity, there are many people who say they are christian, but because they don't attend church too often they can think of themselves without any fanaticism. On the other hand, majority of people, who attend church regularly they are morons, who demonize homosexuals, preach against abortions and other retarded stuff. Brainwashing is simply NOT harmless for everybody else... at least not in democracy.
Nevertheless, there are certainly ideologies that proliferate evil, and people who are ensnared by them will inevitably do evil. And, yes, fundamentalist Islam (as well as Christianity) are two such ideologies.
Muslims not in power = benign
Muslims in power = dangerous
Take prayer for example. Great if Muslims aren't in power. But if they are, I wouldn't suggest trying to do anything during the time the Muslims are praying. Or the declaration of belief. Minority Muslims are fine with you not declaring that belief, and will accept you as their friend and neighbor. Majority Muslims may just kill you for that, especially if you used to believe, but no longer do.
In response to this every website should put up a picture of muhammad rimming a pig.
That describes Islam perfectly. Please note: I am NOT saying Muslims are evil. I've mentioned that several times. Muslims are people just like any other people: A few very good, most basically good, and a small number rotten.
I'm talking about Islam, the religion and philosophy. I contend that Islam itself is fundamentally bad and I've show quotes from the Quran to support my point of view.
Logical/Scientific reason why the Nazi way of life should be opposed:
Because it's counter-productive. The Nazis killed approximately 12 million people in six short years, conquered most of Europe disrupting society and trade, and in general made a gigantic nuisance of themselves. Allowing such an organization and set of practices to exist is highly disruptive to world peace and efficient operations. Consequently, the Nazi way of life should be not just opposed, but crushed with great vigor, producing a peaceful Europe and a greatly improved world economy. Other benefits include the broader exchange of ideas, increased religious and social tolerance, etc.
See? Not that hard.
They are not idiots, because they are slowly winning. They take the long view, are willing to outlast and wear down western leaders who don't see past the next election, can talk circles around most western leaders in debates, and lead hundreds of millions of people. Do not make the fatal mistake of equating evil with stupidity. The two are not at all the same. Yes, I know, there are lots of stupid people who commit evil. However, there are lots of very smart, very well educated people who also commit even greater evil.
No, what we need is a international collaboration to address public disorder which clearly disregards "freedom of expression."
or else!
So, the people who are supporting this think it's a good idea to set a precedent that the way to outlaw people offending you is to go on a bloody berserk rampage killing random uninvolved people whenever you are offended?
Even if it were made illegal to offend Wahabiists, and that miraculously caused them to become peaceful, is this really a precedent anyone wants to set? Do we really want the Scientologists to pick up on that lesson?
I would vote to nuke them -- I mean quite literally nuke them, with a pound of bacon on board just to make the fallout more interesting -- before agreeing to some censorship policy they endorse.
Let's get the hell away from dependence on oil, and let these people go straight to the Hell they so firmly believe in, and so richly deserve.
Different AC here, and I agree that the grandparent AC's analogy is weak. However, Godwin's Law does not say that mentioning Hitler means you lose the argument, nor would it be correct if it did.
"What about non-militant Islam, is that evil?"
Yes. Because this is where your argument falls apart:
Where are the "non-militants" when the militants are practicing their terrorism? Are they preventing it? No. Are they speaking out against it? (For the most part): no. Are they taking political stands against it? No.
Tacit endorsement of militarism is militarism. They can't weasel out of it. If they want to be non-militant, they can work to prevent militarism. If they don't, (and for the most part, they don't), the best answer is "Fuck you". And I don't mean that in a good way.
"... and I've show quotes from the Quran to support my point of view."
You can do that equally with the Christian bible. There are terrible, terrible things in it, including incitements to rape and murder. Means nothing.
It's not what you believe, so much as what you do with that belief. I don't give a damn if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster; if you commit murder in its name you are a murderer.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this.
When I lived in Saudi Arabia, all stores and services were shut down at prayer time. Very annoying, and sometimes not harmless at all.
4. Fasting, particularly during Ramadan, if practical (exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, etc). Again, harmless to anyone who isn't fasting.
