Slashdot Mirror


Thousands of Muslims Protest 'Age of Mockery' At Google's London Headquarters

cold fjord writes "A large protest planned by as many as 800 imams was held today at Google's London headquarters to protest the video, 'The Innocence of Muslims,' which is available on Google's subsidiary YouTube. There may have been as many as 10,000 protesters in what is said to be the first of several planned protests. From the story: 'Speeches by more than a dozen imams . . . urged Muslims to honor the name of the Prophet and not to back down in the face of Google's continuing reluctance to act, and were met with passionate cries of "God is Great" and "Mohammad is the Prophet of God" in Arabic. . . One of the speakers. . . told The Daily Telegraph: "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorized 1.6 billion people." A YouTube spokesperson said: "We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions. "This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video — which is widely available on the Web — is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube."'"

325 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Don't watch it by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not like TV stations are slipping this video in amongst their shows and commercials to trick you into watching it. If you don't like it, don't watch it, and stop trying to force your religious views on others.

    1. Re:Don't watch it by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That won't work, most of them haven't watched it anyway.

    2. Re:Don't watch it by jrumney · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not like TV stations are slipping this video in amongst their shows and commercials to trick you into watching it.

      Actually, it is. This whole thing only kicked off because an Egyptian satellite channel broadcast excerpts from the video (thier motives should be as much in question as the producers of the video, IMO). Do you really think such a poorly produced, pointless video would ever have gone viral without some mainstream media help?

    3. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This whole "we're offended by this stupid lame ass movie by some random backwards dude nobody's ever heard of" thing has already been pretty provably demonstrated to be bullshit. This is NOT what they were protesting when the diplomat was killed a few weeks ago and most muslims don't even give a shit. Even the Whitehouse was eventually forced to admit that the movie they were blaming this all on actually had nothing to do with it. Even Pakistan's president had said that the film had nothing to do with the protests. But, hey, CNN and FOX tell me that's what the hubub is all about so durp durp.

    4. Re:Don't watch it by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not like TV stations are slipping this video in amongst their shows and commercials to trick you into watching it. If you don't like it, don't watch it, and stop trying to force your religious views on others.

      The thing I fid interesting is that on one hand you have "don't watch it if you don't want to be offended/Free speech Yaaaaaay!!!!" regarding the anti-muslim propaganda while on the other hand .. you have doctrine for castigating any attacks on another people/religion .. so codified that it even has a well known descriptive name "Antisemitism"
       
      I'm not saying that attacking one group is any worse/better than attacks on another group - however I do believe that a lot of people in western countries would have a different opinion if that film on youtube was anti-Semitic.
       
      (and yes I know there are anti-semetic films on youtube, but they are not as well publicized as the film du jour topic of outrage. IE Videos from the Westboro baptist church )

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    5. Re:Don't watch it by Walterk · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Your honor, I object!"
      "Why?"
      "Because it's devastating to my case!"

    6. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you really think such a poorly produced, pointless video would ever have gone viral without some mainstream media help?

      You're... new here, aren't you?

      I mean, "new" as in "been away from anything even tangentially related to the internet in the past ten years". There have been far, far worse-produced videos that have gone far more viral than that, and it took the "mainstream media" MONTHS before they even acknowledged it.

    7. Re:Don't watch it by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Child pornography causes a very large amount of harm to children. The video in question hurts some people's feelings. Comparing the two is a vast stretch of the imagination.

    8. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      CNN and Fox were both reporting within 48 hours that there was at least some evidence that there was no protest whatsoever in Benghazi, and the entire thing was a premeditated terrorist attack.

    9. Re:Don't watch it by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since you know so much about this maybe you can enlighten me.

      The organizer of this London protest stated " Our next protest will be at the offices of Google and YouTube across the world. We are looking to ban this film.". You clearly know more than him, so what were they actually protesting about?

      Or are you too stupid to realize that more than one protest is happening most of the time somewhere in the world.

    10. Re:Don't watch it by Seeteufel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Muslim maniacs are just after the violence and outrage.

    11. Re:Don't watch it by mfh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That won't work, most of them haven't watched it anyway.

      This is exactly why religion is bad. You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!! Well there's your problem. The premise of religion is immoral because it's based upon a lie.

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    12. Re:Don't watch it by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Antisemetic? Really? Why are Muslims the only people allowed to be antisemitic. Is that something like blacks calling other blacks derogatory names because "it's ok I'm black" mentality?

    13. Re:Don't watch it by jbonomi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The creation of child pornography is not exactly an act of speech. The subjects in those works are real victims. If your ideology or religion is being mocked, you're not a victim. If you demand that your ideology or religion be off-limits to critical review or mockery, you're just an asshole.

    14. Re:Don't watch it by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a difference between insulting a religion and discriminating against or inciting violence against the followers.

    15. Re:Don't watch it by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the big difference... Nothing about "Innocence of Muslims" encouraged anyone to go murdering Muslims...

      Do you see thousands of Jews protesting Sacha Baron Cohen's works or those of Mel Brooks because they can be considered insulting to Judaism? No. A few complain, but no massive outpourings of rage and no one was murdered.

      Do you see people rioiting and murdering people because of Piss Christ or South Park Jesus? Nope.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    16. Re:Don't watch it by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That won't work, most of them haven't watched it anyway.

      This is exactly why religion is bad. You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!!

      Close, but not exactly right - the problem is not the "invisible dude in a toga," it's the very much corporeal confidence men who convince people that if they don't do what the confidence man tells them, the aforementioned invisible dude will make their lives miserable. Oh, and the people who allow themselves to be conned thusly; personal responsibility and all that.


      FWIW, plenty of people go through life believing in some form of god without ever shoving their beliefs down anyone else's throat. You just never hear about these people because they aren't uptight, pompous dicks.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Don't watch it by ZankerH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It never "went viral" until the delusional morons started acting butthurt over it in public, and possibly not even then. Outrage went viral, not the video itself.

    18. Re:Don't watch it by Valtor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That won't work, most of them haven't watched it anyway.

      This is exactly why religion is bad...

      Actually, the issue is dogma. Any dogma, not just religious ones.

      --
      "Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
    19. Re:Don't watch it by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is like the Janet Jackson Wardrobe malfunction a few editions of the "professional pigskin championship" ago.

      I was actually watching WHEN it happened and it was under 2 seconds. On a super long range shot. In the middle of a football field.

      In short NOBODY in the stands could have identified what happened. Nobody without rewind, pause, and frame-by-frame could see it. It was only news because they made it news, and a bunch of people that NEVER SAW it when it happened made a bunch of noise.

      That's the same thing happening here.

    20. Re:Don't watch it by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The really dumb thing is thinking it must be either a reaction to nothing but this film, vs. "Terrorism!" (which is a code-word for "don't try to understand it").

      Could this outrage have occurred if there weren't deep cultural divisions and a recent history of violence between Islam and the rest of the world? No. Does that mean the film wasn't the proximate trigger? No.

    21. Re:Don't watch it by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Yes, for a negative and arguably positive reason. The negative: because terribly produced and/or clearly astroturfed videos "go viral" all the time, it's not a high standard. The positive: because people to some extent seem to care more about the content than the packaging.

    22. Re:Don't watch it by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!!

      You create invisible dude in a toga so that you can control a population. Who cares if it's based on a lie? It works, and that's all that matters.There is no morality behind any of it, that's part of the trick to divert your attention. However, the practicality has proven itself over and over again.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed, though your ignoring the effect child pornagrphy has on society when focusing on the indivdual.

      Abuses happened for years under the mentality of out of sight, out of mind.

      It was always known to be an abhorrent act.

      "But hey, I didn't see it so it doesn't matter, right?"

    24. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These people are nothing but opportunistic leeches. They're a bunch of moslem Al Sharptons grabbing at a moment in the sun.

    25. Re:Don't watch it by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing I fid interesting is that on one hand you have "don't watch it if you don't want to be offended/Free speech Yaaaaaay!!!!

      I find the current trend to discount the importance of free speach disturbing. Its interesting to me that it seems more important to supress dissent/alternative views/ideas more important than offending the adherents of what is a mysogenistic and developmentally backwards offshoot of a religion. Just becuase some one is loud (and often violent) doesn't make them right. Just goes to show how dangerous an idea is if people feel the need to supress it. I find the idea of jihad increadibly dangerous. I believe it needs to be supressed.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    26. Re:Don't watch it by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You clearly know more than him, so what were they actually protesting about?

      The leaders of these things are hired actors. The Muslims aren't the only ones that want to curtail freedom of expression. The people that manipulate so-called democratic governments want exactly the same thing. They are working on Americans to make them believe the first amendment goes too far. They exploit primal emotion to incite others who can't control themselves with great promises of eternal glory.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now for some bashing anti-bashing.

      U.S. television and movies commonly portray the bad guy - the murderer, rapist, child molester, ..., as a Christian nutcase. Or else they attribute the bad guys' twisted mind to a twisted Christian mother and/or father. The tiny bit of other-religious bashing we see is trivial by comparison.

      Christians don't like it, but the great majority of them recognize the right of movie makers to do it.

    28. Re:Don't watch it by maxdread · · Score: 1

      Aye I'm not sure why the poster decided to put that bit on the news stations when it was mainly the government that was holding to the protest gone bad story. The media got a hold of the real story rather early.

    29. Re:Don't watch it by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      So the latter is allowed while the former isn't? At least in muslim logic, apparently.

    30. Re:Don't watch it by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Antisemetic? Really? Why are Muslims the only people allowed to be antisemitic. Is that something like blacks calling other blacks derogatory names because "it's ok I'm black" mentality?

      I don't know WTF you were reading but it wasn't my post.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    31. Re:Don't watch it by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this even sadder when you think of it.

      That TV stations can't show controversial material. I'd go one step further. Even if they showed TV commercials with the same content, they shouldn't go nuts. But maybe I have higher expectations of British citizens.

    32. Re:Don't watch it by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      That won't work, most of them haven't watched it anyway.

      This is exactly why religion is bad. You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!!

      Close, but not exactly right - the problem is not the "invisible dude in a toga," it's the very much corporeal confidence men who convince people that if they don't do what the confidence man tells them, the aforementioned invisible dude will make their lives miserable. Oh, and the people who allow themselves to be conned thusly; personal responsibility and all that.
      FWIW, plenty of people go through life believing in some form of god without ever shoving their beliefs down anyone else's throat. You just never hear about these people because they aren't uptight, pompous dicks.

      It's not that they believe(that the invisible man will make their life difficult). they believe that their religious close leader who is telling them to go rioting will make their life difficult if they don't comply with this test of obedience. which for many of them is sadly true.
      of course the one who they should brick would be their sect leader that tells them to do such shit instead of taking the high road.

      same as with many militia attacks - they're done in order to bolster the power of the leader within the gang. no gangland hits, no fear, no power.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    33. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, CNN was claiming (not reporting) that there was rumor of a terrorist attack. Fox was claiming it *WAS* a terrorist attack within minutes of the story leaking.

      As what happens with a stopped clock, it's right once or twice in a while... Fox got lucky, they didn't have any special inside information or know anything. They *WANTED* it to be a terrorist attack, they claimed it was a terrorist attack long before there was any evidence, and now they're gloating about (accidentally) being right for a change and pretending that because their fabricated story turned out to be true, that meant the white house was lying.

      Yeah... ok.

    34. Re:Don't watch it by Holi · · Score: 1

      I think you may be stretching to say US entertainment commonly portrays the "the bad guy" as a christian nutcase. I am not saying it hasn't been done, but to say it happens more then say a black man or a foreigner is just flat out misleading and wrong.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    35. Re:Don't watch it by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Child pornography causes a very large amount of harm to children. The video in question hurts some people's feelings. Comparing the two is a vast stretch of the imagination.

      Not necessarily, by some definitions. For example, a photograph/video made by two consenting teenagers (or just one, sent to another) causes no harm.

      It might cause harm if distributed, even with their consent, but what if it's distributed by themselves years later, once they're at least 18?

      (My parents have a few photographs of me naked as a baby/young child, e.g. while playing in the garden or bath. I'm pretty sure they don't count as child pornography under British law, but they might do elsewhere. If I distribute them no harm is done.)

    36. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This video is what caused the protest it just galvanized a feeling that Muslims have had for quite some time. They haven't been treated to kindly by the west and they haven't been allowed to have a voice of reason. When you keep slapping at someone constantly for something someone else did eventually people are going to get hostile and wait for that one action. This probably would have happend no matter what but in this case the video allowed them to justify their actions. It's a scary situation, there is a lot of anger on both sides and no one wants to address it.

      I think we haven't recovered from 9/11 and in some ways I think the Muslims were hurt more by what happend than anyone else. The west looked for someone to blame it on and when people found out it was Muslim extreemists they focused on them. Until that point though a lot of people especially in rural areas didn't know who Muslims were. Instead of being angry at a right wing extremest group of people who identified as Muslim they blamed everyone who was Muslim or even looked like them. This broad hatered has in my opinion somewhat subsided in the passing years. People who hated all Muslims before now realize how large their community is and how different people within can be. Just like the right wing of any group. The western world in the last 10 years has really come down hard on Muslims, I'm not going to get into if it was justified or not in some cases. They have been treated in our world in some cases as second class citizens. We've mocked poked and proded. It was only a matter of time before the non active extreme groups of Muslims decided to act along side of the active group. The thing we have to watch out for is our reaction to this. If either side reacts in the wrong way you could see people starting to support the more extreeme groups of people on either side.

      Removing the video isn't the right answer either. Anyone saying we should remove it doesn't understand how important free speech is. I wouldn't blame google from removing it from being as accessable so people don't come across it unwillingly but to remove it completly would be a shame. Because it would indicate that if a group of people can yell loud enough an idea can be shot down. In this case it would appear that the idea is hatered and should be unacceptable, the next time something is banned it could be something that would have changed us for the better.

      Just my opinion though.

    37. Re:Don't watch it by Bob9113 · · Score: 2, Informative

      >> There is a difference between insulting a religion and discriminating against or inciting violence against the followers.

      > That's the big difference... Nothing about "Innocence of Muslims" encouraged anyone to go murdering Muslims...

      I am a hard-core believer in free speech. I believe that Thomas Paine was entirely justified in advocating terrorism against his lawful government. I do not think Innocence of Muslims should be censored any more than should Rush Limbaugh be.

      But the latter was involved in the long and broad US public media hate speech that helped create support for our doctrine of preemptive defense. A doctrine that resulted in tens of thousands of Muslims being killed. The sitting President at the time said that God had told him to do it, and many of our congresspeople said that they prayed for guidance on the matter. Our active troops were asked by their command structure to pray for President Bush.

      > Do you see thousands of Jews protesting Sacha Baron Cohen's works or those of Mel Brooks because they can be considered insulting to Judaism? No. A few complain, but no massive outpourings of rage and no one was murdered.

      "The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting." - 1999 Likud Charter

      Our leaders may use the religion angle differently, in a fashion more tightly coupled with politicial nationalism, and ultimately employing our flag troops. We may use secular cultural differences as often or more often than we use religious doctrine to garner support for the use of force. We may even be more justified in our actions. But it is disingenuous to deny that religious and cultural intolerance is a significant component of popular support for our use of deadly force.

    38. Re:Don't watch it by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you see thousands of Jews protesting Sacha Baron Cohen's works or those of Mel Brooks because they can be considered insulting to Judaism? No. A few complain, but no massive outpourings of rage and no one was murdered.

      Do you see people rioiting and murdering people because of Piss Christ or South Park Jesus? Nope.

      Add "Life of Brian" to the list of offending things - one that fiercely mocked both Jews and Christians. Nobody gave or gives a flying fuck about Life of Brian - apart from the good fun that we all had watching it.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    39. Re:Don't watch it by scamper_22 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Europe is very much an area of great political ignorance.
      They bet on the Euro... thinking you could have a monetary union without a common fiscal or political union. Well, anyone with half a brain could have told you that wasn't going to work. But they want and did it anyways... and now they're finding out maybe you do need a common fiscal and political union if you plan on being in a monetary union. Hey. maybe that was the plan of some European bureau/technocrats anyways.

      In the area of 'multiculturalism'... Europe showed more great ignorance. Perhaps even more ignorant than their choice in the Euro. They bought into the idea that you don't need any common cultural policy to have a common political policy. Basically, just throw welfare money at people, and you can let people believe and do whatever they want. Just make sure they don't kill people.

      It hasn't worked out very well and it is poised to get worse. Ghettoized communities. Imaams and religious leaders who have no allegiance to Western values or the nation.

      Forget about putting people on trial for treason or anything along those lines... just bloody well teaching people the values of your society is not even done in Europe. Schools don't teach what it means to be British. A reason why many British youth aren't even British any more. But it's worse when you have an organized group (Islamic religious leaders) who to 'teach' the youth their values and your society does nothing to push your values.

      There used to be a time that to be considered a citizen of a country, you have to subscribe to the values of that country within a degree. At least, the values of that society were pushed heavily in the schools and society.

      Just like you can't run a monetary union without some common fiscal/political union... you can't run a national union without some common cultural/values.

      Europe will be brought back to reality in one way or another. Not that North America doesn't suffer from similar issues... it's just not as bad and delusional as Europe.

