Slashdot Mirror


Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ

An anonymous reader writes: A pair of gunmen have stormed the office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and wounding seven more. The magazine had recently published a cartoon of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and witnesses say the gunmen shouted, "we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad," before leaving. "Four of the magazine's well-known cartoonists, including its editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier were reported among those killed, as well as at least two police officers. Mr Charbonnier, 47, had received death threats in the past and was living under police protection." The attackers engaged police in a gunfire outside the building, then fled in a car. At the time of this writing, they are still at large. Currently, the BBC has the most information out of English news outlets. French speakers can consult the headline at Le Monde for more current news.

1,350 comments

  1. islam by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the religion of peace....

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ssshhhh. Don't say that or we may be next. Every European knows appeasement is the only way.

    2. Re:islam by pigiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

    3. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thank goodness for that. Imagine if it was the religion of war.

    4. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If all 1 billions Muslims were gun-wielding terrorists, you could be sarcastic about peace and Islam. Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

    5. Re:islam by damicatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The crusades happened hundreds of years ago. It is no longer relevant today. Islamist violence, on the other hand, has been going on since the founding of that religion and continues to this day. More people are beaten, maimed, mutilated, raped, and murdered in the name of allah every single day than all other religions combined.

    6. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weren't the crusades christians traveling many miles across the land to have a drink with their brothers in the motherland?

    7. Re:islam by pigiron · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually not; Marxism has.

    8. Re:islam by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If all 1 billions Muslims were gun-wielding terrorists, you could be sarcastic about peace and Islam. Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      Right, the crusades... that was bad so clearly all Christians should be executed in the streets while on their knees begging for their life.

    9. Re:islam by sycodon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If just 1 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims were gun-wielding terrorists, you get Sixteen Million gun-wielding terrorists.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we are not worried about what happened centuries ago

      How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:islam by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am all about being correct. And in this case, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity is, if you judge it according to the respective holy book.

      Muslims take their holy book very seriously... I know that is an alien concept for Christians.

      What you could say is that the people, where Islam is predominant, seem to be uncivilized bastards, that would be another matter.

      But let me just remind you that it was the US that initiated a coup in Iran that unseated a democratically chosen head of state to install a US friendly dictator.

      Let me also remind you that it was a religious leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, who rallied the people to take their country back without the use of force against, I believe, the fifth strongest army in the world, after heavy armament through the US.

      Many a muslim country, once pretty stable and forward thinking, has been destabilized by US politics in order to cement US influence to the detriment of local population opening doors for extremists to take power.

    12. Re:islam by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1, Funny

      Marxism is a religion? If that is the case then Capitalism is a religion.

      OK, I see your point.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    13. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all 1 billions Muslims were gun-wielding terrorists, you could be sarcastic about peace and Islam. Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      Christians were on Gods side.

    14. Re:islam by schlachter · · Score: 0

      Sounds about right. There at least several million just in the West Bank and Gaza alone and double that in Syria and Egypt.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    15. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are not worried about what happened centuries ago

        How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary

      Anyways, there are geopolitical aspects as well...

    16. Re:islam by RingDev · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well let's see... the IRA/English's battle over Northern Ireland (largely drawn across Catholic/Protestant religious lines) cease fire was just over 20 years ago. And the final peace accord was only 17 years ago. That marked the end of 30 years of assassinations, murders, bombings, and attacks all of which were surrounded by religious fervor.

      The Gun Powder Plot (Remember, remember, the 5th of November) was driven (and justified) by religious ideals.

      The KKK was a main stream Protestant religious organization for a century in the US.

      More recently, Christian militias have been responsible for numerous violent clashes and "cleansings" in north-east India (anti-Hindu).

      In central Africa, the Anti-Balaka militias are spreading Jesus' word by assassinating Muslims.

      You have the 1990's Manipur that left 900 dead and tens of thousands displaced as Christian terrorists decided to enforce their views.

      There was the Christian fundamentalist in Oslo that shot up that kid's camp, leaving 77 dead because he felt that immigrants were eroding their "Christian Values"

      I'm not here to debate the merits of Islam, but to claim that Christianity as a whole has been perfectly clean since the 1500's is a gross mischaracterization of the numerous religious organizations and individuals that fall under the Christian designation.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    17. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Realy? The Catholic church has killed more innocent people than all other religions combined.

      (no, I'm not muslim, I hate all religions the same)

      Do you think using the atrocities of the past to validate the atrocities of today is a solid argument? (Regardless of who committed them)

    18. Re:islam by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not a Christian but your argument sucks.

      The crusades were over 1000 years ago, and that is still the best example of Christian church-led violence you can come up with?, yet multiple fatalities of innocent people from islamic terrorist attacks are taking place every day.

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not condone let alone instruct the killing of anyone, especially not just because they insulted the name of Jesus. In fact Christianity teaches us to forgive.

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not teach denial of basic human rights and prevention of education of certain groups of people (because of their gender, race or beliefs).

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not have radical priests that brainwash believers into becoming human bombs. ...Want me to go on? ...and yes I on purpose spelt Christianity with a capital C but islam with a lower case i, as the even the name of such a scum-ridden religion doesn't deserve any respect.

    19. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      show me one islam ran country that is not out there oppressing their women and minorities, other religions. so me one islamic country that has basic rights. If one exists, i dont know of it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re:islam by Drethon · · Score: 1

      The crusades are relevant in comparisons of the people performing violent acts. My best guess as I am not a psychologist is a similar level of intelligence, or lack thereof.