Except that if anyone catches you eating or drinking anything in public during Ramadan, even by accident, very nasty things can happen. My mate and I once forgot it was Ramadan, and bought cans of coke from a street machine. People descended on us from all directions. It was scary.
But we have a duty to point out how evil INTOLERANCE is. And we have a duty to use all means in our power to prevent the spread of militant INTOLERANCE.
FTFY
Saudi Arabia: The issue is the jackass that posted this video and his ability to posts these types of videos
Rationality: Not those who would murder other people over such a video?
Saudi Arabia: Nope. U rly need to get a leash on ur interwebz, yo.
Quite possibly the dumbest and most naive post ever made on Slashdot. Congratulations, you're officially retarded.
Somehow you forgotten one of the most basics islamic beliefs: Women are second class citizens, completely subjugated to theirs husbands ... Is that good and virtuous?
I would vote to nuke them -- I mean quite literally nuke them, with a pound of bacon on board just to make the fallout more interesting -- before agreeing to some censorship policy they endorse.
I would agree that it is completely unacceptable to agree to such censorship but somehow saying "no" seems to be a far better option than killing millions of innocent civilians and releasing large clouds of highly dangerous radioactive material into the environment - not to mention bringing the entire world far closer to the spectre of nuclear armageddon. I know it sounds a bit boring and doesn't have the same Hollywood appeal as a nuclear holocaust would but somehow judging a population based on the actions of its government doesn't seem to be a wise thing for an American - or for that matter anyone - to suggest.
Good point.
Oh wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Yeah... there's a touch of sarcasm and stuff like that in there. I was actually being critical of the people who respond to insults with murder. I am also being critical of those who would seek to condone instead of condemn the behavior by seeking to blame freedom of expression... especially religious expression.
"We need plasphemy laws!!" Fuck you Jews/Christians/Muslims and all the rest. We do need blasphemy laws... laws that PROTECT THE RIGHT TO BLASPHEME!!! Your beliefs are yours. Keep them to yourself and your groups. Leave everyone else out of it. You have NO RIGHT to government protect or special government treatment.
You forgot killing anyone who disagrees with them...
They are NOT totally harmless.
These... people... are not compatable with all the others on the planet. Their religion is crazy and dangerous.
As is anyone who says we should tolerate the muslims at this point.
Oh don't be a fool.
expandfairuse.org
And fuck the Saudis, and anybody else who wants control! And fuckity fuck fuck fuck their goddamn perverted mohamed!
I'm a lover of Muhammed. Seriously. His ass is so tight, and when he dresses up like a western cheerleader in that little crop top and flyaway skirt, and shakes his supposedly divinely blessed (but definitely divine, if you know what I mean), it just gets my blood pumping. It could have been the setting (I met him in prison, as many do), but, man, Muhammed is a great lay!
Of course, after ass-fucking him a few times, I realized he was no more than a mortal man, and so I renounced Islam. How can you worship the word of a guy who prances around the cell in women's lingerie shimmying to Katy Perry?
Being an apostate is much more fun! And "getting stoned" has a whole new meaning now.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
For reference, here is the 6th fundamental practice of Islam: http://islamqa.info/en/ref/82120
Praise be to Allaah.
It is part of Allaah’s complete blessing upon us and the perfection of this great religion, that Islam organizes all aspects of our lives. There is nothing good but it has shown it to us, and there is nothing bad but it has warned us against it.
And Muslim (2020) narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one among you should eat with his left hand or drink with it, for the shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with it.”
Allaah has warned us against disobeying the commands of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad’s) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah __ legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant) should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them”
. . . or like, a Fitnah of getting your Embassy stormed by Muslims . . .
So all this talk about if it was the film or Al Qaeda who caused the riot is probably irrelevant: The Muslim folks killed Chris Stevens, because he was left-handed.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
How many oil wells does your daddy own?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I have nothing to add to the conversation but I do have some info for you...
Blackwater became Xe and changed yet again to Academi which is their current name. (Can't let them hide through shady practices).