    40. Re:Don't watch it by Shatrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the offices of CBS were attacked around the world and people died. Same thing.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    41. Re:Don't watch it by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      If Fox got lucky, how is it that pretty much the entire right wing came out very quickly pointing to this being a terrorist attack? Obviously, the insiders in congress, ones with access to intel, were aware. McCain came out with a statement almost immediately saying the White House was full of shit. That and it's not rocket science to figure out that when a bunch of people show up heavily armed, it's not a impromptu protest. Now Biden and others claim "we didn't know", and point to the State Department. If that's correct, then I guess Ambassador Rice is either the sacrificial lamb, or was flat out lying. Is there any other possible explanation?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    42. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Informative

      Umm.. because pretty much the entire right wing gets their news from Fox?

      Really... is it that difficult?

      Fox was asserting terrorism long before there was any real information available, much less publicly available. It was wishful thinking on their part that turned out to be true.

    43. Re:Don't watch it by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      It's not like TV stations are slipping this video in amongst their shows and commercials to trick you into watching it. If you don't like it, don't watch it, and stop trying to force your religious views on others.

      The thing I fid interesting is that on one hand you have "don't watch it if you don't want to be offended/Free speech Yaaaaaay!!!!" regarding the anti-muslim propaganda while on the other hand .. you have doctrine for castigating any attacks on another people/religion .. so codified that it even has a well known descriptive name "Antisemitism"

      I'm not saying that attacking one group is any worse/better than attacks on another group - however I do believe that a lot of people in western countries would have a different opinion if that film on youtube was anti-Semitic.

      (and yes I know there are anti-semetic films on youtube, but they are not as well publicized as the film du jour topic of outrage. IE Videos from the Westboro baptist church )

      actually no. If jews went on a rampage and killed random people because of an anti-semitic video, I would be just as pissed off at the riots and still not really care about the video. If a video went and more or less accurately depicted Moses as the genocidal psycho that he was, I would probably applaud it.

      oops I just called Moses a genocidal psycho. perhaps all the christians, jews and muslims on the earth should riot now.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    44. Re:Don't watch it by khallow · · Score: 1

      It didn't take a lot of brain power to be right on this one. An ambassador just happens to die of violence in the Middle East on September 11? But yes, I imagine Fox News didn't think there'd be any consequences to reporting that story wrong.

    45. Re:Don't watch it by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      You should really watch your antecedents. For a second there I thought you were going to set your ass ablaze.

    46. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2

      I sense you are being sarcastic. Fox gets stories horribly wrong all the time, and never has any consequences... so yeah, there really are none for them.

      The mitigating factor was that there were simultaneous riots in Egypt that WERE a result of the film, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

      Fox claimed that was terrorism as well, and they were wrong on that.. and what were the consequences?

      Want to know how far out on a limb Fox was? Check out this article on Breitbart.com. Breitbart is widely considered to be one of the most conservative sites on the internet.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/American-Killed-on-911-In-Libyan-Consulate-Attack

      They say:

      "It is so far the only death from mob attacks in Libya and Egypt over Islamist anger at an alleged film in production by Coptic Christians focusing on Islam"

      So even Breitbart was calling Libya reaction to the film.... so please, don't act like this was a known fact.

    47. Re:Don't watch it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion is a special case. With [insert non-religious dogma here], it's often very difficult to convince people to die for your cause, you know... because of death and the will to live and stuff. With religion, you can promise them AN ETERNITY OF BLISS... see how there's a qualitative difference?

    48. Re:Don't watch it by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless you saw the initial release you've been robbed of about 20 seconds of python hilarity.

      Specifically the end of the first Jewish suicide squad scene. I've got the script book (somewhere) that I bought when the film was first released. It includes the missing seconds, so I know I'm not just imagining them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re:Don't watch it by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      It's still the same thing... A bunch of zealots whipping up people into a frenzy that normally would never have known any better.

      The righteous right would like nothing more than getting people in the streets stoning people.. But Americans are too fat & lazy to care.

    50. Re:Don't watch it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You should look up 'evil twin ford Ka' commercial from England.

      It's the only commercial I've ever seen that is more awesome then 'Trunk Monkey'. It was only shown once. The ad firm fired a scapegoat, then was fired itself as a scapegoat. The English cat people had gone full on gibbering enraged hissy fit over a bit of CGI.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    51. Re:Don't watch it by Cederic · · Score: 2

      They haven't been treated to kindly by the west and they haven't been allowed to have a voice of reason.

      Act like unreasonable cunts and people wont treat you kindly.

      Or are you blaming Western democracy for the grotesque harassment of women in the 'new' Egypt? For the attempted assassination of a girl in Pakistan for daring to want education? For kicking off fucking riots over some shit film nobody else cares about?

      Please forgive my utter lack of fucking sympathy.

    52. Re:Don't watch it by Cederic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have them on DVD :)

      Although 'blind biker' was wrong; people were horribly offended by Life of Brian - it was banned by 39 councils and some bishop made a laughable attempt to debate the film with the Pythons.

      They ripped him apart, with utter beautiful courtesy, using elegant arguments and a depth of knowledge that exposed his complete ignorance. It was a joy to behold.

    53. Re:Don't watch it by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Nobody was whipped into a frenzy, people who expel hot air for a living or a hobby on both sides of the issue had something to talk about for a few weeks (apparently at least one person for a few years) and everyone else gave zero shits.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    54. Re:Don't watch it by blackest_k · · Score: 2

      you might think that but life of brian was banned in a few places

      http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/Top-ten-movies-banned-in-Ireland-124842519.html

      surprisingly the meaning of life got banned as well!

       

    55. Re:Don't watch it by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 2

      Religious people are at least seeking the truth.

      No, Religious people are seeking solace, which is distinctly different from the truth. Seeking truth in this manner can lead you to do atrocious things like Hitler, who believed his people were gods chosen and that the Jews killed Jesus. The leaders of N. Korea are fiercely religious, they have a state religion where KJI's father was the state god. Calling Hitler and atheist is ignorance, you've just invalidated your whole point.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    56. Re:Don't watch it by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Do you see people rioiting and murdering people because of Piss Christ or South Park Jesus? Nope.

      I remember "Piss Christ" when the controversy broke out. Your example lost some of its luster since it is old, but back in the day it was a rallying cry for christian fundamentalists to become more involved with protesting against the Public Endowment for the Arts and the big evil secular government. The movie "Last Temptation of Christ" had a similar amount of protests which resulted in its being banned in several countries (Chile, Philippines, and Singapore) as well as several theaters in the Southern US not showing it or having a limited showing due to the controversy created by the mainstream news of the time.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    57. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, such investigations are seldom public. The administration really has no responsibility to tell us ANYTHING until all the facts are known. Talking about an ongoing investigation is stupid, and I'm pissed that they're doing so.

      Second, Romney *IS* exploiting it for political gain. In fact, he said back in March, in that infamous 47% video, that he was searching for an "Iran Hostage Crisis" kind of situation that he would exploit. Here's his exact quote:

      Romney: âoeâ¦by the way, if something of that nature (referring to the hostage crises) presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.â

      So please tell me how he's NOT exploiting it for political gain, and how he'd never do such a thing.

    58. Re:Don't watch it by khallow · · Score: 1

      The mitigating factor was that there were simultaneous riots in Egypt that WERE a result of the film, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

      Except that they started on 9/11. I think there were a number of instigators (and not just in the Middle East) looking to start something on this day. The arabic version of the offensive film just happens to come a week ahead of these riots. And these riots just happen to start on 9/11.

    59. Re:Don't watch it by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In this case religious nuts are actively trying to paint everything as terrorism, the slightest perceived insult of their nasty misogynist compulsory religion so that they can claim it as acceptable to react with violence. This protest is all about forcing their acceptance of their religious laws upon the rest of society through direct acts of physical coercion. Either accede to the superiority of their religious laws over the laws of the land or face direct physical attack. They are purposefully going out of their way, to choose to be insulted when their religion is criticised in any way, shape of form and when their crazy people in robes are set above the rest of us rather than tossed in the looney bin or prison as they would nowadays when they run around claiming to speak for god whilst abusing children.

      If Google submits to this intimidation then they will have become truly evil and a threat to free speech. Their religion, their problem. Clearly in the case Muslims are well and truly crossing the bounds of freedom of religion in trying to force their religion upon others.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    60. Re:Don't watch it by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      My first question is how did you get modded up when your first sentence is so bigoted. Followed by your second. I'm guessing you're also like Obama tossing the spooks under the bus when they openly called it a terrorist attack within 48 hours, you know the guys who had been in the field in Libya.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    61. Re:Don't watch it by TheLink · · Score: 1

      ORLY? What percentage of the following movies have the bad guy as a Christian nutcase:
      http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/?year=2012

      --
    62. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      How exactly is it "bigoted" to say that most republicans get their news from Fox?

      Do you know what the word Bigot means? It means someone intolerant of anothers culture or beliefs. I didn't say I hated fox. I didn't they were evil. I was just pointing out that (rightly) they are often wrong and run with stories that are at best conjecture.

      Remember the Obamacare ruling? Going off and saying that the mandate was struck down?

      They continued to say it was struck down LONG after every other news agency was reporting it wasn't. Fox didn't even apologize for the error. They just said:

      âoeWe gave our viewers the news as it happened ⦠Fox reported the facts, as they came in.â(TM)â(TM)

      The fact is, Fox is quick to jump to conclusions if they agree with their world view, and report them as fact when they're at best rumor or conjecture.

      My only other beef with Fox is that they tend to conflate opinion with news. Other than that, I don't mind Fox and frequently watch them.

      But that doesn't change the fact that you claim bigotry? Wow.

    63. Re:Don't watch it by Burning1 · · Score: 2

      This from a country where I can't see tits on youtube. Face it, pushing your religious beliefs on other people is par the course and totally acceptable to this country so long as it's the popular set of beliefs being pushed.

    64. Re:Don't watch it by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      It's also the most brilliant scam the rich have ever come up with. Think about it, how do you keep the peasant slaving away while you live like a God, without the peasants rising up and demanding not to be treated like shit and stomped on? By telling them the sky bully rewards peasants when they die! Kinda a "40 acres and a mule" that of course nobody even has to provide, because its invisible acres and mule in an invisible land.

      There is a reason why all the major religions allude to followers being sheep ya know, its because sheep are dumb animals you can fleece and slaughter.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    65. Re:Don't watch it by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Nicely put. To further expound upon the point of unjustified outrage, ever hear of "The War on Christmas?" The Muslims are just using mock outrage to justify their intolerance of everyone else's point of view in the same way you constantly hear xian's talk about being persecuted.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    66. Re:Don't watch it by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion is a special case. With [insert non-religious dogma here], it's often very difficult to convince people to die for your cause, you know... because of death and the will to live and stuff. With religion, you can promise them AN ETERNITY OF BLISS... see how there's a qualitative difference?

      Right, tell that to all of the people killed in the Soviet Union or the Cuban revolution or Pol Pot or the Cultural Revolution in China. Shall I go on?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    67. Re:Don't watch it by dballanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you not pay attention in history class? This sort of thing didn't start on 9/11. It's been going on with the same basic political/theocratic base for many decades now, and fundamentally for hundreds of years. A voice of reason has to come from within. It's not something the west or anyone else 'allow'. It can be silenced (violence, fear). It can be discouraged (dogma, poor education, lack of diversity).

      The problem boils down to the usual brew of basically good people naively trying to find their place in life, and a few people willing to persuade and exploite the first in order to shape the world to their liking. It's not a muslim thing. It happens in many places, and to varying degrees (just look at the current US elections for a nice modern example). It's human nature. The only things I know of that we can do to fight it are to educate the naive so they are not so easily led. Education. Not schools, but discourse. Free thought, ideas, speech. Of course there is a fine line between education and persuasion, and that is why absolute free speech is so important. Any restrictions on free speech are a step in the direction of persuasion.

      I've heard arguments that "people will be offended" if XXXX. I object to that. I think "people may -take offence-". Like the voice of reason, offense comes from within. It's not something we push on others. It's something people choose for themselves.

    68. Re:Don't watch it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Which edition? Last I looked they were still denying the edit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    69. Re:Don't watch it by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > You take an invisible dude in a toga and put him in control of morality!!!!

      A control which He is not exercising. This is a problem.

      Religions tell stuff about God, then some man thinks he is above that God who don't restrain people and steps in God's shoes and forces rules on others. Fine, it's under his responsibility.

      But following him, trusting a man above a god is the opposite of religion. Morality is how YOU read the religion, or your own set of rules, into your everyday life.

      For Christians, Mt. 4:9, the entity who likes to play God is the bad guy, I would assume that control freaks are more on the bad side.

      If there is a God resembling the Christian one, "I was following orders" is not going to cut it, He would reply something like: "Sacrificing the freedom I gave you by following another man's order is one more sin you committed; and now let's talk about what you did when following those orders..."

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    70. Re:Don't watch it by capnkr · · Score: 1

      The administration really has no responsibility to tell us ANYTHING until all the facts are known.

      Really? You honestly think that? No wonder that the Feds can get away with the stuff they do, with people believing such...

      The facts in the matter ARE known - by the insiders, who it seems to me are doing their level best to keep said facts *unknown* to the public, for political reasons, likely. The "ongoing investigation" which matters is the one that is rooting out just which of them knew what, and when, and why that knowledge was not used to avoid the death of an American Ambassador (for the first time in over 30 years) and 3 other Americans.

      As far as exploiting it for political gain, your guy isn't any better than Romney - wanna guess who's over in Libya right now? None other than John Brennan, Obama’s current counterterrorism adviser - the same guy who made up the drone assassination lists. What do you think the odds are that he oh-so conveniently fingers some fringe Islamist group or another, and we see some sort of remote attack "on the perpetrators of the Benghazi Embassy assault" a week or so before voting day...

      --
      "...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
    71. Re:Don't watch it by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Muslims are so hostile towards the west, the US in particular, because of the last 40 years of US foreign policy; supporting Saudi police state and other tyrannies that oppress and murder Muslims. I've talked to people from Iran and elsewhere, they have no problem with Americans as people, they admire many things about it, but the American government is detested because of what it has done in the Arab world. They have immediate family members who are dead because of what the US government has done, be it the overthrow of the Iranian government in 53 or the US backing of Sadam in the Iran-Iraq war.

      Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible Will Make Violent Revolution Inevitable. - John F Kennedy

      What we are seeing is simply the response to decades of foreign policy that has been based on the maintenance of tyrannies and the oppression of Muslims. Are they blameless, of course not. However they were not sending fire ships into our harbors in the 19th century.

      Bin Laden and other have been EXTREMELY clear about this in their writings from as far back as the mid 90's. Yes there is a religious component, but one could easily formulate secular justifications if you wanted to. All their grievances boil down to the desire for self rule. Yes there are many who would like Islamic law worldwide, but the main issue is self-rule in the Arab world. Of course once they had that they would quickly go back to killing each other as they were doing before we got involved in the region.

      Checkout this interview of Michael Scheuer , the man who was tasked with tracking Bin Laden for years. The US government knows WHY they are attacking us, but go with the propaganda because it absolves them of blame.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk

    72. Re:Don't watch it by Vermonter · · Score: 1

      The video in question is just an excuse for Muslim extremists to get angry and protest. If the video didn't exist, they would be protesting for the same reasons right now. Think of it like the Westboro Baptist Church... protesting because that's what they love to be angry, and this is a perfect outlet. Except instead of a half dozen people, it's thousands, and instead of just being extreme douchebaggery, this was violent and deadly in Libya and would not surprise me if it became as such elsewhere.

    73. Re:Don't watch it by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The more important aspect is the "nuclear deterrent" one...

      The peasants know they can rise up and overthrow the king, sure he may have soldiers and castles but with enough angry peasants they can overthrow and kill him if his demands becomes too outrageous.
      On the other hand, if the king has an ally at his disposal that the peasants have no hope of countering, there is no point attempting to overthrow the king because such an attempt would always result in failure. The notion of `God' is the ultimate nuclear deterrent.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    74. Re:Don't watch it by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1
      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    75. Re:Don't watch it by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      We really didn't need to go there. There is a difference between one religion which is intolerant of all others and all religions in general.

    76. Re:Don't watch it by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      There was a bit in the original script of "The Meaning of Life" involving catholic priests and little girls that was cut from the final edit.

    77. Re:Don't watch it by spmkk · · Score: 1

      ...Fox was claiming it *WAS* a terrorist attack within minutes of the story leaking.

      As what happens with a stopped clock, it's right once or twice in a while... Fox got lucky. ...They *WANTED* it to be a terrorist attack

      Speaking objectively, for a stopped clock they sure "happen" to be right pretty often. They were right about Hassan Akbar, they were right about Nidal Hasan, they were right about this. A much more accurate assessment would be that Fox's detractors (including the White House) *WANTED* it /not/ to be terrorist attack, and held off admitting that it was as long as possible until they had no choice.

      ...and now they're gloating about (accidentally) being right for a change

      Accidentally? For a change? Smearing a news outlet for recognizing a pattern that actually exists instead of trying to shoehorn reality into a pattern that would be *nice* to see is akin to punishing the child for pointing out the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

    78. Re:Don't watch it by matmota · · Score: 1

      I saw the video of that debate recently. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku3GcPrW9xg&t=0m52s

      That link goes to the point where they aired a short fragment of the movie after interviewing John Cleese and Michael Palin, and then the debate starts.