    21. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      what people dont like to talk about in the crusades, it was the christians fighting the muslims. which came first though the christian brutality or the muslim brutality? (in regards to the crusades)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    22. Re:islam by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      OK. The Crusades were a misguided attempt by Urban II to redirect the fratricidal violence among French nobility of the 11th century somewhere else, one conceived when suddenly a well-timed request by the Byzantines for help against the invading Seljuks came in.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the religion of peace....

      Yup. A piece of you here ... a piece of you there ...

    24. Re:islam by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      should be executed in the streets while on their knees begging for their life.

      That is what the Crusaders did every time they took a town/city. They executed people with their swords. Those who fought, the women, the children, the elderly.

      Compare that to Saladin who showed mercy and the let the Crusaders go (for the most part).

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    25. Re:islam by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      And how many people alive had anything to do with the fucking crusades? That's right, not a single person.

      The crusades are the opposite side of the same coin -- religious idiots doing terrible shit in the name of their god and acting like it's justified. Nobody looks back on the crusades and says "good times, that". They see it as atrocities committed by zealots.

      If you're clinging to something which happened 500+ years ago as an excuse to indiscriminately kill today ... you're a fucking moron.

      More harm has befallen the world in the name of god than should be allowed. So I conclude the Abrahamic god is either a fucking lie, or a fucking asshole.

      If he doesn't like that, he can take it up with me personally. You, however, are not qualified to speak on his behalf.

      One set of stone age idiots fighting another set of stone age idiots. And the world never changes.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    26. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 0
      from your link

      Anti-Muslim violence in Central Africa[edit] Further information: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration After the predominantly Muslim Seleka militia took control of the Central African Republic under President Michel Djotodia in 2013, a period of lawlessness and sectarian violence continued. Following warnings of "genocide" by the UN and a controversial intervention force by MISCA, Djotodia resigned. Despite neutral Catherine Samba-Panza being made president, the Anti-balaka Christian militants continued sectarian violence, including reported targeted killings, against Muslim civilians.[21]

      so, standing up to islamist extremists is now a sign of christian terrorism??? in what world???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    27. Re:islam by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Clearly you are not looking at the Muslim armies, the Moors, and Mamluks of history. You're not looking at the war between Hindus and Muslims in India during Ghandi's time I'll wager that all you know about is the Inquisition (which had a strong Spanish secular component) and the Crusades, which were in fact a response to Muslim Imperialism. Actually, probably the worst atrocity committed in the name of Christianity was the Massacre at Verden by Charlemagne, not dissimilar to what Islamophages are doing now, today.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    28. Re:islam by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Marxism is a religion in a way - it requires faith (in humanity) to operate without corruption or brutality, since it requires folks to always live and work with society's greater good in mind. The very phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" requires a lack of greed, sloth, or lust (for power) to operate. History has shown that it is just as prone to failure as most other human endeavors, including religion.

      Capitalism on the other hand? It doesn't require any faith to work... in fact it specifically relies on the basest elements of humanity (namely, self-interest) to operate at all.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    29. Re:islam by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok so add up all the dead from every christian-initiated incident you mentioned from the last 1000 years and compare that to than the number of innocent people killed by islamic terrorist activity every month. Starting to get it now?

      Monthly Jihad Report
      December, 2014:

        Jihad Attacks: 233
        Countries: 30
        Allah Akbars: 33
        Dead Bodies: 2497
        Critically Injured: 2225

    30. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the muslims were the other side of the crusades

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    31. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When? Where? Who?

      Are you thinking of the Crusades, or of the reconquest of Spain? Because those are both episodes of Christendom pushing back Muslim invaders.

    32. Re:islam by MozeeToby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Standing up to extremists" was done by "targeted killings, against Muslim civilians". Yes, if accurate I would call that terrorism.

    33. Re:islam by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Since Christianity is primarily the New Testament, could you please cite locations where it is violent? Seems I recall that when Peter went all hot-headed and sliced off an ear (obviously going for the head), Jesus healed the ear and said "enough". Then there's that ole "do unto others as how you would have them do unto you" bit. Oh, and all the talk about forgiveness, turn-the-other-check, etc. Several other examples can easily be found which show that it is NOT violent.

    34. Re:islam by Megol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the real world.

      Using terrorism to "fight" terrorism is, as any sentient being would realize, STILL TERRORISM.

    35. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      what you are leaving out is the people they were killing were the muslims who had just got done killing their people and taking over their land....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    36. Re:islam by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Turkey... barely.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    37. Re:islam by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not here to debate the merits of Islam, but to claim that Christianity as a whole has been perfectly clean since the 1500's is a gross mischaracterization of the numerous religious organizations and individuals that fall under the Christian designation.

      Try as I might, I don't see that claim being made in the parent post. That Islam has caused more deaths in the last few decades, especially the last decade, should come as a surprise to precisely nobody. As much as I don't particularly like Christianity as a religion either, nobody's sent planes into buildings with thousands of civilians in the name of Jesus. Nobody's trying to transform the Middle East into a new Christian country, beheading all that oppose them and sending out the videos on Twitter.

    38. Re:islam by Penguinisto · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You've only proven that religion can be co-opted to justify barbarism... yay? Now show me where Christianity itself justifies such acts (hint: it doesn't.)