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I like how you chose to quote one part of the text, going from "tens if not hundreds" to "OMG he said hundreds!" and folks who can't read more then one liners chime in en masse.
Fuck the Saudis, fuck Islam, and fuck anyone who tries to limit freedom of speech or freeedom of expression on the Internet. I'd rather put up with spam and goatse all day long every day until I die rather than have the sort of "order" these fucking assholes want. Many of these are the same people who would throw acid in the faces of young girls because they dare to want to go to school to learn to read a write! Them, them, fuck them, sideways with a rusty chainsaw infected with AIDS.
Hence, "judaism-sourced religions". It's a rather funny distinction too, as judaism's dogma was in fact about "one nationality above others" while both christianity and islam accepted the "people who believe in god over others" as a dogma hence allowing for conversion. It essentially shows just how powerful of a control tool judaism was that with just a few modifications it allowed for ideological unification of entire continents.
People always quote these three assholes and attribute them to atheism. And nothing could be further from the truth and everyone who modded parent up should go crawl in a corner.
First, Hitler was a christian. Some other Nazis toyed with pagan ideas and more nonsense, but none of them had an explicitly atheist agenda.
Second, Stalin exploited religion, even though he was an atheist himself. And while atheism was a part of communist dogma, there was very little explicitly anti-religious prosecution in communist russia. On the contrary, even Stalin himself maintained close ties with the orthodox church, and while its power was greatly reduced, it was never abolished.
If anyone of these can be accused of anti-religious actions, it is Mao, who indeed had religious sites ransacked during the cultural revolution. But again, to the best of my knowledge, there were no explicit anti-religious death camps or anything like that.
You, sir, are a fraud and a liar, a demagoge and manipulator. First, you attribute the total death count of world events to one person, and then to one feature (in one case, a falsely alleged feature) of their personality. That's like saying that Bill Gates is as rich as he is because he has a nose. Nevermind that lots of other people with noses aren't that rich, nor is it a general feature of people with noses to be rich - uh, sorry, lots of atheists never killed anyone, nor is it a general feature of atheism to kill people.
Your argument is entirely fraudulent in every step. You fail to establish causation, you don't even try. Your entire argument boils down to "look, here is three evil people, here is something they had in common, therefore that thing is really, really evil". Oh yes, and all that is graciously ignoring that you are dead wrong on one of them.
I despise cheap rhetorics like this. I hate it when it is false-to-facts.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
These 5 pillars completely take out of context, 900 years of history, and the entirety of the hate-filled scripture, and the tribal traditions of racial and sexist bigotry. Yes, it's true that the judeo-christian scripture has a lot of pretty unacceptable stuff in it, but there are strong traditions and sects that specifically rule-out taking that text literally. (while - scriptural-inerrancy is on the rise in the past two decades, overall, it has been in decline, as an ideology, within both judaism and christianity).
There are sects within islam, which do not take scripture fully literally, (like sufism). But for the rest; they've been exceedingly vulnerable to militant branches coming in and radicalizing the mainstream sects.
I know quite a few muslims myself, and I don't personally know any of the "kill anyone who insults mohommad" types. But this tendency towards radicalism is pretty frightening to a committed infidel like myself. And if you only look at those 5 pillars of faith, it's an extremely nearsighted, and willfully ignorant view of the whole picture. The 5 pillars don't happen in a vaccum.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that point of view, but if the sane Muslims want to be seen as the majority, they need to be seen to be cracking down on their extremists rather than shielding them. When at attack like 9/11 happens and the first thing out of the mouths of every major Muslim spokesperson is "Don't you dare even think about profiling Arabs/Mulims!" then people are going to look at all of them a lot more suspiciously. Why isn't the first and only thing out of their mouths after a major attack "God damn those murderous maniacs for attacking my country!"
I'm sure somebody will point out a few quotes from spokespeople saying just that. The trouble is, they never seem to be the majority or to have the loudest voices. Better fix that, or that global war between Islam and nonbelievers that the extremists are hoping for might just happen someday, and I don't think the results will be what they expect.