    79. Re:Don't watch it by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reminds me of a quote by physicist Steven Weinberg:

      "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil â" that takes religion."

    80. Re:Don't watch it by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      While we agree on many things Crosshair on this one you are DEAD WRONG. Look up the number of Muslims in a country and how the violence goes UP the more Muslims you have. If the country is 100% Muslim no problem right? WRONG as then the Imams start jockeying and fighting each other for control!

      And tell me friend...what does the west have to do with the Shia murdering the Sunni and vice versa? that has only be going on...ohhh...about 600 YEARS now and shows no let up in sight.

      Remember friend you are a cow to them, that's right, a cow. You might want to read this with just a few snippets of what they think of you infidel, and I'll just end with some quotes from their own book that illustrates better than i ever could why there can NEVER be peace with Islam:

      Quran 4:89: They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. Quran 8:12: Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers; Quran 2:191: kill the disbelievers wherever we find them Quran 22:19-22: for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods. Quran 8:12: Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes. Quran 8:7: Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: Wipe the infidels out to the last. Quran 8:59: The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy. Quran 8:60: Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you. Quran 9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. Quran 47:4: Strike off the heads of the disbelievers and, after making a wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    81. Re:Don't watch it by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It's "added extras" rather than cut into the film.

      Actually, now you mention it, the specific scene may not even be in those. I'll have to go and check :(

    82. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry... right about who? and who?

      What was there to be "right" about? Both of these were mentally unhinged people.. just because they had funny names there was something to be "right" about?

    83. Re:Don't watch it by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, the term sheep and herder stems from a time when most religious societies revolved around sheep herding. Sheep were to the original religious of these societies as Cows are to farmers in the US today.

      Any connection to dumb animals is purely conjecture on your part. Your premise is contrived and lacking any solid basis in reality. It's about providing for and protecting your flock, the flock was their wealth at the time.

    84. Re:Don't watch it by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Evidently not. How else would he know it is wearing a toga.. Ah wait, the God could have told him so.

    85. Re:Don't watch it by deek · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the DVD, but I have the Blu-Ray version, and the suicide squad scene was included as an extra "deleted scenes" feature.

    86. Re:Don't watch it by spmkk · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry... right about who? and who?

      What was there to be "right" about? Both of these were mentally unhinged people.. just because they had funny names there was something to be "right" about?

      Right about both of those "mentally unhinged people" being Islamic terrorists. In both cases Fox was one of the first networks to report on the religion of the perpetrators, and certainly the first to call it out as a relevant factor in the attacks. Every other (major) news outlet initially either glossed over their religious affiliation, sidelined it as tangential, or omitted it entirely under the guise of not knowing. The fact is they did know, and it was relevant.

      You will no doubt say this only shows bigotry on the part of Fox News and caution from everyone else, and/or that Fox was right "accidentally"; I say it shows a lack of integrity on the part of other outlets in not saying what's clear but uncomfortable until someone else says it (and bears the brunt of the public backlash) first.

    87. Re:Don't watch it by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Their religious affiliation *WAS* irrelevant. People shoot other people all the time. Maybe you heard about this thing at the premier of Batman in Colorado? Or maybe the various other shootings...

      Every crazy has their reasons, that doesn't make them terrorists. That makes them insane. Just because these two people had funny names and were Islamic doesn't change the fact that they did what lots of non-Islamic people have been doing.

      Crazy people are often deranged about religion anyways. And there is no evidence that either of those killers were told to do it as part of a jihad or fatwa or whatever you want to call it.

      Hasan had emailed with a rather notorious Iman the previous year, but they found nothing to link that with the shooting. Neither FBI or the Army's investigation found a connection.

      And the other guy was being bullied and abused by his platoon mates. Again, no connection between any terrorist organization. Just because he was crazy *AND* Islamic doesn't make him a terrorist.

      Use your freaking brain, man. Fox was NOT right to label these people terrorists when there was no link to the actions and a terrorist organization.

      This is precisely the kind of point I waking about how they jump to conclusions immediately, and then when 99% of the time it doesn't pan out, they keep saying it over and over again until bigots (who will believe anything that agrees with their world view) and idiots (who will just believe anything repeated enough times) start to believe them over facts.

    88. Re:Don't watch it by shocking · · Score: 2

      Nope, not quite correct - all it takes is a belief that the end justifies the means. That way is the root of much evil.

    89. Re:Don't watch it by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

      Please investigate a little bit further. These people might have been non-believers but they used the same tricks as religion does. Miracles, a local deity (or representative), Dogma and Force (albeit much more physical opposed to the more enlightened religions of today)

      How are you any different? You are quoting dogma and painting all faiths with the same brush even when some acts committed by Muslims are considered a "sin" by Jesus and his followers. It is a "sin" to go around killing people. It is a sin to lie. It is a sin to commit suicide. Jesus stopped the stoning of a prostitute but not because he wanted her to continue with her existing lifestyle but rather to give her a second chance for a better way to live.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    90. Re:Don't watch it by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Troll? Flamebait? If only. To everyone who downmodded this comment I ask you this:
      Do you know how many children every year have their famillies torn apart, parents or sibilngs killed, are taught to hate either other people or themselves, have part of ther genitals cut off without any possibility of consent and so on all in the name of someone's Giant Flying Spagetti Monster?
      If the truth is flaming, then flame on.
      Not posting AC as I'm prepared to burn Karma here. I hope you are.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    91. Re:Don't watch it by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add all the people killed during the American Civil War or the "collateral damage" in the Vietnam War. Shall I go on?

    92. Re:Don't watch it by shinzawai · · Score: 1

      But you wouldn't log in with an account you AC.

    93. Re:Don't watch it by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Thanks. You beat me to it. Lots of people kill in the name of a cause. Not all religious people are consistent in their thinking (praise the lord /sarc). But then neither are progressives. Look at all the fools hollering about Republican intolerance while wearing "Che" Guevara shirts.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    94. Re:Don't watch it by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      This is actually quite insightful: something a lot of people miss is that many of the problems with religion are actually only problems because it gets mixed with something else (as parent noted, power hunger is the worst). I think it's a good reason why those with a religion need to question more: go back to the foundations of your belief system and dig deep, find out what it really says and whether the people above you in your organisation are matching it. Don't assume that because someone has the title, they're going to be right.

      I'm a strong believer in the idea of separate spheres of influence, and while I wouldn't be one to post something highly inflammatory against another, I support the right of someone else to do so, even if I disagree with them, and would question what another believes (and expect the same). I think a spiritual belief is a highly enriching thing to have, but orders to march to war shouldn't be coming from your church/mosque/temple/synagogue/whatever: that is the domain of the governing body (who should themselves be separate to the judicial body, or the media, or the educational institutes, etc). I think we're strongest (and safest) when we're hearing from the largest number of different influences, not force-fed one party line.

      I wonder if this might be the real reason that some in the Muslim world don't like critique of their prophet - it's not about religion as much as it's that they fear losing power and influence over their people if they can't control their intake of media? Islam, from what I've seen, in general makes for really nice societies (contrary to the hype we hear usually) but only if it's unchallenged - unlike several other belief systems, it doesn't work too well when in the minority (whereas I think Christianity is generally better when in the minority than when in the majority).

    95. Re:Don't watch it by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      "Used the same tricks as religion does" defeats your earlier argument that religion is a special case. I suggest that religion isn't a special case, except in so far as it touches the deepest part of what a person believes: so, maybe it's an easier route, but what you have just said suggests is that really it's the behaviours that are the problem, not the belief behind it.

      (Ergo, if someone starts doing that sort of thing, get worried and back away, regardless of who they are).

    96. Re:Don't watch it by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      You're generalising. Yes, many people seek spirituality for the sake of solace, but others also for the sake of truth - go read up on C.S. Lewis' conversion if you want a famous example: he tried to prove Christianty wrong, failed, and so gave in, eventually becoming a very strong advocate of it. He wasn't there because it was a nice feel-good club, he was there solely because he sought truth.

      Also, while Hitler is an arguable case (depending on which quotes you pull, it's easy to paint him as either an atheist or a religious nut and argue the other quotes are just him pandering to the people), someone like Stalin very much supports his case. So actually, he didn't invalidate his whole point (also, as for the Hitler thing, his using religious overtones to win the populace but actually being an atheist is probably the more plausible case, as the reverse doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider the context - the Nazi party knew that controlling the churches was key to controlling the people, but, as I said, it is debatable).

    97. Re:Don't watch it by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      They banned "The meaning of life"? Holy fuck...

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    98. Re:Don't watch it by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Please investigate a little bit further. These people might have been non-believers but they used the same tricks as religion does. Miracles, a local deity (or representative), Dogma and Force (albeit much more physical opposed to the more enlightened religions of today)

      How are you any different? You are quoting dogma and painting all faiths with the same brush even when some acts committed by Muslims are considered a "sin" by Jesus and his followers. It is a "sin" to go around killing people. It is a sin to lie. It is a sin to commit suicide. Jesus stopped the stoning of a prostitute but not because he wanted her to continue with her existing lifestyle but rather to give her a second chance for a better way to live.

      Citation needed. The 'Jesus .. stoning" thing is just a story. And from what I heard recently, it was added a long time after the original stuff written.

      Of course if we're allowed to quote behaviour examples from people who may or may not have existed, I can cite behaviour by Odysseus, Robin Hood and Edward Fairfax Rochester.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    99. Re:Don't watch it by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      It didn't have dancing bunnies so I didn't watch it. "Viral" my ass.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    100. Re:Don't watch it by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      The puritan sensibility that drives protests against wardrobe malfunctions is the same sensibility that burned witches.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    101. Re:Don't watch it by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      >> some bishop made a laughable attempt to debate the film with the Pythons.

      I want a dvd of that!!!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    102. Re:Don't watch it by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil â" that takes religion."

      A belief in "the greater good" is all that's necessary, and while religion helps, it is not a necessity for that.

    103. Re:Don't watch it by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Sheep or cows, it doesn't matter, they were still subservient. That was the point. Wilful subservience. Cows are still dumb animals that get milked and slaughtered.

    104. Re:Don't watch it by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Isn't it interesting how the homosexual community did similar protests against Chick-fil-A when it's president said that he supports traditional marriage?

      Well that's a nice way of spinning it. Protesting against religiously-sponsored bigotry is itself a "silly religious reason?"

      No one protests that someone supports the recent definition of "traditional marriage." I'm fine with people who want to get married in the traditional manner. Nothin' wrong with that.

      My problem is when a religion says that gay people are unworthy and don't have similar rights. I don't have a lot of respect for that, no.

    105. Re:Don't watch it by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No religious people are seeking not to think, that's pretty much it.

      Religious people are seeking answers, even if they're the wrong answers. Answers are far more comforting than uncertainty. I'm personally more comfortable with a lack of answers over a human invention I'm pretty sure is not correct.

    106. Re:Don't watch it by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Muslims are so hostile towards the west, the US in particular, because of the last 40 years of US foreign policy

      What you left out was the most important of the US's sins -- the support of the nation of Israel, the usual target whenever other Middle East countries want to blame their own problems on someone else. Israel is a wonderful foil for the imams, for people will listen better if faced with an "us versus them" situation.

      They have immediate family members who are dead because of what the US government has done, be it the overthrow of the Iranian government in 53 or the US backing of Sadam in the Iran-Iraq war.

      Let's be clear, there were no good sides in the Iran-Iraq war. It was quite reasonable given what we knew of Iran and Iraq at the time to believe that Saddam was the lesser of two evils, and back then, to the US, Iran was a superbly big evil.

      All their grievances boil down to the desire for self rule.

      And their desires to have the nation of Israel wiped away as a Jewish state.

    107. Re:Don't watch it by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      So you're trying to say Hitler was just an athiest in xian clothing? Kind of a reach, but if it helps you sleep at night go with it. Even if Stalin was an atheist, it's not like he did what he did in the name of atheism, it was in the name of the state, which is a pretty different aim. Religion may have been a victim in his crusade, but it was collateral and not the main focus. Seeking truth then finding religion does not mean religion is truth, it means you failed to find truth and settled for what makes you feel good about your failure.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    108. Re:Don't watch it by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      While we agree on many things Crosshair on this one you are DEAD WRONG. Look up the number of Muslims in a country and how the violence goes UP the more Muslims you have. If the country is 100% Muslim no problem right? WRONG as then the Imams start jockeying and fighting each other for control!

      False cause fallacy. I can do the EXACT same thing and show how you get more violence the more black people, Irish, Hispanics, etc. The problem has more to do with large uncontrolled immigration of unskilled people who refuse to assimilate into their new country. These people become concentrated in ghetos where such violence can ferment

      As for them fighting in their own countries, let them. None of our business. That is what they did before we started intervening and it is what they will start doing soon after we leave. If people want to renounce that lifestyle and be peaceful then we can let them immigrate.

      And tell me friend...what does the west have to do with the Shia murdering the Sunni and vice versa? that has only be going on...ohhh...about 600 YEARS now and shows no let up in sight.

      I never said it had anything to do with that, that is a separate subject. What our interference HAS done is united many Muslims together to fight against a common enemy who gets in the way of them fighting over who gets to rule. It's none of our business and nothing we can do to solve it. It is entirely up to them.

      Remember friend you are a cow to them, that's right, a cow. You might want to read this [samharris.org] with just a few snippets of what they think of you infidel, and I'll just end with some quotes from their own book that illustrates better than i ever could why there can NEVER be peace with Islam:

      I am reasonably well versed in the Quran thank you very much. I checked it over years ago when I was going through that phase in my life of searching for the truth. (That endeavor is a long story by itself.) Islam has many philosophical problems with it. A historically inaccurate portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth that seems to be based off the 2nd century forgery known as the Gospel of Peter. A philosophically inadequate conception of the nature of God and god dealing with human sin. No records of Mohammad performing miracles, to authenticate his supposed revelation, until centuries after his death once Islam had firsthand contact with Christianity and Judaism. Not to mention other issues that go far deeper than what you mention. For that reason Islam was one of the worldviews that I rejected.

      The point I am trying to make is that we have two practical option, either leave them alone and focus on capturing/killing any that come here to do harm, or worldwide genocide and killing every single one. Historically we see that they were quite content in staying in their part of the world killing each other. What we are doing now, trying to install secular democracies, cannot and will not work. If we simply leave the region they will quickly go back to killing each other. After all, it is MUCH easier to go to the next town to kill the Shia/Sunni than it is to go 12,000 miles to try and kill some infidel. With them focused on killing each other it will be very hard to gather support for acting against us, the Ayatollah tried that in the 70's and got nowhere. Bin laden was able to rally Muslims because of foreign intervention in the Muslim world.

      The clear solution I see is to leave the region and let them kill each other. We then step up policing action at home to find and kill/capture the ones that do come over who, at worst, will be little more than a lethal nuisance. To further cripple them we created a legal drug market and treat drug use as a health problem, eliminating a large source of funding for them. Any extra money we pay for oil because of instability in the region will be more than offset by the money saved by not having our military over there.

      Leave them alone, kill/capture any that try to come over to hurt us.

      Or.

      Kill them all.

      Those are our two practical options.

    109. Re:Don't watch it by dyfortune · · Score: 1

      That would require the whole kingdom to be the same religion. It would be hard to sit under a king who follows a different religion/god when his rationale is that god put him there.

  2. I'll Play Your Game by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."

    Well, even by the post-9/11-everyone's-a-terrorist definitions, I don't see that but, very well, I'll play your game. Your redefinition of the word terrorist in the English language has killed my human feeling of respect for the English language. I have in my hand a piece of paper written in Crayola crayon that I believe to contain a 4,000 year old text defining English as a sacred language. You see I was drunk one night and I accidentally channeled Zoroaster who is like, way older than Muhammad. And you have killed that spirit inside me. Also, your call for censorship completely kills my internal spirit that there is hope for humanity -- one of the greatest of human feelings. As such you sir are a terrorist by your own definition of the word, enjoy your imminent self-incarceration.

    "Organisations like Google are key players and have to take responsibility for civility. You can't just say it doesn't matter that it's freedom of speech. It's anarchy."

    Let me guess, you get to define the words "civility" and "anarchy"? Yeah, I get it, some parts of your religion are only compatible if there's one bearded male telling everyone else what to do. It's 2012, you better suppress that shit or you're gonna have a bad time.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:I'll Play Your Game by scharkalvin · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you people want to protest like CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS then more power to you. However should anyone pick up a stone to throw it at another human being in anger may you be struck down by a bolt of lightning from the hevens.

    2. Re:I'll Play Your Game by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Well... they could do what the New York Transit system did when encountered with the dilemma of some U.S. right wing f***heads buying bus and train advertising space and put up an ad right next to it saying "we don't agree with this but we need to accept this for free speech's sake". IMHO that is going farther than they have to go... but I guess that would help in the search for civility.

      I am not sure we're going to have civility while we are in the middle of a culture war between different groups of right-wing assholes.

    3. Re:I'll Play Your Game by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I don't think I was writing about the left wing assholes in my post. I don't think this topic was about that. I might be wrong...