      The Q'uran on the other hand not only condones, but encourages such acts. Therein lies the difference.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    39. Re:islam by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so, standing up to islamist extremists is now a sign of christian terrorism??? in what world???

      Often in this world, because "standing up to islamist extremest" often devolves into "persecuting any muslims we can find, to get revenge for what the extremists did". What happens is the islamist extremists do something horrible, which so outrages/terrorizes the local non-muslim population and/or government that they end up responding by doing something horrible to the local muslim population.

      That's why it's critical to understand that the distinction to make is terrorist/non-terrorist, and not muslim/non-muslim. Otherwise you just get a never-ending spiral of retaliatory violence, with militants on both sides attacking non-militants on the other side (and radicalizing more non-militants to become militants for the next round).

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    40. Re:islam by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Marxism is a religion in a way

      Marxism is not a religion in any way. It has similar qualities of a religion, just like you can find similarities between a truck and a wheel barrel, but they are very different.

      There is a reason why faith and religion are different words in the English language. Just because something requires faith does not make it religious in nature.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    41. Re:islam by wiggles · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I am all about being correct. And in this case, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity is, if you judge it according to the respective holy book.

      That's not true at all.

      The Bible is written such that the violence of the old testament is the back story for the mission of peace in the gospels. It's basically saying, "This is how it used to be - now all that ends, and the Kingdom of Heaven begins with Jesus Christ." The New Testament is all about "turning the other cheek", about martyrdom of peaceful saints, of loving thy neighbor. Pray for those who persecute you. The scourging and crucifixion itself shows that suffering at the hands of another is no reason to retaliate with violence.

      Are there those who twist that message? Absolutely. Just don't call them Christians.

    42. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      appeasement clearly has not worked. sometimes hard actions need to be taken

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    43. Re:islam by x0ra · · Score: 1

      We all know catholicism is pretty much as peaceful

    44. Re:islam by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      [citation needed]

      (Really, badly needed. The Church is by no means innocent, but what you said is nowhere even remotely true.)

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    45. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "explain the crusades"...

      They were a response to hundreds of years of ISLAMIC crusades that occupied "the Holy Land"...

    46. Re:islam by dhaen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Well let's see... the IRA/English's battle over Northern Ireland (largely drawn across Catholic/Protestant religious lines) cease fire was just over 20 years ago. And the final peace accord was only 17 years ago. That marked the end of 30 years of assassinations, murders, bombings, and attacks all of which were surrounded by religious fervour."
      Wrong. The conflict was about differing traditions and governance. The fact that the 2 groups had differing flavours of Christianity was a detail.

    47. Re:islam by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      and all without guns too

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    48. Re:islam by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, he didn't heal the soldier's ear.

      If he'd asked, Christ would have. But he didn't ask.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    49. Re:islam by x0ra · · Score: 0

      Kinda, yes. We slaughtered them, they slaughter us. Though, we are still entitled to defend ourselves, and hypothetically slaughter them back in the future. That's human savage nature. It's not about "god", it about fulfilling our lust for blood.

    50. Re:islam by jtwiegand · · Score: 1

      It wasn't all so friendly to the Byzantines. The 4th crusade didn't help them much.

    51. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The same would apply in many respects to other modern ideologies like anarchism, Libertarianism, and even to Capitalism. Fortunately few modern states are run purely on ideological grounds.

      Religion is a special case of ideology, but that does not mean every ideology is a religion.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    52. Re:islam by x0ra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To some extend, it could refer to today's crusade, that is, the very sheer existence of the state of Israel.

    53. Re:islam by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey are the obvious ones. They are not perfect countries, of course, but they are large, multicultural democracies with Islam as the state religion.

    54. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip: certain words indicate satire. After WW2, "appeasement" will always be one of those words. Go look up Chamberlain and appeasement.

    55. Re:islam by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Christians tend to go by the New Testament, which has very little violence, and a whole lot of love, forgiveness, and peace.

      The Old Testament is mainly a history of the Hebrew people, and their mythology. The New Testament is God making a new covenant with the world and saying "okay, here's I really want you to act."

      Also, yes, there's that one line about Jesus saying he brings the sword. Yes, HE brings the sword. God is the one who sits in judgment, not man. Jesus told Peter to put down his sword. Sword's fine for God. Not for man.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    56. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Let's be perfectly clear here that the Partition of India and all the violence surrounding it was by and large the parting gift of the British Raj, though I suspect within a few years even the most virulently imperialist Brits were wishing that Pakistan never existed.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    57. Re:islam by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But the vast majority of the followers of Islam don't ever kill anyone. It is like blaming Atheists for all the deaths caused by atheists which is huge.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    58. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Troll

      if the non terrorists dont stand up and fight against the terrorists, they are just as much of the problem

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    59. Re:islam by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      It's spelled 'Gandhi'. Thanks.

    60. Re:islam by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey are the obvious ones. They are not perfect countries, of course, but they are large, multicultural democracies with Islam as the state religion.

      Real democracies don't need official religions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:islam by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Who f... cares? We are not in Middle-Ages anymore, it is about time you take note of it.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    62. Re:islam by x0ra · · Score: 1

      mod parent up, please.