I don't reply to ACs
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
That's like quoting the 10 commandments and saying "that's christianity". You are missing vital parts of the whole picture, and you are missing the fact that religions are cultural phenomena that go beyond the written word and into practices, rituals and the like.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
bullseye!
As a believer I fully support the parent post.
The all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, GOD that exists despite and beyond all human puny logic, puerile rationality, or drab stupidity doesn't give a shit about:
- non-belief and proselytizing (you'll know soon enough anyway)
- punishment (that's a human thing unworthy of GOD. GOD is not a sadist)
- sin (the concept of sin is an unneeded over-complication in addition to being mostly about politics. No one needs "sin" to differ right from wrong, those who can't make out the differences won't care either way)
- sexual preferences (all too human)
- muddled abstract concepts like love (marriage) or friendship (again this is just human distractions)
- whatever wrong and insane evil etc. is done to you or me (GOD is not a caricature of your mum)
- being adulated and praised (GOD is not some tacky superhero for us to cheer on)
- theology (making even less sense out of ideas embellished by human fancy beyond recognition)
- politics (again: GOD is not a sadist)
The human condition is likely fluff, with our lives also fluff, and if so then no matter how gruesome or nice your existence is it is only to set default states for what comes after: we do not matter yet. We are being randomized, and it ought to be fucking obvious.
GOD is both the source and more than everything we know of and most religious people don't get it in the slightest and don't grasp any of the consequences.
And fuck islam and all other manipulative non-voluntary political ideologies. Hell fuck most of humanity since we're all assholes anyway but then again a lot of us at least try to be civil or even kind about it (and that's fucking awesome, well done to you).
It needs to be SFW if you want it to go viral. Just hang a sign on a teddy bear saying that the bear's name is Muhammad (or have one bear for every variation of the spelling because apparently no one can agree on how it's supposed to be spelled when it's translated from Arabic). It's cute and blasphemous!
Oh, and just to be fair, also include a devil bear, a Jesus bear, a Moses bear, a David bear, a Buddha bear, a Ghandi bear, a Joseph Smith bear, an L. Rob Hubbard bear, a Confucius bear, a Laozi bear, a Nanak Dev bear, and whatever other bears named after religious leaders you want. Put a sign in the back saying, "Whosoever believes death should come to those who posted or created this image, should just kill yourself because humanity would be better off without you."
Hitler wasn't an atheist, he was a Christian.
While those acts themselves weren't appeasing, every other policy adapted in the West - whether it was about profiling Muslims regarding any terror activities, pandering to their wishes which later became demands, and so on, by BOTH the Left and the Right, has been appeasement. Whether it was the issue of the mosque at ground zero, repeated apologies by the US military over the mistreatment of Qurans, allowing Muslim women to get photos taken in their burqhas, having footbasins in MN airports or UMI for Muslims to do their wudu, the Brits making sure that tombstones face Mecca while commodes don't, giving halal meals to everybody regardless of whether or not they are Muslims just to pander to them, providing Muslim criminals choice Islamic gourmets, to name just a few, definitely constitutes appeasement by Western society at large. Something that renders irrelevant all the Jihadi campaigns against America - Osama's dream to see Islam dominate the West is coming true without his minions having to do anything.
And it is in that context that the above story should be taken. Having seen how, despite a string of terror attacks, the West has grown more, not less accommodating of Muslims/Islam, the Muslims are escalating their thuggery and their demands. A Danish and French paper publish cartoons of Mohammed - Muslims react in rage to demonstrate that they are not fanatical (which is what the cartoons were illustrating). An American blogger creates an 'Everybody draw Mohammed Day' on Facebook, and is subjected to death threats, and is finally forced to go into hiding. This is not happening in Riyadh or Teheran or Islamabad - it's happening in the US!!! Somebody makes a movie about Mohammed, and is sent to jail. And while some Mohammedans are only too happy to claim credit for it, others are still livid and want to go out and burn Western embassies, since the entire West must be complicit in all this, right? And then the 50 odd members of the OIC, which is today the largest bloc in the UN, push an agenda of making blasphemy against Islam illegal worldwide (lets face it - Islamic claims about Christianity or Judaism won't fall under that, and nor should that even exist as a law), and not much resistance is shown by non-Muslim members of the UN. So you have Interpol issuing a warrant for a Saudi blogger, while now,the OIC wants to censor the Internet, since that's where the biggest opposition to both Islam and Muslims - individual opposition - is demonstrated.