    4. Re:I'll Play Your Game by Xest · · Score: 2

      I'd wager that if terrorism is killing feelings then those 1.6bn terrorised folk are terrorising the remaining 5bn+ people on the planet with this sort of bullshit.

      Honestly, if people like this want to make it a numbers game by redefining terms, their viewpoint is still not justified, even when they've stacked the odds in their favour by redefining those terms and using arbitrary statistics in the first place.

    5. Re:I'll Play Your Game by khallow · · Score: 1

      When one speaks of "culture wars", there's the great one between rural and urban (often cast as "right" versus "left" or "conservative" versus "liberal") which I think overshadows the religious conflicts such as christian/jew versus muslim or hindu versus muslim. It's amazing how much of our culture stems from how many people we pack in a place.

    6. Re:I'll Play Your Game by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'd wager that if terrorism is killing feelings then those 1.6bn terrorised folk are terrorising the remaining 5bn+ people on the planet with this sort of bullshit.

      I'm becoming more and more convinced that those 5bn+ people don't really object to censorship itself, just to the specific topics being censored. So this whole "free speech" thing could very well just be an anomaly in human history before we return back to censorship as usual (as we're already doing). Controlling the flow of information is simply a too effective tool for any regime to pass.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:I'll Play Your Game by drkim · · Score: 1

      "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well.

      By this standard, every girl who ever rejected me for a date is a terrorist.

  3. Mohammad walks into a bar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mohammad walks into a bar. The explosion kills 9 and injures 23 others. Allah Akbar.

    1. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This posts only shows prejudice and ignorance of the Islamic faith. Muslims don't drink when they can be seen by others.

    2. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by alphatel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anonymous Coward writes Mohammad walks into a bar. The explosion kills 9 and injures 23 others. Allah Akbar.

      Infidel. Your joke of The Prophet has caused religious furor. I am on a jihad to expose your Anonymous.
      May Allah forgive me for I must use anti-muslim tools like Facebook and Youtube to look up your profile.
      I have pledged that after I have completed destroying you I will cleanse myself of these demon tools. Until then they are quite useful for you expose yourself to me like a Coward.
      But this does not concern us. I can break my own laws to serve God as long as the ultimate justice is done. I will even drink your liquor and sex your womens to fulfill my destiny but I will always hate it and make it known. And then when I destroy an evil life I will be clean even when my own life is done.

      Because I thought it was all okay in my head, and I found some cool circular reasoning, and then ignored all the facts, suspended reality, lied to my parents, lost all that I cherished, and if there really was a God he would have sent me straight to whatever Hell is for the amount of evil I wrought in His name.

      I will just ignore what all those Christians went through for the past two centuries in realizing that killing in the name of God is always killing in the name of Man.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    3. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by njen · · Score: 1

      It could have been a juice bar...?

    4. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      well, the term is zionist bar.

    5. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Or a hookah bar.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a brother who is living in the middle east. This is profoundly true. The number of Muslims who drink and use prostitutes is incredibly shocking. What my brother learned while living there is that lying and hypocrisy are central tenets of Islam.

      Of course, its no accident the middle east is widely considered the center of human trafficking and the sex trades.

      They'll have a legitimate argument when they spend as much time standing up against real terrorists who rape and murder women and children. Or even stand up against suicide bombing. The fact is, they all say they are against it, but passively support all of this shit. Seemingly its only bad when their own terrorism comes home to murder their own people. It was a great fucking experiment so long as they were only murdering westerners.

    7. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      He didn't go there to drink, only to get blasted.

    8. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      with blackjack too?

    9. Re:Mohammad walks into a bar... by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      You've just made an unwarranted assumption. All the GP said was that Mohammad walked into the bar. This may well be the terroristic equivalent of Jesus walking into the temple filled by hawkers. Jesus himself didn't take part in the shenanigans.

  4. Oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A bunch of loonies declaring they represent 1.6 billion people. Grow up.

    1. Re:Oh my by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      Shia, Sufism and etc. ?

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    2. Re:Oh my by niftydude · · Score: 1

      A bunch of loonies declaring they represent 1.6 billion people. Grow up.

      This. None of the muslims I know or work with are protesting or even care about this absolute nothing of a video.

      The guys doing the protest are embarrassing fundies.

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  5. My next video will be by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Funny

    My Next video will be "The Thin Skin of Muslims".

    1. Re:My next video will be by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Go for a porn title, instead: "The Foreskin of Muslims." Staring blasphemously uncircumcised actors. Hell, porn stars can act better than the folks in that other video.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  6. Refuse to be Terrorized by Meneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This goes for all peoples, including muslims: Refuse to be Terrorized!

    You're not terrorized by anything unless you choose to be.

    1. Re:Refuse to be Terrorized by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The thought that we are in control of what makes us afraid and what we react to as a society is determined BY society... terrifies me, frankly. We're doomed.

    2. Re:Refuse to be Terrorized by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      This goes for all peoples, including muslims: Refuse to be Terrorized!

      You're not terrorized by anything unless you choose to be.

      Garbage to be Terrorized?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  7. When will these imams by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Protest videos of "unbelievers" being beheaded?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:When will these imams by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      Right after they protest people being charged with and being found guilty of witchcraft.

    2. Re:When will these imams by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Protest videos of "unbelievers" being beheaded?

      Yep, the "terrorists" wanted to bully the world with that videotaped beheading. It didn't work, most people were not 'terrorized'. Revolted, saddened at the cruelness, yes. The bullies lost on that one, because we weren't scared. A terrorist is like a tiny little dog who constantly barks and nips at a much larger dog.

    3. Re:When will these imams by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't make as big a headline though. I mean, there are plenty of moderate, sane islamic leaders out there. But they're not as interesting, as sane people never are, and they don't confirm our impressions of islam as a violent, intolerant religion, so no one wants to hear about them.

      Of course, the sooner people realize that all organized religions encourage violence the better, so I'm not going to protest about bias in the media on this subject too loudly, just pointing out that if they did already protest islamic intolerance, would we know? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.

  8. so... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

    They'll use their freedom of speech to say that others shouldn't have it. Lovely!

    This is idiotic. Again, I am not one of these "LOLZ! Look at the RELIGION OF PEACE" people around here, but this is where one says that if they don't like what was said that they should make their own video and refute it. Currently too man MAINSTREAM Muslims want my Internet to be censored to THEIR tastes. It needs to be a given a BIG FAT NO.

    1. Re:so... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      But if the rest of the Muslim world gets together and makes a video refuting the film they find offensive, then posts it on Youtube, will the mainstream media report it? I doubt it. The capital of something like this film is that the majority of westerners are not so much offended by the film but by the fact that people are protesting something that they find insults their religion.
      Most people here don't care that the film is offensive - they already dislike Islam, have already decided that *all* muslims are at heart terrorists and are ready to post their bigotry in response.
      Before anyone decides to dismiss me for it: no, I am not a muslim. I am posting from Canada where I was raised as a United Church member (although I was never consulted in this and it didn't stick). I just find the mass hatred against the members of the muslim faith a little tiring and offensive myself. Yes, a small bunch of criminals are using the Islamic religion as an excuse to justify their acts of terrorism, but they hardly represent the bulk of muslims in any regard. I am sure we would know if 1.5 billion people were actively attacking the west by now.
      Sadly the majority of people have no desire to learn anything about something they don't undersand, they find it easier to pigeonhole it, dismiss it as wrong and then vilify it in the best manner of internet trolling. When I saw the subject I knew that was what would happen here.

      Americans seem to love hating foreigners. A while ago it was the French (and I am sure millions of you still hate the French because they didn't choose to join the illegal war in Iraq when the US asked them to. You remember thats why right? They used to be your close friends).
      Now its hating Muslims, next it will be the Chinese, or maybe Laotians, or the Russians (again), or some group we haven't yet had brought into the news. You even seem to love hating muslims who were born in the USA.

      I have to say I do wish that the muslim world would generate a thicker skin: some people in the west feel compelled to insult anything and everything that they don't understand. You can't explain anything to those people they just hate shit for its own sake. They need to get used to that fact.

      The media would be doing us all a service if they stopped reporting events in a sensationalist manner and actually did unbiased and researched reporting. Of course they are no longer the Media per se, since so much of the reporting you get these days is really focused on getting our attention so they can sell advertising or simply reflects the political orientation of their corporate owners. The integrity of someone like Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite is long since gone sadly, now we get thinly veiled propaganda reflecting the views of the corporate owners based on very little if any actual research. I guess keeping the sheep dumb and ignorant is preferable to educated and informed citizens who might decide to vote based on the information they received, rather than on whatever data has been spoon fed to them.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    2. Re:so... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      FWIW, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion (ok, maybe a little), and everything to do with groups of ego-maniacal narcissists.

      Seriously; Muslims aren't the first group to demand certain types of art be banned for stupid reasons (Ever hear of 'The Dark Ages?' Google it), and they will be far from the last.

      You're right that we should never give in to any of the pricks who demand censorship of ideas they disagree with.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:so... by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      You're' wrong - Americans tolerate insults to christianity every single day. Just go watch south park. Sorry, but there are no double standards here. Free expression > offended feelings.

    4. Re:so... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Americans seem to love hating foreigners. A while ago it was the French (and I am sure millions of you still hate the French because they didn't choose to join the illegal war in Iraq when the US asked them to. You remember thats why right? They used to be your close friends).
      Now its hating Muslims, next it will be the Chinese, or maybe Laotians, or the Russians (again), or some group we haven't yet had brought into the news. You even seem to love hating muslims who were born in the USA.

      Name one cultural group that is not hostile to foreigners. And "close enough looking" foreigners do not count such as Canadian-American-British.

      Do you see how the British treat Eastern Europeans? Did you see how the French were treating foreigners that led to the Paris riots? Shit, I have even seen Vancouverites complaining about asians taking their jobs... and people from British Colombia are the nicest people in the world.

      Obviously this isn't a fair description of everyone. I would venture a guess that more than half of everyone in the world are not-racist, and generally good people. However for whatever reason, you get a group of those same nice people together and mob mentality takes over and you get a snarling mass of "dey took er jabs!" and "go home ".

      The only foreigners welcome world-wide are relatively wealthy visitors, including in-country foreigners (for sufficiently big countries like the USA). And for the most part those are merely tolerated.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:so... by chilvence · · Score: 1

      I can see where you are arguing from, but the answer to the problem is more travel, not less travel, and your opinion paints an unreasonably bleak outlook. People only become tribal when they don't know any other way. It only takes one toxic person to poison the opinion of hundreds in a stagnant pool.

  9. Terrorism of feelings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well.

    I find this extremely offensive, not only because they're trying to control what other humans can think, but also because they dare to compare the mental outrage at an idea to the physical killing and torture of humans. These things are not even remotely comparable except at a philosophical level.

    ...

    After calming down a bit, it seems evident to me that these people are simply unable to cope with the cognitive dissonance that their one true belief may not be so true after all.

    It's your belief; deal with it yourself. Don't expect everyone else to change their lives because you can't handle opposing thoughts.

    1. Re:Terrorism of feelings? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      That Pakistani government minister was on the radio a couple of weeks back, saying that his putting a price on the video creator's head was fighting terrorism. "Without people like that, there would be no terrorism" was his basic point. So, the solution to terrorism is to slaughter all the people that terrorists don't like, then there will be no need for terrorism. Makes sense to me.

    2. Re:Terrorism of feelings? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Cognitive dissonance is a weapon, a very effective method of exploitation. Without it, the empire will crumble. And, truth be told, Americans suffer from it a great deal more than the Muslims, and their military has killed a lot more people. I mean what's worse? Muslim protests? Or American drone strikes?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Terrorism of feelings? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Isn't irony fun?

  10. First Pedobear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I will never honor a pedophile having sex with a nine year old girl after marrying her at six. Truefax.

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

    Muhammad was scum. Do not glorify him.

    1. Re:First Pedobear by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When people claim to be a representative of god we don't hold them to the norms of the day - they should be showing us the true morality of their god. In the words of Stephen Fry (on a different religion and about slavery, but it's the same point): "what is the point of the Catholic Church if it says we couldn't know better because nobody else did, then what are you for?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGFS_hkHfCc

      Sure if he's just an average man for his time we can't really expect him to do anything but what is normal for his time. However, that also means he has no special claim on morality or wisdom so we have no reason to accept any of his religious and moral claims.

    2. Re:First Pedobear by alexo · · Score: 1

      Why do you and how can you think it was normal in any way? That's just a cheap excuse. A child is a child. The End.

      My 8 years old son sometimes displays displays similar debating prowess when arguing.
      When that happens, I usually chide him for acting too childish for his age.

      If you are not aware that the definition of a "child" has changed throughout the ages, I suggest you do some research before you post.
      A good place to start is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#History_and_social_attitudes

    3. Re:First Pedobear by Kergan · · Score: 4, Informative

      whereas it was normal politics for the time and culture... how ignorant.

      Actually, it was anything but normal for the time and culture.

      Records from Ancient Israel, Greece, Cartage (former Phoenicians, who originated north of Israel) and Rome all indicate that getting married at age 12 for a girl was considered very young across the Mediterranean. The whole area -- courtesy of Greek and Phoenician colonists, Alexander the Great and later the Roman Empire -- formed a broad cultural unit spanning from the Atlantic to Ethiopia and Mesopotamia. Mecca was, in the 7th century, at the limit of this cultural unit: it was an important trading outpost on the camel route to current Yemen, which supplied Europe with Incense, and it had significant Christian and Jewish communities.

      Consequently, there is little if any evidence that anyone in the area would consider it normal to wed a 6-year old or to shag a 9-year old. On the contrary, cultures in areas some might call "backward" today would suggest that the earliest appropriate marriage age for a girl then, before, or later, be it Mecca, in the middle of the desert, or anywhere else, broke down to whether a girl is of breeding age or not.

    4. Re:First Pedobear by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, and had you lived in the past, you, too, would find these things perfectly normal. Try to understand what 'point of view' means.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:First Pedobear by alexo · · Score: 2

      Slavery was normal in the past. Women without rights was normal in the past. Little boys "serving" soldiers was normal in the past. Killing someone for allowing herself to be raped was normal in the past.

      Trolling much?

      Please read the following carefully:

      Firstly, if you (or another AC, I have no means to differentiate among you) are going to deride Mohammad for acting in ways considered normal at the time, you should deride EVERYBODY that adhered to, or even tacitly supported, those customs. Singling out a single person just because he happened to get famous is disingenuous.

      Secondly, while I agree that, on the aggregate, things are much improved nowadays, some things are getting worse.
      Mass warrantless surveillance in supposedly free democratic countries was not normal in the past. Neither were the criminalization of sexting, or "harming of virtual children". Getting irradiated or fondled in airports was not normal in the past. And don't get me started about extra-judicial killings and "renditions", Gitmo, Goldman-Sachs, etc.

      Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that morals and ethics have reached their pinnacle and will not continue to change in the future. So, in several hundred years, should you be considered the scum of the earth just because during your lifetime you have acted according to the prevailing norms?

      Now, in light of these three statements, would you care to clarify what exactly is your point?

    6. Re:First Pedobear by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      I will never honor a pedophile having sex with a nine year old girl after marrying her at six. Truefax.

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

      Muhammad was scum. Do not glorify him.

      But then again Lot shagged both his daughters and got them pregnant (actually they shagged him while he was drunk).
       
      I point this out as I bet you can find shitload of similar stuff in ANY religion that you could condemn.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    7. Re:First Pedobear by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      In all fairness to Mohammed, plenty of your ancestors were probably screwing children too.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    8. Re:First Pedobear by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's no need to deride Muhammad for it.

      The real problem is that due to his role in history, he became a role model for Muslims. According to Islam, as the prophet and the seal of the prophets, pretty much nothing he said or did could be wrong (except where he explicitly changed his position on something later), and his life is something that should be emulated in all respects.

      And the guy was certainly not a hippie, and there's no way to re-interpret him as such, like many Christians today do with Jesus. Aside from that whole story with Aisha, he led raiding parties on "unbelievers", forcing them into submission. He also ordered to execute his political opponents for mocking his faith or himself personally. And so on, and so forth...

    9. Re:First Pedobear by alexo · · Score: 1

      This is going off topic, but it's OK with me, since the new topic is also worth discussing.

      Mass warrantless surveillance in supposedly free democratic countries was not normal in the past.

      The main reason for this is probably that during most of the past, there was a lack both of surveillance technology and of supposedly free democratic countries.

      So you are saying that a "free democratic countr[y]" which is free of mass survailance is not a normal state of affairs but a temporary aberration?

    10. Re:First Pedobear by alexo · · Score: 1

      There's no need to deride Muhammad for it.

      The real problem is that due to his role in history, he became a role model for Muslims. According to Islam, as the prophet and the seal of the prophets, pretty much nothing he said or did could be wrong (except where he explicitly changed his position on something later), and his life is something that should be emulated in all respects.

      Devil's advocate: So if he were alive today, is it feasible that he would have "explicitly changed his position on [child marriage] later"?

      And the guy was certainly not a hippie, and there's no way to re-interpret him as such, like many Christians today do with Jesus. Aside from that whole story with Aisha, he led raiding parties on "unbelievers", forcing them into submission. He also ordered to execute his political opponents for mocking his faith or himself personally. And so on, and so forth...