    63. Re:islam by wiggles · · Score: 2

      100% of the examples you provide are not driven by religious ideals, but political ones. Evil people merely twist and use religion to whip up the support of the masses for their political agenda. In the case of the IRA, it was used to create an "us vs. them" mentality to rally people to the cause. Same with the KKK, which was NEVER a mainline protestant church unlike how you state. The Gunpowder Plot was less about religion and more about politics - the Protestants were persecuting the Catholics, the Catholics tried to turn the tables - again, more about the politics of "us vs. them" rather than religion. If you honestly think the only reason why the African militias are killing people is because of religion, you're out of your mind. That nut in Oslo was mentally ill.

      I can't speak to Islam, but what I do know is that Christians who use violence to spread their views can not be considered Christians. According to the Christian religion, the suffering and death of Jesus in the New Testament by its very act is intended to teach that violence and persecution against you by someone is no reason to retaliate violently. Jesus was God Incarnate, perfectly able to take himself down from the cross, call an army of angels to his side, and lay waste to the Roman legions and Jewish religious. He did not.

    64. Re:islam by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      Of course, some Christians love to revisit the old testament to get their hate on.

    65. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Khomeini was a clever bastard who tricked the Iranian reformists who wished to replace the Shah with a democracy. He promised before he got on a plane in France to be merely a figurehead. In short order he had co-opted the revolution (which was, by and large to that point, secular in nature). Khomeini was a bastard and an awfully good reason why, when such individuals flee their homelands, they be offered commodious and permanent exile; a gilded cage, but a cage nonetheless.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    66. Re:islam by davydagger · · Score: 1
      and thats because Islam has a far larger chunk of the world population than christianity, and Judaeism. You are also making the mistake of equating what a few followers in fringe groups do with what the entire reliegon does, and painting all muslims with a rather large brush.

      There is no excusing reactionaries of any stripes, but lets call it was it is. Its reactionaries vs the rest of us, not christianity vs islam.

    67. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because the military has to perform a coup once in a while to keep the country democratic.

    68. Re:islam by jcupitt65 · · Score: 1

      Ooop, sorry, Indonesia and Turkey do not have Islam as the state religion, but they are majority Muslim countries.

    69. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Police brutality is out of hand.

    70. Re:islam by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 2

      Bottom line: This newspaper blasphemed both islam and Christianity. It was the islamic terrorists that did the (multiple) attacks--not the Christians.

    71. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which explains why all manner of bigotry is justified by certain groups of Christians with the help of a delightful array of quotes from the Old Testament. That some Christians believe the Old Testament was sidelined by the New, that is hardly a universal belief, and certainly in many of the more modern evangelical Protestant churches, the Old Testament holds every bit as much weight as the New.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    72. Re:islam by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, the purpose of the crusades was to retake the holy lands from muslim invaders and free Christians oppressed by them, and was undertaken at the request of the Byzantine empire.

      Now, once they got there tons of other political, religious and economic forces combined with the general barbarism of the time led to slaughter and theft. But "hey, let's take that land back from conquerers of a different religion" is a far cry from "you drew a picture we don't like so we're going to murder you and all your friends."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    73. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are not worried about what happened centuries ago

        How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      More than zero, if I remember correctly. Therefore too many.

    74. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      >Kill them all, let God sort them out.
      Cool, it's an instance of lazy execution in the context of "lazy" executions. Your move, atheists.

      Seriously, you cannot kill as a Christian, because 1. you can't kill 2. being Christian is defined by your actions, not your label. So you might wear a tiara, it does not matter.

      This killing is permitted by Islam? There is a relatively short book that underwent much less aggressive editing than the bible, which can answer that question, personally I don't know.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    75. Re:islam by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I am all about being correct. And in this case, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity is, if you judge it according to the respective holy book. Muslims take their holy book very seriously... I know that is an alien concept for Christians. What you could say is that the people, where Islam is predominant, seem to be uncivilized bastards, that would be another matter.

      No, it's not. Bloody Mary burned 300 people at the stake for supporting the wrong kind of Christianity, if Christianity had stayed the same as it were 500 years ago we'd also be uncivilized barbarians. We've mostly changed, they mostly haven't. They could, but until then you've identified cause (Islam) and effect (uncivilized bastards), you just refuse to acknowledge it. And I don't mean just newspaper-bombing lunatics, I'm talking about countries where women can't drive a car, homosexuality carries a death penalty and so on..Unless they stop taking that damn book so seriously, the madness will continue.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    76. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      in todays world, sure as hell is

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    77. Re:islam by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bible and the Koran are not the same. The Bible has some messed up stuff in it, but crucially it is a collection of stories written by different people and acknowledged to be so. The Koran is supposed to be the literal word of god himself, dictated to Mohammed who then dictated it from memory to his mate who could actually write.

      The Bible is thus more open to interpretation. It has to be, because it contradicts itself quite often. More over, it isn't quite as specific about murdering infidels, killing people for apostasy, cutting off the hands of thieves etc. There is a lot of nasty stuff in there, no doubt, but the Koran contains actual commands, directly from the mouth of god, to do those things.

      In addition, Jesus was mostly okay but Mohammed was a dick. Not a great role model.

      Given time Islam may be able to reform and somehow get past what their holy book says, but it won't be easy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    78. Re:islam by wiggles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We used to call those people "Heretics". Now, we just call them idiots who don't know their own faith.

    79. Re:islam by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't confuse people of a certain religion killing people, versus people being killed for a religion. I doubt that anyone ever ran into battle shouting "For Shinto!" "For Atheism!"