Therefore, the GP is right - either the world will be dominated by Islam, or we'll be in a world war. Unlike all previous wars, the enemy - Muslims - are well behind our frontlines, so a mere 'nuke Mecca' strategy just wouldn't do. What is needed is a wholesale deportation of all Muslims to the 50 odd countries that constitute dar ul Islam, while all non-Muslims from there should be welcomed out. Once that is done, just quarantine them - make it illegal for Muslims to live outside their empire, which is big enough as it is, stretching from Senegal to Brunei, and then we don't need to bother about Muslims. Let them make their own internet, or marry 6 year olds, or stone rape victims for adultery, or whatever. But at least, we won't need to live with it - and our societies will be a lot better off for it.
Maybe we should reword this and describe this situation in tech terms.
Those wah-wah-bytes are really butthurt because they are very much like the classic monopolist telcos, some patent trolls, the **IAAs or anyone else who wants to continue to operate by steamrolling their competition, buying the laws to do this if necessary.
They have been historically accustomed to doing whatever they wanted, and are ready to go to any length to protect that monopoly. Just like the telco suing a town for giving its residents free wi-fi. Not so, you need to go through us...
And the wah-wah-bytes in question are certainly not ready to share these sophisticated mind control networks that took hundreds of years to build and maintain.
Why should anyone else have the right to be heard?
What's next after that, they're going to have to share the last mile of their brainwashing wires to let competing and unlicensed carriers deliver services over what they've built? Imagine! Suddenly having to allow others to freely voice their opinions, and for those opinions to be broadcast and heard without any control... that's just unheard of!
We should also takes these comments with a grain of salt, it's a show purely being put out for the home crowd to notice. The dudes saying this certainly aren't dumb enough to actually believe that it would work, but since Pakistan's prime minister clamored for the same thing the other day, they don't want to be less devout than the guy down the street and feel obligated to raise the stakes a bit higher on the BUPD scale (blind unconditional prophetic devotion).
But truly, once framed in corporate terms, all of it seems very far from outlandish. Quite the contrary, actually.... very practical and coherent.
It would be nice if you applied this same sort of reasoning to atheism, which you so obviously despise and attribute to evil.
Many muslims will ask you not to appease Saudi Arabia before any thing, and to ban their islamic schools worldwide. Things will be a lot better after that!
Hitler... a Christian? Really? The same guy who said he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."? I suggest looking at sources besides blatantly anti-christian, pro-atheism sites such as "nobeliefs.com". For example, http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler Stalin exploited religion. How about that... exploitation to further his goals. This does nothing to disprove what I claimed. The same with Mao. They were mass murderers who did not ascribe to any religion. If Mao had been a follower of a religion, I imagine you would pin that on his religion. Lastly, my original point still stands undisputed. The OP made the claim that Christianity has killed hundreds of millions of people, and then failed to back up those numbers. I got him started by listing about 150,019 deaths. I am waiting for citations for the remaining 99+ million.
... elimination of stupid people in the Middle East.
If it insults Islam, then don't watch it. Problem solved. The infidels won't care.
As for the First Amendment in the USA, it will stay. The Second Amendment protects it. If you don't like that, then try some economic sanctions.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If you are a Linux user you can still boot headless.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
All religion is evil because it is a tool to exalt men over other men that they may rule them.
All religion is evil because it substitutes dogma for the search for truth.
All religion is evil because there is zero evidence for /Deity.
Islam is evil because, IN PRACTICE, it creates theocratic oppressive societies. I don't give a shit about the THEORETICAL "fundamental practices". Reality trumps theory.