      You'll get no argument from me, so there is no need to tack on extra trumped-up charges where the existing ones will suffice.

    11. Re:First Pedobear by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate: So if he were alive today, is it feasible that he would have "explicitly changed his position on [child marriage] later"?

      If he was born and raised in a modern culture, probably yes (I obviously don't believe him to be a Prophet and his behavior to be divinely guided).

    12. Re:First Pedobear by alexo · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate: So if he were alive today, is it feasible that he would have "explicitly changed his position on [child marriage] later"?

      If he was born and raised in a modern culture, probably yes (I obviously don't believe him to be a Prophet and his behavior to be divinely guided).

      Then we are in agreement.

    13. Re:First Pedobear by Jungle+guy · · Score: 1
      Pardon me, marriages of adult with 9 year old girls are NOT something that has occurred "in the past". If the man in question lives in Saudi Arabia, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for him to marry such a young girl.

      In fact, muslims are NOT ashamed of their prophet has been married to a girl. If you don`t believe, just read the wikipedia entry about Aisha, or the one about child marriage.

      Truth is, many more child marriages occur in India, but there the government is trying to stop it. On Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, it is considered absolutely normal and holy to marry a child. A movie depicting the relationship of Muhammad and Aisha would be considered disgusting in the west, and would not raise much controversy on the islamic countries.

      Every time I learn a little more about Saudi Arabia or the Islam, I get a little more nauseated.

    14. Re:First Pedobear by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      yes... just because it is against the customs of now, whereas it was normal politics for the time and culture... how ignorant.

      A giant problem with revering and deifying people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago is that traditions or actions of the past before "morally good for all time." So marrying and having sex with prepubescent girls is not the horrible act that non-Muslims might consider it... since Muhammad did it, and he was the founder of your religion, the mouthpiece of God, and is generally the example you should be following. So when he has sex with a young girl or wages war to spread his religion, the morality of such actions becomes frozen in time. Society can't 'progress' past that, because the dogma is unyielding -- Muhammad did it 1400 years ago, so it must be a good thing to do. Insidious and horrific.

  11. Thank's Google! by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I appreciate google's for their stance in not taking down this video. I won't be watching it, heard enough about it to know it's dumb. Muslims are upset? Like other religious people have had to learn, not everyone in life believes what they believe. They need to get past their upsetness over the video, it's just one angry guy's creation. Protest all you want in non -violent, non-hurtful ways, we should all have that right.

    1. Re:Thank's Google! by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with what Google has done and it is also the right of these people to protest against them doing so.

      There is nothing wrong here, everything is fine, all is great, maybe not everyone is happy (about everything), but that's just life.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:Thank's Google! by hack++slash · · Score: 1

      I watched a bit of the trailer and I reccomend nobody should watch it under any circumstances, not because of the content but because the acting is fucking atrocious.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    3. Re:Thank's Google! by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The advertising revenue from a video with 16 million hits is too minor to have even factored into the decision.

      Now, it may not have been strictly a corporate belief in free speech; it may have been a self-interested decision that if they start caving into demands like this they'll end up severely crippled in a few years... but I'm ok with that as a motivator.

    4. Re:Thank's Google! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to hear the non-dubbed version... Originally it might have been decent acting. However, the original dialog was overdubbed with new dialog. What you hear are NOT the actors' words!

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  12. A peaceful protest? by CodeheadUK · · Score: 1

    The mainstream media probably won't even run this story.

    Muslims need to fit the stereotype of running around burning flags and threatening to behead unbelievers before they'll stand a chance of getting on the news.

    1. Re:A peaceful protest? by CodeheadUK · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This is no more or less important than any of the other protests.

      However, if those who feel aggrieved see that this demo doesn't even feature in the local news when the violent and radical protests of last month got world wide coverage, which option will be chosen next time they want to protest?

    2. Re:A peaceful protest? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Muslims need to fit the stereotype of running around burning flags and threatening to behead unbelievers before they'll stand a chance of getting on the news.

      Too bad they're all oh so eager to comply... If they want to change the stereotypical image of Muslims, stop behaving like mindless morons confirming every cliché out there about Muslims.

      I know there's 1.6 billion of them and only very, very few actually participate in protests, but the very thing they're doing paints them as extremists with no respect for anything outside their own limited world... I mean lining up in front of Google to protest against a clip from a movie made by someone else in defense of a man that's been dead for 1.300 years... That's lunacy - and a cliché.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    3. Re:A peaceful protest? by E.+Edward+Grey · · Score: 2

      This protest may be peaceful, but it's far from civil. It's a protest against free speech rights for non-Muslims. It deserves all the mockery we can heap upon it.

      --

      ---don't make me break out my red pen.

  13. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I had known, terrorising billions is so easy, I wouldn't have spent those 249 dollars on a training course.

  14. Clean up your own house first by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well

    Then you will be more than happy to set the example by going back to your ancestral homelands to deal with all of the imams who preach hate and violence.

    And to my fellow Americans, if you make any attempt to form a moral equivocation between what they preach about religious minorities (terms that are lifted often literally out of Nazi propaganda) and preaching against gay marriage and other weak sauce like that, then you are rightly regarded as a fellow traveler with these censorious cretins by every liberty-loving American.

    1. Re:Clean up your own house first by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Bigoted much?

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    2. Re:Clean up your own house first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the 'southern' modifier - one can find assholes who claim to love liberty but opt to repress people based on their gender, sexuality, or race in every US state.

  15. Maybe I missed it... by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe I missed it but I don't recall 800 imams congregating in London to protest about the shooting of a fourteen-year old girl by Taleban psychopaths.

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

    1. Re:Maybe I missed it... by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Informative

      What good would that do? I'm pretty sure the Taleban doesn't live in London.

    2. Re:Maybe I missed it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you can google for that link, surely you could also search for the large protests in Pakistan? ah no... let the bashing continue, much more fun eh?

    3. Re:Maybe I missed it... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Malala Yousufzai has been flown by medical airbus to Great Britain for further treatment. Thank God for the good people in this life. http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17479249

    4. Re:Maybe I missed it... by Hentes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Neither does Youtube nor the people making the film.

    5. Re:Maybe I missed it... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The film is available in London and google has a presence in London, while the girl was shot in Pakistan and there's no reason to think that the Taleban in Pakistan would even hear of protests in London.

      I'm glad youtube is keeping the video up in most places, Muslim's in the west are mature enough to be able to handle it without widescale bloodshed and keeping it up can only be a positive learning experience for them. But I don't see any horrendous double standard in no protests over the shooting in Pakistan, they're protesting the film in London because they feel it affects them in a way a girl being shot in another country doesn't.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  16. Re:Stop all this fighting. by Christian+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, I'm the real messiah!

    You're not the messiah, you're a very naughty boy!

  17. Hypocracy or stupidity? by hack++slash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're using the freedom of speech to complain about the freedom of speech.

    No wonder they're being ridiculed.

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    1. Re:Hypocracy or stupidity? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An open society lets the foul air in, as well as the fresh air.

      When dealing with these folks, just remember not to be so open minded that your brains fall out.

      Personally, I think that these Muslim folks are wearing out their welcome in western civilizations. They want to repeal our right to free speech, that many of us hold so dear as an integral pillar of what makes our societies so great.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Hypocracy or stupidity? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Not only that, for years and years these morons have been showing TV shows on national, government sponsored TV where Jews are portrayed as baby killers and cannibals, murdering Christian babies etc. Sorry, the only way to deal with the Muslim world right now is to produce film after film after film mocking their ridiculous religion and their abhorrent culture.

      Maybe they will some time in the future grow up.

  18. Where were these idiotic imams before? by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    Why didn't they protest the taliban for trying to kill a 14 year old girl?

    Why didn't they protest when a Christian girl was set up and charged with blasphemy? And that imam who set her up is now free on bail, why aren't they angry about that?

    Sorry their silly protest has no credibility, they didn't protest when it really mattered.

    1. Re:Where were these idiotic imams before? by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair, there have been many protests against the Taliban over the attempted murder of Malala Yousufzai. In Pakistan, especially, outrage against the Taliban has led to large, angry protests.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Where were these idiotic imams before? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they protest the taliban for trying to kill a 14 year old girl?

      The Taliban doesn't have a London embassy

      Why didn't they protest when a Christian girl was set up and charged with blasphemy? And that imam who set her up is now free on bail, why aren't they angry about that?

      There was a small protest but I don't know if there was anything more, I agree they should have stepped up then.

      Sorry their silly protest has no credibility, they didn't protest when it really mattered.

      It has no credibility because they're protesting their right not to be offended, and that's not a right you have in the west. The fact that they didn't protest other causes we feel are important doesn't mean they lose their right to protest something they care about.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  19. Mohammed is a pervert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Islam was founded by a pediphile homosexual. Sorry muslims, but your leader is a fraud. You can't hide it anymore. The truth has been revealed for all the world to see. If that pisses you off then perhaps it's time to do some soul searching instead of insisting that the rest of the world maintain your facad.

  20. Everything is offensive by concealment · · Score: 2

    Our modern societies are composed of thousands of cultures, ethnic groups, religions, sub-cultures and cults.

    Anything you do will offend someone.

    It's unlikely people are going to learn to live without being offended either. In this uncertain world, values and beliefs are sometimes all we have.

    And so the conflict will continue, renewing itself constantly.

  21. Sorry, thin-skinned violent bastards... by dskoll · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ... but it's time you learned a new slogan:

    Google is Great

  22. Hurt feelings by doconnor · · Score: 1

    Their unsupported belief on God hurts my feelings, too. It sadness me that there is such widespread and passionate rejection of rationality.

    Then I remember they are just being human.

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Dear self-appointed representatives of all Muslims by ericloewe · · Score: 1

    While I (and most of the western world) think the video is incredibly poor taste all around, I believe it is time to over it. You are only reminding all of us that that thing exists. While I believe it is your right to hate this "film", I also believe you are seriously getting on everyone's nerves. You are always welcome to leave our company and move to countries that have indeed banned the film.
    If, however, you prefer to live in a civilized country, you must play by the rules of said country. Your input is not appreciated and we shall continue to live as we lived. Again, you are free to label us unbelievers, heretics or any derogatory term you may want, but please do so from the comfort of your favorite theocracy. Yes, the guy is a moron, yes, he deserves to be arrested for some technicality, no, I would not like to live with that idiot. However, you are only lowering yourself to the standards of "The Innoncece of Muslims".
    We do not stone people because they insulted our faith or lack thereof. Please, stop advocating that we do. We also respect freedom of speech within reason. This particular "film" may have crossed that boundary, but please, be civil and let this fade into obscurity.
    If you are a Muslim and feel offended, please don't, I don't mean to offend anyone, just to tell those that are bitching that I (and others) am sick of hearing about how bad they feel and how we are all evil for not taking down the "film".

  25. Definitions by chill · · Score: 2

    Wikionary is handy for a definition of -ism : Ultimately from either Ancient Greek (-ismos), a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine; from stem of verbs in (-izein) (whence English -ize), or from the related suffix Ancient Greek (-isma), which more specifically expressed a finished act or thing done.

    Therefore terrorism would be a noun that describes a finished act of terrorizing. Or, the completed act of creating terror.

    Terror can be defined as intense fright, fear or dread.

    What the film The Innocence of Muslims did was to lampoon, ridicule and belittle the actions of the founder of Islam and the beliefs of its followers. There is a difference.

    Conflating one with the other does the worst disservice to the people in the world who live in fear and dread because of the violent reactions of others who disagree with or disapprove of them in one way or another.

    Saying "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny" is not the same at all as saying "you will wear what I tell you to wear or I will murder your family, just like I murdered that other family".

    Trying to equate the two is more offensive than that stupid video.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  26. Ummah inflation by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Isn't it funny how whenever Muslims complain about something, the figure they keep quoting for the number of Muslims in the world keeps growing?

    15 years ago, it was 850 million.
    10 years ago, it was a billion.
    Last year it was 1.2 billion.
    Now it is 1.6 billion.

    Are they liars, stupid -- or both?

    1. Re:Ummah inflation by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they simply be, um, very frisky? Not every nation's total fertility rate is similar to the West's (below replacement). Here's charts on Muslem population by country note how fast many of the nations (Egypt, Afganistan, Indonesia, and Banglidesh for example) are growing even as emmigration to many other nations boosts populations rapidly in those nations.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  27. What's the Arabic translation of "Striesand" by boristdog · · Score: 2

    Because I think these folks need to learn about certain effects.

  28. Dear Muslims, by Rexdude · · Score: 1, Troll

    9/11 - the one big terror attack that brought Islamic terrorism to the fore
    2004 - Madrid
    2006 - London and Bombay.
    26/11 2008 - Again, Bombay, the Taj Hotel attacks.
    And more recently, a 14 year old girl is shot in the head by the Taliban for daring to campaign for women's rights (where else, but in Pakistan).

    Dear self proclaimed 'peaceful' Muslims, where the fuck were you during these episodes orchestrated by your co-religionists in the name of your wonderful religion? Where were the masses of allegedly moderate Muslims protesting at the gates of the embassies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for aiding and funding these terror groups?

    There's a complete sepulchral silence around these episodes, but one fucking cartoon or film and suddenly all these assholes get butthurt.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    1. Re:Dear Muslims, by Valor958 · · Score: 1

      Come on man, they're peaceful. Do you think they'll stand up against the extremists when all the extremist understand is hatred and murder in the name of a 'prophet'. They'll just nod their heads and say how sorry they are and how they're not like those horrible examples of their faith. Too bad those 'horrible examples' are those actually following the teachings of their faith to the T.

      The whole idea is silly really. I don't subscribe to mainstream religion, but I am not without faith. At least Christianity picked a good leader for their faith. How much higher can you get than the Son Of God, who actually embodies God after he is killed.. to bad the 'Holy Trinity' isn't an original idea, nor is the concept of a demi-god, which is what Jesus was. Hell, Hercules was a demi-god, and IMHO, more impressive than Jesus. True, Herc did go a little insane... but he was tortured mentally... I think he actually suffered more than Jesus in the end. Jesus didn't even have a wife/family (suspect, but not proven), where Herc did.. and Herc was tricked into killing them. THAT is torture...
      Taking that into consideration, what's so important about a 'Prophet' who has had their God speak to him? What REALLY makes Muhammad so important? There have been 'Prophets' for millenia who have had their respective Gods speak through them. Demi-god vs prophet... maybe Islam is just suffering from feeling belittled that they got one-uped by Christianity? Muhammad is nothing special... just a name for a faith to cry as they slaughter those not aligned with them. At least historically the Christians/Catholics have tried to be subversive (minus the Crusades, et al), while the Islamists have been the same since their inception.
      You know why the Islamists are so eager to kill these young women and are so harsh to them? They have to send them to Heaven to stockpile the virgins so there's ample supply for all the 'martyrs' sending themselves up there in the name of their faith.
      Congratulations Islam... you're last place in everything... at least you could have come up with a more convincing origin story.

    2. Re:Dear Muslims, by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And more recently, a 14 year old girl is shot in the head by the Taliban for daring to campaign for women's rights (where else, but in Pakistan).

      Dear self proclaimed 'peaceful' Muslims, where the fuck were you during these episodes orchestrated by your co-religionists in the name of your wonderful religion? Where were the masses of allegedly moderate Muslims protesting at the gates of the embassies of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for aiding and funding these terror groups?

      What? The ENTIRE NATION OF PAKISTAN took a day of prayers in response to this episode. There were protests against it across Pakistan. Prayer leaders condemned the attacks. Schools were closed. Rallies against the attacks were held in all the major cities. I don't know how you missed that.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19913201

    3. Re:Dear Muslims, by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      Good for a start, but unless the people of Pakistan declare enough is enough against their military-mullah combined rulers and clamor for good governance and economic development rather than funding the Taliban and obsessing over India, nothing's gonna change.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    4. Re:Dear Muslims, by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Good on Pakistan for condemning the attack, but the question is why are there no protests by Muslims outside of Pakistan regarding that attack?

      They'll take the time to kill someone for a movie, but not take the time to protest a kid being shot.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  29. I may not agree with what you're saying... by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

    ....but I'll riot if it doesn't agree with what my God insists on.

    Note: Asking questions is the same as disagreeing with me.

  30. Your religion is like having the cold virus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's yours, keep it to yourself, don't cough on others, don't sneeze on others, and most importantly don't blow yourself up next to others.

    You can do what you want with your religious views as long as your actions only effect you. Once your actions effect others, stop, don't do it.
    If you don't like a movie, don't watch it. If you don't like a drawing of someone's image of Mohamed, don't view it. You don't get to tell someone they can't make a movie, or draw a picture. You can control your actions, no one else.

  31. What they should do by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they really wanted to get it pulled from YouTube they should just send Google a DMCA takedown notice claiming the chanting or other noises made by any Muslims in the video is copyrighted.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  32. Split opinion by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On one hand, so long as they are peacefully protesting and not advocating violence against people until the video is removed, then they are well within their rights. No, you don't have a right to not be offended, but if you are offended you have the right to peacefully protest the offending material.