      The famous killers who have been athiests have not killed people in the name of atheism. That contrasts with Christian killers who most certainly killed in the name of their religion, or Islamist killers who have done the same.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    80. Re:islam by Krojack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that was how many years ago? 500+? The Catholic church and it's beliefs have greatly changed since. The way I see it, Islam (or some members/sections of it) today is where the Christian/Catholic religion was many centuries ago was. Trying to force their beliefs on others and wanting to kill those that don't accept. The true Muslim people that are against this violence need to stand up. This is a fight that can only be won from within it's own religion with its own people if you ask me.

      (I too am not religious. I don't hate them I just choose not to be brain washed)

    81. Re:islam by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      I don't think people wielding guns in Gaza has much to do with them being Muslim.

    82. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each of the many crusades where a direct response to islam invasions.

    83. Re:islam by QuantumPion · · Score: 2

      Compare that to Saladin who showed mercy and the let the Crusaders go (for the most part).

      Sounds like you are taking the Hollywood version of events a bit too seriously. The only Crusaders that Saladin let go were the wealthy nobles who could afford to pay ransom. Everyone else was screwed.

    84. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Realy? The Catholic church has killed more innocent people than all other religions combined.

      How many people did Mao kill with his notions of materialistic progress?

    85. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crusades happened hundreds of years ago. It is no longer relevant today.

      This is the most hilariously incorrect statement I've ever had the misfortune to read.

      I suspect you're an American, and more concerned with what you're having for dinner than what's going to happen over the next century.

    86. Re:islam by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Absolutely, killing wonen and children unrelated to seleka in any way other than religion is the best way to fight them.

      You have become your enemy. Congratulations.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    87. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are peaceful concepts, but one can take anything out of context. The people with the guns and bombs praising the lord and passing the ammunition chanting Allah-u-akbar! or Hallelujah whatever, are just crazy people. In that, they are very amped, and somebody gave them guns and a direction. But if people are dumb enough to buy this Islamophobia, they others will continue to sell it, and we get shit like this. But yea, ideologically most religions are peaceful, even Satanism.

    88. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. Just don't call them Christians.

      If they call themselves Christians who are you to insist otherwise?

      Insisting people who don't follow a particular form of X aren't true members of the faith X is one of the primary claims used by extremists.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    89. Re: islam by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Capitalism doesn't require faith to work because it's basically anarchy. The "invisible hand" Is basically a nice way to say you're leaving things to chance...

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    90. Re:islam by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Islamophages? Viruses that kill Islam?

      Best typo so far.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    91. Re:islam by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Substitute Nazi for Islam and see if you'd support "non-violent Naziism".

      My point, "moderate" Islam is the silent introduction to "radical Islam", IMHO. The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated.

      OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      The point being, Islam itself is the problem. Peaceful Islam is only a means to an end. I hope you enjoy praying towards Mecca.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    92. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many more have been killed in the name of atheism?

    93. Re:islam by khallow · · Score: 1

      Islam, fascism, and communism have each killed more people. That includes the genocides of the New World (most which weren't religion-based BTW).

    94. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often in this world, because "standing up to islamist extremest" often devolves into "persecuting any muslims we can find, to get revenge for what the extremists did". What happens is the islamist extremists do something horrible, which so outrages/terrorizes the local non-muslim population and/or government that they end up responding by doing something horrible to the local muslim population.

      That's why it's critical to understand that the distinction to make is terrorist/non-terrorist, and not muslim/non-muslim. Otherwise you just get a never-ending spiral of retaliatory violence, with militants on both sides attacking non-militants on the other side (and radicalizing more non-militants to become militants for the next round).

      I suppose my problem is that I'm unaware of any religion that has such a disproportionate amount of terrorists in it's ranks compared to Islam, or that commonly has religious leaders that commonly publicly espouse violence against others not of their religion.

    95. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???"

      Pretty much Zero, Nil, Nilch, Nada, None.

    96. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you should actually read Das Kapital, before commenting on Marxism. Many concepts that Marx promoted were implemented in Capitalistic societies, for example old age pension.

    97. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      appeasement clearly has not worked. sometimes hard actions need to be taken

      Like invading countries and launching drone strikes until ISIS popped up?

      Don't confuse hard actions with violent actions. If you want to reduce Islamic terrorism it's time to grow up and start addressing the underlying geo-political causes.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    98. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be a fool.

      Atheism does not have prophets or gods that dictate destruction, death and enslavement like mohammed and allah do.

    99. Re:islam by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Okay, Islamist imperialism which was often violent had effectively cut off the route between European Christians and the holy land. Christians saw the need to preserve both a route of passage to the holy land and to provide Christians in the region relief from the very real abuses they were suffering at the hands of their Islamic occupiers. A war broke out on which both sides committed atrocities.

      Islam is no more and no less to blame for the crusades than the Christan kingdoms.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    100. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      they also dont stand up and condone the violence brought in their name. The christians do. That to me, is the big difference

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    101. Re:islam by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Hey good list. Given that everything you listed there is totally against the simple principles espoused by Jesus Christ, I'll have to point out that the perpetrators were not Christians. Not everybody who claims to be a Christian actually is. Tune your television to TBN for an endless 24-hour parade of examples.

      The problem is that those who kill in the name of Islam actually *are* following their holy book to the letter.

    102. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crusades are relevant in comparisons of the people performing violent acts. My best guess as I am not a psychologist is a similar level of intelligence, or lack thereof.