I defy you to name an Islamist society as free as the secular societies in Western Europe. Do it now or fuck off.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Morality and the like are used as PR to sell a war to populace; this doesn't negate the reasons korgitser gave.
I, for one, would welcome our bunnicular overlords... cute cute overlords and their invisible pink horned pony sentinels.
Don't worry about it. It will happen naturally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Like you hinted on as well: the group mentality.
Hitler no.
You "creeping sharia" nutjobs are insane. Do you honestly think that non-Muslims are going to accept such a radical change in their lifestyle?
In this day and age, a cartoon about someone having sex with a pig would probably be considered more SFW than "insults to Muhammad."
Moreover, the US rationale for this was always the perception of the superior morality of the American way, not some logical, scientific argument. Why are you complaining when other countries notice what yours does, and try to do the same?
Because the US's morality system is far superior?
And if the core tenets of believing in the FSM is that you *should* murder people for pasta sauce meatballs, it's no problem for the beliver as long as he/she doesn't do it? I believe in their right to believe that as well, but I wouldn't
wish it for them, would you?
And no - you cannot do this with the christian bible. the christian bible is specifically the new testament, which outlines the method and means with which to properly interpret those incitements you speak of. Find me the passage in the gospels or the epistles where Jesus commands his disciples or a disciple commmands other christians to rape and murder, and that following the mosaic law to the letter is the 'correct path', rather than 'righteous application' of the spirit of the law.
Incorrect application of the old testament yes, but this very clearly is *not* provided for *at all* in the concrete texts
of the new testament.
The islamic holy book proscribes these types of things directly, and was directly penned by muhammed, who himself is absolutely, consistently, without fail, honored as the 'final prophet of god' in islam.
just because they are religions, does not mean they are theologically the same.
I do agree that many many muslims are far better people than I.
It does not mean that their faith is not founded on clearly and directly defined abhorrent theological falsehoods.
people != theology.
The ones you perceive to be promoting hatred and violence are probably the ones your media portrays as promoting hatred and violence
Back to the 7th century?
Like hell.
Everyone knows by now that the murder of the ambassador was not caused by the video. It was Obama's policy that cause them. It was all planed out in advance, and it was known it was going to happen, the ambassador asked for more help, but was denied it by Obama. Besides, why did this one video make them mad, and not the other 10 million anti-Muslim videos on the net?
I have a better idea. Why don't you eat a big bowl of fucking dicks, Saudi Arabia?
"And no - you cannot do this with the christian bible. the christian bible is specifically the new testament,"
Wrong from the outset... no more argument needed.
Honestly. Truly. And absolutely 100% seriously. I would stand between you and them. No one should suffer for the decisions they make religiously and using their freedom of speech.
Correct, but overly narrow.
All human social structures and attendant value systems eventually devolve into violence and bigotry. It's part of human evolution, specifically group selection. We intrinsically see people who believe the same things we do as good and decent and people who are different from us as not quite people. Murder is wrong; war is justified. We're hard-working; they're just greedy parasites. Etc. We're tribal creatures. Pack animals.
Religion is just the most historically common system of values shared by large groups of people. In the short time that atheism has had a chance to be a majority value system in parts of the world in the 20th century, it's already given us bad apples like the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge. Banishing religion is no cure for violence and bigotry. Just the rhetoric in this thread reveals how much bigotry such a sentiment holds in and of itself.
It's not religion that's the problem. It's humanity. Hell, just look at how much anger and hate erupts over even more frivolous divisions like favorite sports teams or brands of products.
Your ignorance is on bold display here:
The US Civil War? Not about the slaves, but it did use the promised freedom of slaves as a way to use them behind enemy lines
There were two main political parties in the US... the Whigs and the Democrats. More territories were about to be converted into states and the Democrats wanted those new states to be states where slavery was legal; that in-turn would mean those states would send representatives to Washington who supported slavery. The Whigs were "moderates"... they cared about money matters but just did not want to get involved in "morals"; they did not wish to oppose the Democrats on the whole slavery thing. Many northern Christians did, in fact, care and they formed a new crazy right-wing religious extremist party called the "Republican Party" to oppose the new states being slave states.