    On the other hand, despite their protests being valid, they don't get to redefine the English language. If you offending someone, that doesn't make you a terrorist. If it did then we'd have to pretty much classify everyone as terrorists, since I'm sure everyone at least once in their lives says something that would offend at least one person. Terrorism is making people afraid to exercise their rights and/or stand up to the terrorists for fear of being harmed. Nobody is afraid of protesting against this video. Granted, I haven't watched the video, but from what I've heard it in no way makes threats against people who would disagree with it. It just makes a claim which offends some people. So they can go ahead and protest against it. That's their right. They can make websites decrying it and countering any points the video attempts to make. So long as they do it peacefully and not by threatening the lives of anyone involved, I'll support their right to protest whether or not I agree with their viewpoint.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  33. No core problem by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With their demostration - if it was peaceful.

    And they should be allowed to demonstrate. Such is a fundamental of this society.
    But its not lost on me, nor should it be lost on_anyone_else - that their demostrate and represent everything that would unhinge that democracy, and its many hard fought battles. No, you don't get to silence opposition to your 7th century religion, and its crimes. No , you don't get to stifle and limit freedom of expression, just because it challeneges your religion. No, you don't get to impose your 7th century barbarism by trying to be a 5th column. The removal of religion from state took many decades in this society. Efforts to swing your religious desires into politics, and then into religious dictatorship are obvious, and must not be allowed to succeed. Ever.

    'Submission' as muslims is your right. If you wish to be so fucking stupid and submit to this garbage - thats a personal choice you can take as you wish. But I *never* submitted to it, and I will not be submitted to it, not even by proxy, not by PR, not by propaganda, and not by 3000 idiots with stupid beards, pygamas, and/or Ninja outfits and retarted stupid idiocy whining outside of Youtube/Google buildings.

    This is a secular state. If you do not like it, please feel free to go and live in one of the now many islamic shithole states that plaster this globe. But here is the fun part. Most of you live here because you did not like it there very much. Thats a freedom you very much have as much as standing round outside of a google building offending me deeply.

    Oh, sorry, I should not mock your ability to be deeply offended every 5 minutes by everyone and everything. But I did. Whoops.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  34. Re:"It's 2012" by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Christian West has had over 500 years of development since then and Islam has a lot of catching up to do

    Looks to me like they're catching up just fine. They've done an admirable job of mimicking the "Hurting our widdle feelings is tewowwism" whine.

  35. They are just as afraid of the Taleban by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    as any teenage girl is.

    The simple fact of their protest is this, Google won't kill them or their families for protesting Google's actions or inaction.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  36. Re:"It's 2012" by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the things that many people don't realize is that the period of Christian dominance, crusades, inquisitions, etc. was not really about religion per say. It was Politics. The Church was a potent political entity that at times had veto power over issues such as the selection of monarchies and laws. And the atrocities that were carried out were not really due to one's religious beliefs, but more to make political statements and control people. (The Crusades used religion as a pretext, but they were purely geopolitical conflicts.) Martin Luther heralded the decline of the Church as a political force along with the printing press, which allowed the average man (eventually) to read the Bible for himself.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  37. Thank You Google by Afty0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just wanted to take a second out of my day, to say thank you to Google. To anyone who works there, who can influence Google, who knows an employee - please pass on my personal thanks for this staunch defence of free speech, in the face of what is probably the single most intimidating anti-free-speech group and protest the world has seen in my lifetime.

    What you are doing is very worthy - and really stands to highlight the "Do No Evil" motto that Google is famous for, but that some people have (rightly or wrongly) started to bring into question recently.

    Media providers must take their place in the defence of free speech - in the days of investigative journalism they actually tended to be more aggressive about this - and Youtube and other similar providers are absolutely vital in allowing the discourse and social interaction that we need as a community to grow and become better people.

    Thank You,

  38. Pathetic by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people.

    What a disingenuous bunch of crap. Someone questions their invisible friend and they call it terrorism? Hurt feelings are the same as killing innocent people?Someone who would say something like that has the emotional maturity of a 4 year old. I can handle someone criticizing my beliefs but apparently all the followers of islam are so emotionally fragile that they can be traumatized by a book or a comic. Pathetic.

  39. By your own rules by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."

    If one's feelings are so delicate and fragile as to be killed by an impersonal video then the feelings need to be strengthened. Is the Muslim religion so weak that simply ridiculing it will ram it? I don't think so. Radical Muslims that riot and kill people over a video do no service to their religion. It only shows how intolerant man can be toward their fellow man. It shows how some Muslims are easily swayed by imams who are more interested in their own power than the good of their religion.

    I am not usually one to use the word "terrorism" but lets apply "killing feelings" level to some aspects of radical terrorism.
    "Women shall not go to schools on pain of death or disfigurement" Terrorizing half the population
    "Convert or die". Terrorizing all non-Muslims.
    "Leave Islam and Die" Terrorizing all Muslims.

    By their standards they are terrorizing everyone in the world.

    1. Re:By your own rules by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      Is the Muslim religion so weak that simply ridiculing it will ram it?

      That's apparently what the Muslim leadership is teaching their followers.

  40. Right now in London by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also in London, a 14 year old girl fighting for her life after a Muslim put a bullet in her brain because she wanted to go school.

    Lets count the number of British Imams condemning the Muslims who attacked her, lets count the number marching on the streets in protest.

    What more needs to be said.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also in London, a 14 year old girl fighting for her life after a Muslim put a bullet in her brain because she wanted to go school.

      Lets count the number of British Imams condemning the Muslims who attacked her, lets count the number marching on the streets in protest.

      What more needs to be said.

      That most generalizations are false, including this one.

      Unless you're also expecting every Christian to come out and publicly denounce every abortion clinic bombing, every child-molesting preacher, every douchebag protester at military funerals with signs reading "God killed your son," demanding every Muslim in the world denounce the sins of the small number who actually engage in negative behavior just makes you come off as a childish moron with absolutely no understanding of society or human nature.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Right now in London by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What I expect is that a "peace-loving religion" would not allow someone to preach hate an violence in a mosque. But they did, and we are not talking about a single event in a small mosque in a small town.

      Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What I expect is that a "peace-loving religion" would not allow someone to preach hate an violence in a mosque. But they did, and we are not talking about a single event in a small mosque in a small town.

      Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.

      So, I take it you condemn all Christians for "allowing" people like Terry Jones, Jack van Impe, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others to preach hate and violence in churches? If so, you're being a douche. If not, you're being a hypocritical douche.

      Try applying the same rationale to some secular issues and see if it doesn't sound stupid:

      All Americans are to blame for the war crimes of G.W. Bush, because we "allowed" him to commit them.

      All Americans are to blame for the oppressive fascism of Obama, because we "allowed" him to expand the PATRIOT Act and TSA authority.

      See, your problem here is that you want everyone but the assholes causing trouble to take responsibility for said trouble. That's not right, it's not an educated position to take, and it goes against every ideal this nation was founded upon. Shame on you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Right now in London by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Except Christians don't come out of hiding to protest about a stupid movie. You can't cherry pick the things you want to bitch about and think others will play ball.

    5. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Except Christians don't come out of hiding to protest about a stupid movie.

      This time

      Just like with any large population of a particular demographic, you will have outliers. Expecting the entire population to take responsibility for the actions of a fringe minority is silly and irresponsible, not to mention absolving those who engage in such negative actions of at least some responsibility.

      You can't cherry pick the things you want to bitch about and think others will play ball.

      Not really sure what your point here is... care to elucidate?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Right now in London by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.

      So, I take it you condemn all Christians for "allowing" people like Terry Jones, Jack van Impe, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others to preach hate and violence in churches? If so, you're being a douche. If not, you're being a hypocritical douche.

      I condemn anyone who allows Terry Jones and others to preach in their church. What you overlooked was that the people you list mostly preach in their own churches, while Abu Hamza preached in the largest mosque in London. When Terry Jones and others preach for 5 years in Westminster Abbey, or whatever is the largest christian church in Washington D.C., then it may be equivalent. Until then, you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim equivalence.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.

      So, I take it you condemn all Christians for "allowing" people like Terry Jones, Jack van Impe, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others to preach hate and violence in churches? If so, you're being a douche. If not, you're being a hypocritical douche.

      I condemn anyone who allows Terry Jones and others to preach in their church. What you overlooked was that the people you list mostly preach in their own churches, while Abu Hamza preached in the largest mosque in London.

      Jack van Impe has his own television station. Jerry Falwell is (was) one of the most well known, well respected (at least in Christian fundie circles) hate-mongers our society has ever seen.

      That aside, what does the venue have to do with condemning an entire population for the actions of a small handful? OPs point, essentially, was that every Muslim is responsible for the actions of this one particular dillhole because they haven't actively denounced him (although I highly doubt OP knows enough of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet to make such an assertion with any amount of accuracy).

      My point was, if one is going to take that particular avenue regarding Muslims, they A) are an ignorant douche, and B) they must apply the same rationale to extremists of all faiths, or be a hypocritical, ignorant douche.

      When Terry Jones and others preach for 5 years in Westminster Abbey, or whatever is the largest christian church in Washington D.C., then it may be equivalent.

      See above reference to Falwell and Van Impe with their globally-reaching mega-ministries of hate.

      ...equivalence.

      You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Right now in London by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Jack van Impe has his own television station. Jerry Falwell is (was) one of the most well known, well respected (at least in Christian fundie circles) hate-mongers our society has ever seen.

      What part of own in " own television station." do you not understand? Jerry Falwell also founded his own church.

      The venue is very important. If someone preaches in my church, then I am implicitly agreeing with their philosophy. If they create their own venue in which to preach, I do not provide either explicit or implicit support for their philosophy.

      Abu Hamza did not build his own mosque. He preached hate and violence in a mosque built with funds and support from mainstream muslims.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    9. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What part of own in " own television station." do you not understand? Jerry Falwell also founded his own church.

      Abu Hamza did not build his own mosque. He preached hate and violence in a mosque built with funds and support from mainstream muslims.

      So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?

      I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.

      The venue is very important. If someone preaches in my church, then I am implicitly agreeing with their philosophy. If they create their own venue in which to preach, I do not provide either explicit or implicit support for their philosophy.

      Huh? What on Earth are you trying to say here? A church cannot exist without congregants, so there really is no such thing as "their own venue" when referring to the churches founded by Falwell and van Impe. So, what's your point? That Hamza didn't found the church he preaches in (as if that really matters)? Congregation size? Seriously, what's your metric?

      Are you a regular attendee of the East London Mosque? If so, then I totally understand your position. If not... well, I honestly have no clue what you're on about, and assume it's just yet another "Muslim == bad" rant which I will, as with all equally ignorant rants, ignore with gusto.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Right now in London by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I think you missed it there sparky. He did not say ALL people of Muslim faith should be out there protesting the girl getting shot. He was saying that the ones out there protesting right now should ALSO be protesting that girl getting shot. Thankfully, the government of Pakistan, where the girl is from and was shot, publicly acknowledged that it was wrong and they are paying for her medical care. Oh, and they already have several people arrested for that crime.

      To me, this qualifies as a strong statement and nullifies the OP's point... mostly. Muslims ARE saying it was wrong. Just not the loudmouth hypocritical ones.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    11. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I think you missed it there sparky. He did not say ALL people of Muslim faith should be out there protesting the girl getting shot. He was saying that the ones out there protesting right now should ALSO be protesting that girl getting shot.

      Yea, no, I don't buy that, although I can see what you're saying... which is still a silly point to try and make. Of course they wouldn't condemn the girls shooting, they're asshole extremists!

      OTH, OPs statement seems a bit incomplete to make such a conclusion:

      X Imams denounced event A;
      Y Imams engaged in event B;
      Therefore... ?

      Really, what's the point of such a statement, if not to incite anti-Muslim sentiment? Even the underpants gnomes understand there's a step that comes after "?"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    12. Re:Right now in London by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?

      I can only conclude that you have problems with reading comprehension because that was not my premise at all.

      I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.

      Once again, you are arguing against things that I have not written. I condemn religious intolerance and I condemn any person who claims to be religious yet advocates violence and hate, irrespective of what their religion is.

      There really is no point arguing any further with you because: a) you are an idiot. and b) why should I keep discussing points that you think I am trying to make, but in fact came from your imagination?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?

      I can only conclude that you have problems with reading comprehension because that was not my premise at all.

      Yea, 'cuz obviously the possibility of you lacking the faculties to posit intelligible statements is completely off the table... Jesus, the ego on this guy...

      Seriously, if that's the only conclusion you can think of, you must have the deductive reasoning skills of a seagull. Maybe a slug...

      I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.

      Once again, you are arguing against things that I have not written. I condemn religious intolerance and I condemn any person who claims to be religious yet advocates violence and hate, irrespective of what their religion is. There really is no point arguing any further with you because: a) you are an idiot. and b) why should I keep discussing points that you think I am trying to make, but in fact came from your imagination?

      So, instead of clarifying your statements in concise, intelligible context, you resort to middle school tactics of ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies?

      Color me not surprised.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    14. Re:Right now in London by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Really I thought she was in Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, which while in England is most decidedly not London.

    15. Re:Right now in London by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Your generalization is far more false. Most Christians don't ever protest a dang thing. (They are trained to obedience, and their rulers don't like protest.) Muslims, in contrast, protest the holy shit out of all sorts of things. No, we are not talking about a majority of Muslims, but we are talking about a significant number. So, that is what makes GP's comment valid: if you, (that significant number who *do* protest), are going to be doing so much protesting, protest some of the shit too, no?

      Nice try anyway.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    16. Re:Right now in London by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Your generalization is far more false.

      There are no such things as degrees of falsehood - a statement is either true, or it isn't. As I doubt anyone is ignorant enough to truly lack the ability to grasp such a base concept, I have to assume you're being hyperbolic for hyperbole's sake. Please don't muddy the waters unnecessarily.

      Most Christians don't ever protest a dang thing.

      "Christians" protest everything from other people having abortions to honoring soldiers who die in combat. Your statement is complete and utter bullshit, smacking strongly of bearing false witness, and I have a powerful suspicion you already know that.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  41. Re:Stop all this fighting. by Suferick · · Score: 2

    No, I'm the Messiah, and so is my wife

  42. nope by superwiz · · Score: 1

    terrorism is just that which kills human bodies. killing feelings is not terrorism. otherwise, protests against freedom of speech would be terrorism too.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  43. Re:Perhaps Christians can set an example by qbast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And how many people exactly they killed over that film? None? Oh, maybe that's why Christian extremists are not painted as killers.

  44. Terrorism has a definition. by CosmicMuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."

    Fuck you, and anybody who thinks like you, pal. Terrorism puts people in fear for their lives by murdering and brutally attacking others. The makers of this film have created a bunch of racist garbage, yes, but they in no way put anybody in fear of danger. The danger comes from people like you, who scream about how freedom of speech doesn't apply to this film because it's "anarchy", because it's not "civil", because it's "blasphemous". Freedom of speech requires that all those qualities be protected. And if you believe your religion allows you to contemplate violence for words alone, you need to take a damn hard look at your religion, and then the rest of the world, because we've left the Dark Ages - you don't get to declare a holy right to commit violence against those who called you stupid anymore.

  45. terrifying and yet funny by eruci · · Score: 1

    I mock this protest by not being terrorized by it. This is another take on today's protest: http://wownot.com/most-people-terrorized-by-muslims-terrorized-by-most-peoples-disregard-of-their-beliefs/

    --
    artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
  46. Mockery is not Google's fault by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    To avoid mockery, don't engage in behavior that invites mockery. Hint, rioting over pictures tends to invite mockery. Using humans as bomb delivery systems tends to invite this too. I tend to restrict my mockery to Wahabists, Talibanis and their ilk. The majority of Muslims are decent and respectable people.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  47. So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the wes by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, you are saying that Jews are not the subject of jokes in the west? They are and the greatest jokes are told by Jews themselves, they take the piss out of themselves and their religion for a long time, it is one of the defining qualities of Jews in the west.

    And if you want a good anti-catholic joke, look no further then catholics, they know a ton and will happily tell them, they too have plenty of self-ridicule or do you REALLY think any Catholic out there doesn't find it hilarious that beavers count as fish?

    Protestants laugh about themselves too you just don't see it because they are to stoic to move face muscles.

    There have been countless movies made taking the total piss out of religion and the number of deaths because of them is very very low (I can't say for certain nobody has been killed over movies like Life of Brian).

    You do know that the simple joke of Moses coming down the mountain (a Jew) and dropping 5 of the 15 commandments would have Muslims (when someone dials-a-riot) up on arms if it was about Mohammad?

    There is a large difference between ridiculling even belitteling a group of people and incitement to hatred. Anti-semitism doesn't say Moses raped goats, it says Jews are sub-human. Saying Mohammed is a pedo isn't saying Arabs are sub-human.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  48. I know by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    I know, she is a good fuck.

    God.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  49. yes, but by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    yes, but those demonstrations weren't headed by imams.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:yes, but by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps that's equally important -- those demonstrations are made by individuals using their own moral compasses and NOT being told what to do by their Islamic leaders.

      Coming down on Malala's side isn't exactly brain surgery, but if this is any sign of a Pakistani surge in secularism and thinking for one's own self, I'll take it!!!