      The Crusades were intolerable and had very little to do with Christianity and more to do with governments using a religion to justify their cause. Don't confuse the true religion for what has been co-opted by others to further their own personal agenda.

      Is Islam peaceful? For the few Muslims I have met I found them to be extremely peaceful and kind so yes I do think the majority of Muslims on this planet abhor the violence they see. However... there is also the problem that these religious leaders are tolerated within their mosques and allowed to spread their hate and violence to the young people that don't have a sense of purpose in life and are easily influenced. If Muslims want to show the world that they truly are peaceful, than there should be a purge of these radicals out of their ranks and be denounced.

      Christianity isn't perfect, or rather the people that claim to be Christian aren't perfect (that is of course one of the tenants of the faith, accepting you aren't perfect). Historically there have been times when the Christian religion was used to further personal agendas or in ignorance atrocities were committed. However the difference is that modern day Christian's who subscribe to Jesus teachings would never be caught committing acts of terrorism in the name of Jesus. The second someone flies planes into a building "In the name of Jesus" will be followed by the entire Christian community condemning those acts and denouncing the people involved as not followers of Christ.

    103. Re:islam by pigiron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "1. you can't kill"

      No, you can't murder.

    104. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i get this, i was just throwing it out there

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    105. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marxism is a religion in a way

      Marxism is not a religion in any way. It has similar qualities of a religion, just like you can find similarities between a truck and a wheel barrel, but they are very different.

      There is a reason why faith and religion are different words in the English language. Just because something requires faith does not make it religious in nature.

      I would agree that Marxism is not a religion due to any aspect of faith, but it is a religion in the sense that it is an organized belief adhered to by many. It need not have any faith-based component or theology.

    106. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, obviously the Muslims peacefully invaded North Africa and Spain, not to mention Eastern Europe...

    107. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll.

      It is "common knowledge" that Marxist is a Religion--belief in something not proven and, if the USSR empire is an example, dis-proven.

      Try to keep up.

    108. Re:islam by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, the old Ireland apologist response. That didn't take long.

      Ireland was a political split along religious factions. While awful, it's not the same thing as this, which is a religion per se attempting dominance to force its beliefs on everyone.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    109. Re:islam by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Romani Ite Domum

      (wrong thread?)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    110. Re:islam by caseih · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in fact the criminals who murdered these 12 people are not followers of Islam though they claim to do it in the name of Islam. And the vast majority of those who are Muslim in the world do not condone nor celebrate these kind of murders done in the name of Islam, and really do want, as most of us do, peace. To paint them all with the same brush is to be as bigoted as those who committed this heinous act in the first place, especially when I read of westerners who call for the annihilation of Muslims, as I've read in other places. Surely that is no better than religious extremism.

      I have spent some significant time in the middle east, and I can assure you that in general the peoples of that area (of all cultural identities, Turkish, Arab, Persian, and others) are good folks who are welcoming and hospitable, just as I'm sure the majority of westerners are. We have our own extremist and criminals in the west as well, of different kinds, be they non-religious or religious.

      In actual fact, the root causes of many forms of terrorism are not very different from common gang problems in the United States. Disenfranchisement, poverty, political corruption, military occupation all contribute to the problem, though that cannot excuse personal responsibility.

      This tragic event seems to fit the definition of "terrorism" but I fear the word has still lost all meaning. A man who shot and killed 8 people in Calgary recently is called a "mass murderer." Perhaps this is not terrorism because his goal was to terrorize and kill a single family, not a city or nation? If a killing can be linked to some religious idea is it terrorism? The "troubles" in northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s, was that terrorism? What about the PKK fight against Turkey, or the intifada in Palestine (which is clearly not religious in nature)? What about the massacre in Norway in 2011? Certainly that was terrorism, but definitely not religious at all?

      I sincerely hope that these criminals are captured quickly and brought to justice. I also hope that innocent folks who do follow Isam, and are in fact peaceful, will not face reprisals or violence against them. And my heart goes out to the families who lost their loved ones in today's senseless attack.

    111. Re:islam by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Real democracies represent the people exercising their collective will to direct their society.

      Real democracies don't immediately hand the reigns over to rich and cruel capitalists and surrender their hard won influence.

      Anywhere you see Capitalism, you know you're not looking at a real democracy.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    112. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all 1 billions Muslims were gun-wielding terrorists, you could be sarcastic about peace and Islam. Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      Self-defence.

      As the Islamic Calliphate expanded the Byzantine Empire needed help against attacks. The Western Christians were helping to defend the Eastern (Orthodox) Christians against the Muslims, and as counter-attacks progressed they rolled back the Caliphate.

    113. Re:islam by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the funny part: the Crusades hurt Europeans perhaps even more than the Saracens, if you look at the total outcome.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    114. Re:islam by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Marxism is not a religion in any way.

      I don't buy that in the least. It's a dogmatic, organized belief system with formal ways to worship the belief system. And they require supernatural agency as well, both to suspend disbelief about actual human behavior and to explain why things aren't working as expected (imaginary kulaks, counterrevolutionaries, capitalists, etc are always holding us back). They check off all the boxes.

    115. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English opressing and enslaving the Irish had nothing to do with religion.

    116. Re:islam by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ireland's war with Britain was as much about ethic sovereignty as it was about religion. When church and state are linked (in both cases) making it about religion only is simply a false narrative.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    117. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.motivationals.org/demotivational-posters/demotivational-poster-13973.jpg

    118. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do we call those false followers 'the one true Scotsmen' ?