Those average God-fearing northern voters who opposed slavery abandoned the Whigs and went with the new Republican party and, as a result, the Republican candidate (a funny looking guy with a thin scratchy voice named Abraham Lincoln, who had a track-record of being opposed to slavery) won the Presidency. As a result, the south feared that Lincoln would interfere in their slave ownership (either directly, or over the long-run... by having all new states be non-slavery states) so they launched the civil war under the slogan "State's Rights"... but the ONLY "state's right" they cared about was the so-called "right" of rich Democrats to own black people.
Yes, you are correct that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation during the war as a tactic... and, yes, it is even true that a war-weary Lincoln once said that if he could preserve the Union by signing it he would, but that if he could preserve the Union by not signing it he'd do that too... but the plain historical facts are that (a) Lincoln opposed slavery and the Democrats were so convinced of his opposition to it that they divided the nation over it (b) Lincoln did indeed free the slaves (c) the Democrats started the war in order to keep the "right" to own black people.
I know, some lefty will be upset I associated Democrats with slavery... But I refuse to tip-toe around historical facts where evil is concerned... EVERY slave owner in American history was a Democrat and after they lost the civil war it was Democrats who started the KKK (which used to call for death for both blacks AND Republicans)
You need to take a little time to study the Lincoln-Douglas debates...
The world is best served by the internet being under US control. The US is the home of the 1st Amendment (to the US Constitution) and the US has a two-century-plus long track record of defending speech of all sorts, even when that speech is very offensive to the most deeply-held religious beliefs of the majority of its citizens.
Until another country can demonstrate the same dedication to the "free speech" and "freedom of religion" (which is essentially a freedom of belief and thought) principles, people of the world should oppose the transfer of the authority away from the US. Other militarily powerful nations like China and Russia have a demonstrated disdain for that freedom. Every Muslim nation has demonstrated its hatred for these basic freedoms... to the degree that any Muslim nation that takes its faith seriously will kill people for simply abandoning the religion (as that one particular religion demands). Most European nations and Canada have already demonstrated a desperate desire to appease Muslims and a willingness to suppress freedoms to do that.
No one sane would ever seriously consider passing any legislation that the Saudi Arabian junta wants. Why can't our governments show some backbone, and publically ridicule these religious fascist regimes. It is the plans for internet censorship and monitoring in the west, that are far more worrying, since they could actually be forced upon us, by the various levels of corporate totalitarian regimes that govern some western countries.
There is no excuse for allowing the mental molestation that is practiced by the organised religion of these regimes. If you don't oppose, your appease.
Remember, sending children to be indoctrinated by a religion, is just another form of child molestation. Sick, and very twisted.
Even the links you provide don't support your own position. At best, it is uncertain whether or not Hitler was privately a devout believer or not. However, just like Stalin with the orthodox church, Hitler extensively dealt with the church and even gave it additional privileges that it did not have before.
They were mass murderers who did not ascribe to any religion
Yes, and they also had noses. Two of them had a beard. They wore socks. You still fail to establish even the flimsiest excuse for a causal connection. And you still think that an individual can change world history all on his own. Every historian I know would cringe at the thought, because you are ignoring the entire context that made people like these possible. Hitler born in a different time or a different place wouldn't have gone anywhere. He is not the sole or even primary causation of WW2 or the related events, he is just a convenient focus point, one participant in a vast network.
If Mao had been a follower of a religion, I imagine you would pin that on his religion.
That is another assumption with no evidence whatsoever.
The OP made the claim that Christianity has killed hundreds of millions of people, and then failed to back up those numbers. I got him started by listing about 150,019 deaths. I am waiting for citations for the remaining 99+ million.
That's an argument you have with the OP. Your argument with me is your claim that atheism is responsible for millions of deaths, and you have no provided even a shred of evidence.
If you attribute every death that occured in the widest possible sense in relation to the three names you mentioned to atheism, then you need to accept the same kind of argument for the counterpoint, meaning every death that occured in the remote vicinity of a ruler with a christian belief can be attributed to the christian faith. In that case, you will find hundreds of millions an understatement.