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    2. Re:yes, but by ultranova · · Score: 1

      yes, but those demonstrations weren't headed by imams.

      People holding positions of power usually hold them because they love power. It is unreasonable to expect someone who's put in the effort to reach such a position to try and limit the associated power. This is true of all leaders, religious and secular alike. And it's something their followers should never forget: even the wisest of human beings is still a human and can't be trusted to be unbiased when his own interests - or power - are involved.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  50. Re:Stop all this fighting. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    No, I'm the Messiah, and so is my wife

    No, I am Sparticus...

    Whoops, wrong movie.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  51. Careful what you wish for... by Grundibular · · Score: 2

    Self-employed businessman Ahmed Nasar said he was worried the video could lead to violence in Britain in the same way as it had abroad. "If you push people too far," he said, "You will turn the peaceful elements into violence."

    That's a door that can swing BOTH ways Mr Nasar. Do be careful what you wish for and have yourself a nice day sir...

    --
    "Dance like nobody's watching" ... "Poo like nobody's watching"
  52. Eheh by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Tell them this: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing".

    Then link them to story of Walala.

    Then ask them what they are doing.

    Then ask them if they consider themselves good men/muslims.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  53. Re:"It's 2012" vs Last Temptation of Christ 1988 by retroworks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I went and looked up "The Last Temptation of Christ" on Wikipedia. The 1988 Scorsese movie drew protests by 600 offended Christians in California. Adjusted for inflation, that's about 800 London Imams. And it wasn't on youtube. The point being that people claiming to represent all Muslims or all Christians don't deserve the ink. This is more about the disintegration of journalism than an attack on Islam or a serious threat to freedom of speech.

    "The Last Temptation of Christ's eponymous final sequence depicts the crucified Jesus—tempted by what turns out to be Satan in the form of a beautiful, androgynous child—experiencing a dream or alternative reality where he comes down from the cross, marries Mary Magdalene (and later Mary and Martha), and lives out his life as a full mortal man...."

    "Because of these radical departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian fundamentalist groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' parent company MCA;[5] one of the protestors dressed as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[4] Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[5] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film;[5] one of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.[4]

    In some countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the movie continues to be banned in Chile, the Philippines and Singapore.[6]

    --
    Gently reply
  54. Yeah just like the mainstream media by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Yeah, just like the mainstream media didn't show the Libyans holding up signs protesting the attack on the American embassy, knowing full well they are living in an area controlled by extremists and THESE Muslims were NOT hiding their faces.

    No way you could see that on mainstream media.

    Pity there are so few of them. But then, religion and strong wills don't go together well.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  55. How many were killed? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    How many were killed over that movie?

    Well?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  56. Karachi isn't in England by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    You really should stop using your iPhone, Karachi is NOT in England.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  57. More Deaths by hemo_jr · · Score: 2

    A showdown between free speech and Muslim sensitivities about their prophet is well under way. One side is going to have to give eventually.

    Historically, in the Western world, something like this - the posting of the 95 thesis - led to hundreds of years of war and revolution before people decided that imposing their religious dogma on others is a futile quest.

  58. Re:Missed Opportunity by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

    Which is precisely the view of Islamic extremists, full circle, well done.

    Would everyone who would like a great big fight please report to Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. A variety of blunt objects will be provided, and you can all fight to your heart or god's content. The rest of us will just carry on being reasonable, survivors may apply for readmission to the rest of the world once they've done a few generations evolving.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  59. Re:"It's 2012" by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Nepali calendar is currently in 2069, which explains their ongoing moon colonisation and widespread use of quantum computers to solve protein folding problems and cure cancer. Nice argument, well done.

    --
    Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  60. Maybe... by wickerprints · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe if they spent just as much effort to organize and protest against the Taliban and fundamentalist Islam, then it would be easier to dismiss such videos in the first place.

    Anyone who has listened to or read Sam Harris knows that Islam has some very basic problems at the core of its doctrine that its present-day followers have overwhelmingly failed to address. To speak up about this is not to be Islamophobic. It's to state factual aspects of a religion that is not, despite claims from its moderate adherents, the "religion of peace." Because if it were peaceful, THESE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE PROTESTING GOOGLE. They'd be doing everything in their power to excommunicate and weed out all the extremist mullahs and imams that call for death for apostasy, and violent jihad. The fact that we see protests against Western freedoms rather than Islamic oppression tells you everything you need to know. Moderates cannot just keep repeating "but we're peaceful and we're offended!" It's YOUR religion to claim, so CLAIM it. But don't go around to non-Muslims and pretend as if you're doing your duty, because the fight is not with us. It's with the extremists in your midst that threaten to pull your religion in THEIR direction. Unless, of course, you moderates agree with them, in which case you're not really moderate at all, and it's all just an act.

  61. Non-story. by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone, somewhere, every day, protests somewhere in London about something.

    Every Wednesday for years, motorcyclists gathered by the thousands on London streets to protest about the parking facilities for them in Central London (an inherently over-populated and over-crowded place where you will NEVER park sensibly). Nobody really cared.

    This might have made the telegraph but I've seen no mention of it in any other media. Hell, the BBC has next-to-no news on it today and it's not on their website.

    And, literally, every single day some group will protest in London. Hell, we have areas of London parks SET ASIDE for people to soap-box from and protest, it's that common. What did make the news today? Two girls handcuffing themselves in St Paul's Cathedral at protest of the churches support for the banks that brought the economic crisis.

    Any mention of Muslim protest? None.

    It's a non-story. Really. And, more importantly, 99% of the Muslim people in the capital (let alone the country or the world) might be condemning such protests for all I know.

    People will literally protest about anything in London (and even come to London to protest, not realising that it makes your issue seem small in comparison to all the other protests that commuters have to walk through every day), from the devolution of Scotland to the petrol prices to the way that someone looked at them last Thursday. It means nothing.

    You want my attention to this issue that offends you? Start negotiating, not dictating.

  62. irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see the irony in protesting against free speech.

  63. Re:Perhaps Christians can set an example by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Oh, maybe that's why Christian extremists are not painted as killers.

    They should be:

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

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_(film)#Attack_on_Saint_Michel_theater.2C_Paris

    Texas fundie "spanks" 7-year-old to death

    Just because you haven't been programmed to hate "Christian" murderers like you have been with Muslims, doesn't mean they are innocent or somehow less evil.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  64. They think it just started? by jader3rd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These Muslims really need to get caught up on how the Western world has been working. Do they really think that the 'Age of Mockery' was started a few years ago? Pretty much the entire history of editorial cartoons (at least 300 years now), has been full of mocking. Probably even started in London. It's a perfectly fine and healthy part of society. Ever since the Enlightenment society has been doing this. These protestors are effectively protesting the idea that people can express opinions, which is kind of hypocritical given that they're free to protest it.

  65. They picked the right nation by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    The UK has no free speech, good nation to promote censorship or criminal punishments for offensive speech.... they do it already over tweets that are less offensive and clearly are applying a double standard. If the UK wants to continue to be anti-speech they should have to be equitable and issue and press charges against the author of the film.

    1. Re:They picked the right nation by Hentes · · Score: 1

      May I remind you that a film offending a religion in a similar way is now considered a part of British culture?

    2. Re:They picked the right nation by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      are you aware of the changes that have happened since then? larger popular groups and figures are harder to attack; but if you tweet something sick but funny to somebody it is not enough to stop you from being arrested in the UK.

  66. Let's protest Google... by Guru80 · · Score: 1

    ..over something 99% of us didn't watch and show the world we are fanatical nutcases who won't stand for something that happened on the other side of the world by 1 guy nobody knows, and let's kill a few people so everyone understands we are a peace loving people....seriously, shit is ridiculously stupid. Don't watch it, ignore it and it will go away. A whole portion of the world has let 1 individual do exactly what he sat out to do. You dumbasses let him win with your ignorance and inability to turn the other cheek.

  67. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    greatest jokes are told by Jews themselves

    The self-deprecating jewish joke theme is actually due to the fact that at one point the jewish rulers of... somewhere... decided they wanted to be a little fascist and tried to outlaw jokes. Specifically, street performers telling jokes in town square.
    There was this one guy who... well, wasn't very funny because all his jokes were dark and depressing. He was allowed to continue becase it didn't clash with the official state culture.

    That went on for a little while, people migrated, and culture spread.

    Before that point, jewish humor included all the typical fart-jokes and lewd innuendo that everyone else has, without the trend of putting themselves down.

  68. Deal with it. by Uniquitous · · Score: 2

    If you don't want to be mocked, don't be ridiculous.

  69. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    So, you are saying that Jews are not the subject of jokes in the west?

    No .. I'm saying that the intolerance of anti-Jewish propaganda is so ensconced in in western views that we have a special word for it and there is a very low tolerance for such activities. Why are Jews so special[1] that that they need their own term to describe attacks on them, where as other groups do not have an equivalent term?
     
    But it seems in the present climate that insulting muslims is deemed OK and any objection to that is repulsed with cries of "Free speech!"

    Anti-semitism doesn't say Moses raped goats

    What do you think would happen to someone who set up a sign outside a synagogue in the US that said "Moses raped goats"? Do you think that calling it "Free speech" would protect them from abuse/being castigate in the media etc? Or people would not see that as anti semitic? (personally I think they'd be beaten to a pulp ASAP before anyone considered any rights)
     
    [1] I say this in an academic sense and not as an attack, but I bet I get people incensed for me even asking that question.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  70. Possession and dissemination is speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The creation is an act, but the possesion after the fact and dissemination is purely speech.

    1. Re:Possession and dissemination is speech. by jbonomi · · Score: 2

      I won't argue against that. But with freedom we must have a sense of responsibility. Does the consumption of this media drive the creation of it? I have no idea, to be honest. I can say that the witch hunt for the people who possess child porn seems misguided and downright scary sometimes. I don't think we should demonize people like that for the possession of any kind of media. The last thing we need is a bogey man to scare us into forfeiting our basic rights.
      I will say that while I personally find it extremely unappealing, I can't take issue with software-rendered or hand drawn/painted depictions of child pornography. In that case, the solution really is to just avoid it.

  71. Hurt feelings... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."

    It seems Muslims, like a lot of Americans, don't understand what terrorism is. Terrorism isn't hurting someone's feelings. It isn't some lone gunman going on a rampage. Terrorism is an organized violent movement, targeting civilians, in order to intimidate the population into affecting desired policies.

    There's a lot of moral equivalency being thrown around. Those assholes have a lot of audacity taking to the streets in protest considering that Malala Yousafzai was shot for speaking out against extremists. They can't bitch about hurt feelings or the even West in that case. That was a Pakistani girl speaking up about local problems. But then I suppose they'll blame "liberal" Western influences.

    I'm reminded of how a lot of these guys keep dredging up ancient history, the Crusades, to justify their aggression towards the West. What relevancy does that have to anyone? Europeans have long since moved on. The West can't be blamed for violence that occurred 800 years. Nevermind that both sides in the Crusades were equally belligerent and it could be argued that Muslims started it all. Middle East had profoundly influential centers of learning until Muslim aggressors showed up and decimated it all, no thanks to evil Europeans.

    By all standards we have more to be upset about than they do.

  72. Bunch of hypocrites by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    Just look at Abu Hamza was able to do: preach violence hatred in the biggest mosque in London for 5 years. Did Muslims ever stop him? No. He was stopped by the police.

    Muslims have no moral grounds on which to complain about anything said about Islam because of their inaction relating to Abu Hamza

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  73. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by Holi · · Score: 1

    No its being blamed for causing riots, when those riots were in fact pre-planned attacks.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  74. To be fair... by fearofcarpet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The title really should read "thousands of fundamentalist Muslims." Christian fundamentalists are constantly boycotting and protesting this or that in an effort to punish companies for not loving their version of Jesus enough, but we would never generalize them as the ~3/4 of Americans that self-identify as Christians. The idiots protesting Google over a Youtube video are culturally stuck in the past and refuse to accept that the world is changing, just like Christian conservatives.

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  75. Re:"It's 2012" vs Last Temptation of Christ 1988 by habib23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how many things did the christians burn? How many people did they kill? Oh that's right, nothing and no one.

    Also free speech as I define it only truly exists in the US so I'm not interested on what other countries did.

    --
    wake up and find out that you are the eyes of the world.
  76. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by niado · · Score: 2

    No .. I'm saying that the intolerance of anti-Jewish propaganda is so ensconced in in western views that we have a special word for it and there is a very low tolerance for such activities. Why are Jews so special[1] that that they need their own term to describe attacks on them, where as other groups do not have an equivalent term?

    I believe this has only been the case since circa 1945. The fact that this kind of event could even happen in modern times so disgusted and shocked Europe and the West that there was a huge backlash against it. Before that, mild to moderate antisemitism was somewhat pervasive in western culture.

    But it seems in the present climate that insulting muslims is deemed OK and any objection to that is repulsed with cries of "Free speech!"

    This isn't true. There is usually heavy criticism of extreme anti-Muslim activities. I will admit that (unfortunately) anti-Muslim sentiment sits pretty high (especially in the US) right now, primarily due to the actions of some extremists.

  77. When a jesuit priest mocked the Hindu Gurus... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A jesuit priest/ missionary was sent to southern India for proselyting the local population, back in the 17th century. He had a printing press, and did a remarkable job. Learnt the local language (Tamil), translated the Bible and did the usual missionary things. One of the things he did was to write a series of short stories making fun of the Hindu gurus. Satire worthy of being in The Onion. Rip roaring comedy about the Guru, and his five disciples. Their names would translate as Fool, Idiot, Dimwit, Ignoramus and Retard. Mind you this was back in the 17th century. What happened?

    He is a revered figure in Tamil Nadu. He is credited with bringing printing press to the region, compiling the first dictionary, the first thesaurus, first compedium of numbered collections (like four directions, four seasons, seven notes, five senses, etc), and the rhyming dictionary. He also wrote hymns in Tamil. Wrote extensively about the mores and customs of the land to help the other missionaries who would follow him.

    Whatever happened to the satire of Hindu swamis? It lives on. Still very much in the circulation. I heard most of those stories from my grandma as bed time stories. A culture that is so self assured and so self confident it was able to laugh at a good joke. It is not a surprise, despite his great literary achievements and reverence, in his core mission of religious conversion, he hardly made a dent. Less than 1% of the Tamils converted to Christianity in his times. Even now Christian population is just 2 or 3 % in Tamil Nadu.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:When a jesuit priest mocked the Hindu Gurus... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Missed the citation. Sorry about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanzo_Beschi

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  78. Re:"It's 2012" by sycodon · · Score: 1

    The Church at the time was primarily a political entity that used religion as a means to control. Someone questioning your authority?... accuse them of blasphemy.

    No doubt many in the church hierarchy were pious and true believers, but for the most part, it was like Chicago Machine politics.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  79. Thanks for making his point by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    What? The ENTIRE NATION OF PAKISTAN took a day of prayers in response to this episode. There were protests against it across Pakistan. Prayer leaders condemned the attacks. Schools were closed. Rallies against the attacks were held in all the major cities. I don't know how you missed that.

    And several thousand innocent people died in the previous ones mentioned. However, because they were almost down to a man and woman "infidels," they didn't garner anywhere near the sympathy this one shooting got. A Muslim girl was attacked by a Muslim extremist. That is why they could muster a normal level of outrage over this.

    IFF what has been said about peaceful Muslims and Islam being a peaceful religion were actually true, there would be swift and brutal action taken against the violent attacks on religious minorities in Muslim lands, the funding of terrorism, etc. Muslim jurists would be teaching that "it is the duty of all good Muslims to offer no peace, no sanctuary, no protection to those who kill innocents in the name of Islam."

    1. Re:Thanks for making his point by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And several thousand innocent people died in the previous ones mentioned. However, because they were almost down to a man and woman "infidels," they didn't garner anywhere near the sympathy this one shooting got. A Muslim girl was attacked by a Muslim extremist. That is why they could muster a normal level of outrage over this.

      It's no coincidence that Maddie McCann was a girl, white, blond and cute either, across 7 billion people there's probably kids that disappear every day but a two line notice a day doesn't get anyone's attention. Sometimes the media just have to pick an ideal poster child and create a shit storm over one single case, that really can get people's blood boiling - she's hardly the first nor last Muslim girl to die at the hands of the Taliban. What makes this case stand out is that she wasn't some kind of collateral damage in a suicide bombing or the victim of random attacks on girl schools, she was the victim of an assassination attempt. That the Taliban is so intimidated by a little girl barely into her teens whose worst crime was to want an education that they send killers after her is so... pathetic. It goes over the top from vicious and intimidating to just sad.

      It'd be a great world if everybody stood up for each other, but reality is most people just like to get out of harm's way. It's the whole basis of Niemöller's First they came... poem, this case isn't about where it begins but about where it ends. That the Taliban will come for you too even if you're Muslim, even if you are innocent, even if you've done nothing to help the US or anyone else Pakistan doesn't like because they're crazy fundamentalists that won't ever stop and can't be reasoned with. For terror to work you have to believe that if you give in to the terror you'll be left alone. Now they've gone so over the top that the only choice is to fight them, no matter how bloody it gets surrender is not an option. Kind of like what Churchill promised when he took over as Prime Minister:

      I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terror - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  80. Imam's golden opportunity by bhlowe · · Score: 2

    The Imam's would be better served to teach their followers how to live peacefully in their adopted countries.. and teach that their prophet cannot be "injured" by the actions of non-Muslims.. and that their culture and religion will be most injured by violence and poverty that their over-reactions create. If they want respect, they need to earn it by acting decently towards their fellow human beings. If they can't act peacefully, they should organize mass self-deportation to their Holy Land in the middle east.