    119. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are aware, if we're going in to antiquity to make the claim Christians did all the slaughtering, you're rather misinformed. It was a rather two sided ordeal, and for a large period, the Christians weren't winning. This last summer I visited the mosque of Cordoba. Which started out its life as a church. Hmmm, why would something originally called a church, be referred to as a mosque? Maybe because of somebody invading. And this is in Spain, a traditionally Catholic country, so you can't really say it was Christian invaders that built it in the first place.

    120. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about George Bush

      'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

      Casualties count goes from 100.000 to 1.000.00 deaths

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

    121. Re:islam by x0ra · · Score: 0

      you failed to understand my point. "Religions" is just a bullshit reason people have been using to slaughter other people since the beginning of time. It's not about who threw the first rock, and it has never been. Human is just savage in nature, and we are too weak morally to cope with our need of killing each other without putting the name of an upper magical being on top of it.

    122. Re:islam by khallow · · Score: 1

      But not the same "too many" as Islam has killed over that same period.

    123. Re:islam by 16Chapel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Capitalism on the other hand? It doesn't require any faith to work.

      Wrong - it requires faith in the banking system. That money in your hand isn't really worth anything, we just have faith that it does.

    124. Re:islam by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Marxism is a large memeplex whose purpose is to gather enough followers so they can seize control over those who choose not to follow, and force its tenets on them as well.

      Politics and religions are the exact same phenomenon. The correct solution to both is inherent freedom from compusion to join them.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    125. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Since Protestants largely reject the notion that there is any spiritual or temporal agency which can instruct them on their faith, it is literally your word against theirs,

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    126. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like England, for example? Or every Nordic country?

    127. Re:islam by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Really? Do you know every member of the Islamic faith? Get over it you are just deciding that you get to judge people that have done nothing wrong based on what a few people do. That isn't fair or just.
      Condemn the people that actually do thing wrong and move on.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    128. Re:islam by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ISIS is the modern manifestation of the Islamic empire. They conquered most of the Roman world. This is why Rome itself is so powerful to begin with. Islam WIPED OUT all of the other early centers of Xianity.

      Whining only about Catholics is a little one sided.

      The problem isn't so much that one religion or the other is bad or not bad but the fact that one of them is still powerful enough to spawn theocracies.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    129. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if they wont fight against their oppressors, they have taken your land. like it or not they are not innocent if they are livnig in your old house

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    130. Re:islam by oobayly · · Score: 3

      It's a common mistake to look at the IRA murders, bombing, etc in a religious light - as you said, the sides were largely drawn across Catholic/Protestant lines, but what the IRA did was never in the name of religion, it was in the name of nationalism. Not that I'm defending what the IRA - as an Irishman, I never supported their methods, nor anyone else's violence.

      The problem we have is that it's always pretty easy to find a Imam in the UK condoning and rationalising the methods used by Al Quada, ISIL (or whatever they want to call themselves). You'll struggle to find a priest or vicar in the UK rationalising the christian led cleansings that you've described.

      I don't see many people claiming the christianity cleaned itself up perfectly since the crusades, but just compare these - List of Islamic terrorist attacks vs. Christian terrorism. The difference is that while christian terrorism is tapering off (you mentioned Guy Fawkes & the KKK), islamic terrorism is showing no such signs of slowing down (that list is just from the 1980s). I constantly hear christians whinging of how their views are being sidelined, so what, you're allowed to believe what you want. Likewise we're constantly told by bleeding hearts that young muslims are feeling oppressed because of criticism of islam - everyone's beliefs are criticised, it just that muslims appear to believe they're special and that they should be exempt.

      Quite frankly, I don't care if people believe in god(s), just as long as they don't try making me live my life to conform with their views. I don't like my politicians talking about religion when it comes to policy, and I certainly don't like the idea of being killed because I drew a cartoon of a prophet.

    131. Re:islam by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Noted.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    132. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and what do you suggest we do? simply walk away and let them take over? I dont think we should have gone there to begin with, we should just let them kill each other. but its too late for that now. ISIS popped up because we left before the job was finished (again a job we never should have taken but we did, so we should finish it)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    133. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just don't call them Christians.

      Ah yeah, no true Scotsman!

    134. Re:islam by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Nope, not a typo. Islamic extremists ARE a virus, and they intend to spread their virus to all uninfected hosts, AKA "infidels".

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    135. Re:islam by no_go · · Score: 2

      The crusades were a power and money grab by European princes.
      The excuse was "Let's kill the infidels and take back the cradle of our religion", but the aim was to maintain or gain control over the populace and get land and riches.
      The sack of Constantinople (capital of a Christian albeit Orthodox state) very much shows this ("Unable to capture lands from the moors ? No problem, let' s plunder these nice fellows that are on the way").

      Religion as a tool of political control...

    136. Re:islam by ranton · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And they require supernatural agency as well, both to suspend disbelief about actual human behavior and to explain why things aren't working as expected (imaginary kulaks, counterrevolutionaries, capitalists, etc are always holding us back).

      If all it takes to be considered supernatural is to have theories that haven't been validated yet, then I guess the wright brothers were starting their own religion before they got their first prototype working. I mean every other attempt to fly for thousands of years had failed so it was a pretty supernatural belief that humans could create flying machines.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    137. Re:islam by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Capitalism will arise naturally in an economically free world. Politics, a religion, has to actively work to stop it.