So, you are refusing a claim made by the OP, but then turn around and use an even weaker line of reasoning for your own agenda. That is the point that I am not willing to accept.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That's funny, that's exactly my worry, only regards Christian idiots.
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
=======
If this happens, it will not only be the Muslims, but the political parties currently in power in every country on every continent.
I think it is already happening in Australia.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Those who HAVE studied Islam in depth, like me, know it to be , unfortunately, a deeply disturbing and violent book.. containing warped versions of islamic practices that existed in peaceful forms long before Mohamad, who did NOT invent islam, incidentally.It is full of inhuman dictates that need to be carries d out on the penalty if death,(which is why there are so many different proscribed forms of death to be carried out), full of absurdities on how to deal with a situation of a 9 year old "deflowered" wife, or that the disciples of Jesus sent an imposter in his place to be tortured and hung on the cross, while the real Jesus happily skipped out of town to heaven, and is still on his way there and back! Read it for yourself, it's all there.. Although most muslims (like people everywhere else in the world) are decent people who likely skip over the disturbing parts, there's plenty of fodder in there for hate.. also.. It is NOT a "religion of Peace, in any way..
PS I meant to say "Those who have studied Islam AND THE KORAN in depth,,
Politics/patriotism/democracy/religion/corporations are Ponzi/Pyramid schemes.
Casteism
The issue is that the non militant muslims (and this is the vast majority) do not stop the militant ones. We had (and have still) militant christians. Or people that call themselves so. Groups like the KKK. The rest of the community stopped them from their actions.
When the Muslim community does this as a matter of course, they will be folded into the greater community.
You don't see Buddhist bashing, do you?
If he is wrong, please explain. Now it is just your yes against his no. You are claiming something without proof -- you do not even provide an argument. Instead of saying you can do that equally with the christian bible, please do it. *That* would actually be an argument.
I bet you're a liberal who thinks that Jihad means personal struggle too. At least that's what you tell your nerdy liberal friends when you sit around drinking wine wanking on about how great all this tolerance is.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
It won't be a global war. It will be in your neighbourhood in a decade or so.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
If you are afraid that your ideas can't stand on their own without being crushed by different ideas, there is always a "crying need" for censorship.
Those who believe, "The Truth will Out", and are interested in the truth, don't need censorship.
THINK! It's patriotic
Still alive? Just checking to see how long it will take.
No, they are not only simple PR tools, they live a life on their own and can effectively influence politics.
For example, St. R. Reagan introduced the fundamental Christian right into the US mainstream politics. This seemed like a good idea to win one election, but it has come to bite the US in the ass badly, as their influence and morality are now a much stronger factor that is shaping US policies.
In China, xenophobic rhetoric was seen as a useful tool to create outlet for the dissatisfaction from the system, but now that the government is having trouble controlling the "nationalist" feelings of the crowd, they aren't so happy about it.
Not everything that happens is as simple and linear as a bash script, although it does seem so at times if you look at it the slashdot user way: reading the simplified Wikipedia version and in retrospect.
Does anyone else see some kind of irony here? W. T. Policy F.???
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Arabs need to be taught that they do not have a right to not be offended. Also, when they are offended they do not have a right to go berserk in the streets. We need a Global Body that will kick there asses hard when they do that. Their fucked up religion needs a Global Body to provide some discipline.
To this end, they should be offended as often as possible in the hope that they might learn to understand that most of the world does not want their thought control.
"atheistic communism in this comparison? Because Stalin (20 million), Hitler (50 Million)"
1) Hitler was a Catholic, the slogan of the SS was "Gott mit uns" If you can explain to me why atheists would march around with "God is with us" on their belt buckles you win the internet.
2) Hitler wasn't a communist, and hated communists
3) Atheism has nothing to do with communism. There are plenty of Christian and Islamic communists.
I googled around after that judo player - she was the first woman from SA to ever compete in the Olympics, girls arent even allowed to PE classes in SA. Thats probably why she was crap too, but it looks like her appearance on the mat was political but for the reasons of gender equality.