    1. Re:Imam's golden opportunity by TheSync · · Score: 1

      teach that their prophet cannot be "injured" by the actions of non-Muslims.

      I don't think that is the issue. The point is that Mohammed had people killed for mocking him, and you are supposed to live your life like the prophet. This is not some weird viewpoint, it is a central viewpoint in Islam.

      Some western Muslims have decided to ignore that, as most Jews and Christians have made it past executing witches ("You should not let a sorceress live." , Exodus 22:17).

      However our "ally" Saudi Arabia still executes witches and sorcerers.

  81. That's a real nonsense by aglider · · Score: 2

    In Rome act like Romans (tm).
    In UK you have to follow UK laws, just like you have to follow Moroccan laws while in Morocco.
    It doesn't depend upon your nationality or beliefs, or anything else. It depends on your current location.
    If you dislike the UK laws, then you are allowed to move to another country.
    If you cannot move, then you have to undergo the situation, as long as it's compliant with the local laws.
    If you don't like all this, then remember that almost anything you'll see in the so-called "western countries" are modeled like this.
    Glad to let you know.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  82. Great News, Maybe by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Does that mean Muslims will stop making a mockery of Islam then?

  83. Say what? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."

    Wrong. True terrorism involves stripping the victims of their choice. They have no choice but to be terrorized. Nobody in the West sat down with guns to your heads and forced you to watch the video. As with most things, you have a choice to be offended or not, to watch, or not. Stop being stupid, don't watch it, and don't be offended. Pretty simple.

  84. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by dcw3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of us in the U.S. grew up with the old line about sticks and stones, and learned at an early age that being thin skinned only lead to more offense from those shelling it out. We don't have a right to not be offended. How you deal with being offended is the difference between being mature, and being childish.

    That said, we do have rights to free speech, and if some jackass wants to make a movie, or put a sign outside a synagogue, his right to do so needs to be protected. But, we have every right to disagree, and point to the jackass an laugh...and no right to physically retaliate.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  85. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people.

    ...

    Is there a space colony open for emigrating yet?

    Reference link:
    http://memebase.cheezburger.com/category/i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore

  86. Re:Until it is banned?? by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

    Its seriously getting to the point in the UK and France with Riots amongst portions of the Muslim/Islam community that they were kind enough to let into their countries where some "Get the fuck out or get dead" politics may be needed soon.

    Its not like Mexicans immigrating into the US, other than the fact that Spanish is slowly becoming a major language down there, the Mexicans really do nothing at all to change the country. They generally assimilate well, even though the country they go into is drastically different from the country they are leaving. The same can't be said for large portions of the Arabic community.

    Chinese moving into Canada is another example of a large amount of people from a very different cultural background moving into a country, but generally behaving themselves properly.

    I try really really hard not to be racist against these muslim/islamic peoples but christ... they cause shit everywhere they go.

    I even have a muslim friend, one of the few around here who has assimlated well(he doesn't ever really want to go back to the country he's from, and HIS family is even fairly well off), and he's told me to basically give up. He's stated that what you see in the news in all reality isn't that far from the truth other than in some of the minor details and that there is a very good reason he doesn't want to go back.

    Here you have a populace that moved into the country attempting to hold the rest of the country hostage until everyone toes their line? Fuck that shit. There are very few situations in which I'm in favor of using force to end protests, but this is one of them.

    Those protesting should be made aware that their actions are illegal(even if they have to quickly WRITE a new, very specific, law for it) and given 48 hours to shut down the protest. All those found in violation after the 48 hours should be detained and deported. Natural-born citizens should be heavily fined.

    From friends I have in the U.K., their government would probably be surprised at how popular a move that would be. In particular amongst the Muslims who have moved in and love living in the U.K. and hate the others that are making it more difficult for them.

  87. Definition of freedom by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    The definition of freedom includes your right to do things I don't agree with, up to the point where you actually prevent me from doing the same.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  88. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

    I think the shift was even more recent than WWII. If you look at US society in the 50s, antisemitism was just as common as other forms of racism and bigotry. At least, that's what I can gather from popular portrayals of the era, especially in the south. Maybe somebody who lived through that time could share some insight. Any octogenarians here on Slashdot?

  89. Re:"It's 2012" by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

    How do you differentiate that from what is going on in the Muslim world? It's still just politics and power grabbing behind a thin veil of virtue and justice (in this case wrapped in religion) just like it was/is for Christians or any other organization that is capable of wielding power.

  90. Re:"It's 2012" by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I would say that the "church" at the time was the Catholic Church, which had a head (pope) and an organization.

    So the Pope could say do this and it would happen in, effectively, the western world.

    In contrast, the radicalized Muslims are a rabble with pockets of organization here and there. They attain geopolitical power by taking over the governments but there is no central figure that controls or influences all radical Muslims.

    Overall, the Church was probably less oppressive because it tolerated dissent from dogma to a certain extent as long as it was not too outrageous and threatened the Church's control.

    This, as opposed to having your throat slit at the drop of a hat for some supposed and dubious violation of Islam'a laws.

    With the Arab spring and the takeover of states by radical Muslims, they are approaching the reach the Church had. It will be interesting to see if the manage to control the vicious and random violence the rabble radical Muslims often perpetrate.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  91. Re:Muslims, America, Christianity by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity ... nor did witch hunts ... and of course those people who considered it a good idea to kill abotion doctors were no true Christians while certainly the minority of rioting Muslims are representative of all Muslims.

    Ah, and yes, Americans value freedom of ideas ... unless the idea is in any way useful, then it is called "intellectual property" and is heavily restricted. Oh, and try to test your freedom by showing condoms on TV ...

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  92. What in gods name is an iMam? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    What is an iMam? Is this some sort of cupertino gadget for learning ancient Myan?

  93. Re:Perhaps Christians can set an example by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    If you've read Breivik's manifesto, you know that he isn't a Christian. His ideology is violent cultural supremacism, and Christianity only figures in it insofar as it's a part of what he considers traditional Western / European culture.

  94. I understand what you're saying by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    "Terrorism is not just people who kill human bodies, but who kill human feelings as well. The makers of this film have terrorised 1.6 billion people."

    But I reject your hyperbole for what it is, justification for rash violence disproportionate to the original offense. These kinds of offensive anti-Muslim propaganda feed off the reactions that we saw. If they would only turn the other cheek the idiots making these videos would sink into obscurity. You feed the hate by reacting to it, especially in violent ways. Thousands of Muslims gave more idiots some incentive to increase their reprehensible activities. Good job guys, again the Muslims out there have proven that they are their own worse enemy.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  95. Re:Perhaps Christians can set an example by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    If you've read Breivik's manifesto, you know that he isn't a Christian. His ideology is violent cultural supremacism, and Christianity only figures in it insofar as it's a part of what he considers traditional Western / European culture.

    Well, IMO, anyone who thinks that killing other people they disagree with is acceptable behavior is as far from Christian as one can be... my fault for paying too much attention to the words written in red.

    IMO aside, lots of "non-Christians" have used Christianity to justify their horrible actions: Breivik, McVeigh, the KKK, the Crusaders, et. al. Also, discounting Breivik does nothing to counter the other examples I offered.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  96. Re:Perhaps Christians can set an example by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Note to self: Pointing out inconvenient, unpleasant truths = Flamebait.


    Duly noted.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  97. Re:Perhaps Christians can set an example by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I wasn't really commenting on your other examples or on the overall premise, just this particular point (because it's so often misunderstood and misrepresented).

    Breivik certainly didn't use Christianity to justify his actions - as in, he didn't say that he "did it for Jesus", or attempted to justify it by some bit from the scripture etc. He drew parallel between himself and crusaders, but it was also cultural and not religious.

  98. Over sensitivity... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    So just on slashdot today, you have a story about Einstein ridiculing christianity, and yet we see thousands of muslims angry over some video...

    I just watched part of the trailer for this movie, for the sole reason that there is so much fuss about it... It seems to be a very poorly made movie, and all these protests are doing is providing free advertising for something that otherwise would have been forgotten fairly quickly.

    So you protest at google, they cave and take it offline... Then what? demand for the movie has increased because of all the publicity, so what happens? Someone else hosts it and the cycle continues.

    Who benefits from this? Only the people who made the movie, they were able to get their third rate movie watched by millions of people... How many people do you think would have watched or even heard about this movie had it not been for all the publicity generated by those who hate it?

    As it stands, not only will millions of people hear the anti-muslim message promoted by this movie but many will consider muslims to be overly touchy and unable to take criticism... Had they reacted differently, only those who already hated muslims would have bothered to seek out and watch this movie, noone else would have cared.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  99. Are the standards consistent? by dorpus · · Score: 1

    Does youtube tolerate anti-semitic or anti-gay videos to the same extent that it tolerates anti-Muslim videos?

  100. I'm a Progressive Guy, but Enough is Enough! by DaKong · · Score: 1

    Who cares about 'Innocence of Muslims?' It was a dumb, poorly made film. Though in parts it rather captured the spirit of the Koran with the incessant whining about how everybody better acknowledge Mohammed as the sole prophet of God OR ELSE. It rather reminded of me of South Park's send-up of Scientology, or Mormonism, or Catholicism, or Judaism, or any other religion under the sun.

    Who cares? Grow the hell up, Muslims. Really. You are not the only religion on Earth, and your religion is as much fair game as anyone else's. The difference is, everyone else appears to be mostly adult enough to not lynch people for it.

    I'm I insensitive? Who cares? But I am heartsick of every religious ninny of any stripe claiming religious exceptionalism.

    --
    If not us, who? If not now, when?
  101. Re:"It's 2012" vs Last Temptation of Christ 1988 by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2

    It was talked about in the cited article - not exactly zero. Let's not pretend one group of people is inherently more enlightened than another, if given similar upbringing and circumstances.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  102. Re:Muslims, America, Christianity by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    The crusades came after 400 years of aggression. Spain had been invaded and France was in danger. Also, the Eastern Roman Empire was under constant attack by "peaceful" muslim armies that had converted or killed almost all of the Christians and Jews living in Northern Africa.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  103. crybaby mohammed by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    Punch in "crybaby mohammed" into your google image search. /thread.

  104. Re:Fuck you you child raping assholes by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    So you're dressing up as Yasser Arafat?

  105. Re:Fuck you you child raping assholes by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Good Idea.

  106. Dear Imams: by miltonw · · Score: 1

    I don't think you are trying hard enough to get insulted.

    There may be millions, even billions, of phrases, images and articles on the Internet that you could use to get very, very insulted.

    You had to search and then download that video from YouTube. Why don't you just keep searching and downloading stuff that offends you.

    You aren't even trying here. With some ingenuity, you could find stuff to make you outraged for the rest of eternity. Let's get cracking!!

  107. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Never heard of "Islamophobia," "Homophobia" or "Sinophobia?" You're welcome, hope this helps you feel special.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  108. Re:"It's 2012" vs Last Temptation of Christ 1988 by mjwx · · Score: 1

    In some countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the movie continues to be banned in Chile, the Philippines and Singapore.[6]

    Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned in Ireland for 8 years and Norway for 1 year.

    The list of high profile Church leaders insulted by the Life of Brian is probably longer than the The Last Temptation of Christ and Innocence of Muslims put together. Life of Brian is now considered a cultural treasure (although I highly doubt Innocence of Muslims will every be considered anything more than a poorly made troll).

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  109. Re:"It's 2012" by mjwx · · Score: 1

    The Nepali calendar is currently in 2069, which explains their ongoing moon colonisation and widespread use of quantum computers to solve protein folding problems and cure cancer. Nice argument, well done.

    The Thai calendar is in the mid 2550's. This explains the recent experimentation in time travel. However this was only used to go back to this morning to get more Som Tam from a noodle cart.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  110. Slighlty retrofitted. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    A man drives into a petrol station in Bradford.
    He turns to the attendant and ask, "can I get some petrol".
    The attendant replies, "we have no petrol".
    "OK then, can I get some oil".
    "We have no oil".
    "What about some windscreen wiper blades"
    "OK, this isn't a petrol station, it's a front for Al-Quieda"
    "Can you blow up my tyres".

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  111. Re:"It's 2012" vs Last Temptation of Christ 1988 by NickFortune · · Score: 1

    Also free speech as I define it only truly exists in the US so I'm not interested on what other countries did.

    Now that's an interesting approach.

    So, following your methodology, if I don't like what you're saying I can redefine "intelligence" as something that occurs in people other than yourself and that allows me to disregard anything you say. How useful is that?

    Admittedly, it's only formalising an approach that's already ready widely used, so I don't suppose I can claim any great novelty here. Maybe I should redefine "innovation" as something that only happens when I do it. That would work ...

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  112. Americans are of two minds... by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    ...when it comes to freedom of expression. They gladly allow their kids to watch someone get disembowelled in the latest horror flick, but recoil in moral indignation if they see the top part of a female nipple on broadcast television. Freedom of expression has always been relative.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  113. Re:"It's 2012" vs Last Temptation of Christ 1988 by retroworks · · Score: 1

    I thought we were talking about the peaceful protest at Google offices in London (RTFA), not comparing the protest over the 1988 movie with riots in the Middle East. I'm also surprised that your statement that "free speech only truly exists in the USA" has been modded up to 5.

    --
    Gently reply
  114. Google is Wrong. Here's why. by Nashadelic · · Score: 1

    Muslim from Pakistan here. There's a lot more happening related to his: Youtube has been banned for near a month in Pakistan now because of Google's stance. But even that's not so bad. The worst is that in anti-youtube protests, more than 21 people have died in Pakistan (http://newsweekpakistan.com/scope/1841). Essentially, Google has opted to protect a BS troll video over the lives of 21 people. Anyone who has the faintest idea about the current situation in Pakistan would have expected these deaths to happen. You touched upon a sensitive topic causing droves of people to come out in protests. Pakistan is marred with terrorism and sectarian violence so clashes, attacks and taking advantage of the protests was to be expected. The result was almost two dozen dead. For these same reasons, Google censored the video in Libya. Apparently, the same logic doesn't apply for them here.

    It's about time global corporations of Google scale understand that one size-policy cannot be applied to the world at large. Every place has different sensibilities, customs and laws. This "insistence" on pushing western ideals down the throats of everybody in the world is very myopic and arrogant. It's sad that they'd rather have Youtube blocked in Pakistan rather than work with the people of that country to bring the greater good Youtube brings.

  115. Why "multiculturalism" sucks by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    This whole idea of co-existing with other cultures in a "multicultural" society has been sold to us a universally beneficial thing, I think it's just a bunch of feel-good nonsense with no empirical evidence as justification. Until the peddlers of this BS can come up with EVIDENCE that multiculturalism is a good thing, I think it should be totally rejected.

    There are many things to appreciate about other cultures. Food, clothing, architecture, artwork, music, poetry, etc. Even philosophy and religion when examined from a purely academic standpoint. When it comes to differences in fundamental values, behavioral norms and societal expectations however, you cannot have harmonious coexistence of multiple unique cultures living in close spatial proximity.

    This is a recipe for disaster and it's playing out all over Europe and North America. We should not be expected to welcome people into our society when they openly refuse to accept our basic societal 'norms' or even our language and instead seek to impose their beliefs on us.

  116. Protest the Taliban Blasphemers Instead by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    These intolerant Muslim people need to grow thicker skin. If they let everyone who thinks their religion is nutty nonsense get them riled up they are going to have a long unhappy time of it. They would be making better use of their time to protest the Taliban blasphemers who actively use Islam to justify shooting children in the head. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/7824802/Taliban-claims-attack-on-schoolgirl-justified The blasphemous actions of the Taliban are a gross insult to Islam and make a joke of the Prophet Mohammad.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  117. When you have 800 Imams by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    Protesting something so stupid, and none saying "really ? who cares" That tells me all I need to know about Islam and most Muslims. Go back to the middle east, you don't belong in the West, and we're NEVER going to change to accommodate you. EVER. Get the fuck out. There. I said it. Because it's true. LEAVE. We're NEVER going to change this basic right to accommodate you. EVER. It doesn't matter how many of us you murder. Get the fuck OUT.

  118. Re:"It's 2012" by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

    Like as if it is ever about "religion per se". It's always politics, just more or less obscured by metaphysical balderdash.

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...
  119. Re:So... Jews are not the subject of jokes in the by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    If you look at US society in the 50s, antisemitism was just as common as other forms of racism and bigotry

    And racism against black people didn't disappear when segregation was outlawed either. I think racism will only disappear when generations do -- racism and bigotry can be ingrained pretty deeply, and it seems like the cure is for newer generations who didn't grow up with those beliefs overtake the older ones.

  120. Re:Absolutely false. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    No copy of any KP movie has EVER caused physical harm to children.

    NONE.

    Those harmed are the children who are in the movie, of course.
    And of course, they are too young and immature to give informed consent as well.