      As for Libertarianism, as it wants you to be free from government control, and for government to only secure your freedoms so you can pursue them without interference, it is the political equivalent of atheism -- believe what you want, Mr. Other Politics guy, but when you force me into your ism, you're going too far, just as a religion forcing you to join does.

      Sadly, a bare 51% transient majority suffices as memetic justification for adherants to feel good about themselves when forcing their politics on others.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    138. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Informative

      And the vast majority of those who are Muslim in the world do not condone nor celebrate these kind of murders done in the name of Islam

      Really??? - http://www.usnews.com/news/rel...

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    139. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The Q'uran on the other hand not only condones, but encourages such acts. Therein lies the difference.

      The majority of actual Muslims disagree with you.

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

    140. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since Christianity is primarily the New Testament, could you please cite locations where it is violent?

      Not true. Christians just pick and choose the parts of the Old Testament they like, such as the gay hating parts, while discarding the inconvenient parts they don't such as the food restrictions.

    141. Re:islam by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      And the ones you call heretics will lob the same accusation at you.

    142. Re:islam by albinobluerhino · · Score: 2

      Faith and religion are frequently used in a synonymous fashion. "People of various faiths" means the same as "people of various religions."

    143. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crusades were a response to muslims violently overthrowing countries in the middle east. It was an attempt to win back lands that were taken from europeans (and held from as far back as the roman times - pre-christianity).

      If you are going to cite the crusades, be sure to cite what triggered them. To do otherwise is to be dishonest.

    144. Re:islam by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Christians tend to go by the New Testament, which has very little violence, and a whole lot of love, forgiveness, and peace.

      No, they tend to go by quite a bit of the Old Testament as well. They just tend to not follow the parts they find inconvenient.

    145. Re:islam by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Ask the people in Ireland.

    146. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      you cannot kill as a Christian

      That certainly doesn't seem to stop them from doing it anyway

    147. Re:islam by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2
      Stéphane Charbonnier, Charlie Hebdo editor killed today, said, when he was threatened a while ago

      I Prefer to Die Standing Up than Live on My Knees

      (this and other interesting comments in that article)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    148. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bzzt. Sorry. Marx was a Hegelian, and as such believed that man's desire to come ahead of his neighbors could be transformed from a desire for material goods as a way of comparison to something else. For example, people might compete to be perceived as the hardest working, or most generous, as opposed to being the one with the most stuff.

      You can argue whether or not this was plausible, or a good idea, but you can't say he was ignorant of human nature and people's desire to get ahead of others.

    149. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      Because Christians are so much better?

      The problem isn't this religion or that religion, it's religious extremism in general.

    150. Re:islam by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      you cannot kill as a Christian, because 1. you can't kill

      The ten commandments do not forbid killing. They forbid murder, which is killing not sanctioned by the state. The KJV translation "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew, the meaning is clear.

      2. being Christian is defined by your actions, not your label.

      Most Christians don't believe that. They believe that Christianity is defined by faith, and faith alone. Actions have nothing to do with it.

    151. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      A lot, actually, if you bother to look it up instead of just acting on blind prejudice and assumptions.

    152. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which explains why all manner of bigotry is justified by certain groups of Christians with the help of a delightful array of quotes from the Old Testament. That some Christians believe the Old Testament was sidelined by the New, that is hardly a universal belief, and certainly in many of the more modern evangelical Protestant churches, the Old Testament holds every bit as much weight as the New.

      Which, one might argue, makes then non-Christians, because they refuse to accept the words of Christ himself. But the point of the poster above was that by judging the book itself, the religions are equally violent, which is objectively wrong if you read old and new testament together.

    153. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are the standard ideologue... Everyone else's ideology is a baseless religion, but yours, well, it is merely the truth....

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    154. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, that would be nice and all, but the instant they stand up against it, they are killed.

      It has happened many many times before.

      Fuck, there are even people in LONDON of all places that go around attacking people and absolutely nothing is done about it.

    155. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      Way to cherry-pick the one section of that link that supports your views, while ignoring the rest of the article completely.

    156. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not take a stroll around Northern Ireland, talk to a few people and then get back to us with the answer to your own question?

    157. Re:islam by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Wrong - it requires faith in the banking system. That money in your hand isn't really worth anything, we just have faith that it does.

      Capitalism pre-dates fiat currencies, and central banks. Socialist economies also have fiat currencies and central banks, so there is nothing particularly "capitalist" about them.

    158. Re:islam by wiggles · · Score: 2

      Again, not true.

      Protestants - as in Main Line Protestants (Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc) all have governing bodies of some sort who determine the theologies of those particular churches.

      "Non-denominational" churches are those who reject even those Protestant churches' theologies. Those are the dangerous ones, many can't even be considered Christian, as they do things like disbelieve the divinity of Jesus, of the Trinity, etc.

      In the current era, there are many who, when confronted with their own behaviors being out of sync with the Church, decide that instead of changing their behavior, they simply change their Church. It's more convenient that way.

    159. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget all those conservative Christian-type soldiers of Uncle Sam who love blowing shit up (yes, the UK and other countries are the same, but with less of the overt religious extremism).

      Iraq has been getting bombed for over twenty years... please tell me what it's achieved?

    160. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 0

      So, what? Kill them all because they're Muslim, then? Don't you realize that's what the idiots on the other side of the pond are doing, and that basically makes you as good as the terrorists themselves?

    161. Re:islam by Livius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion

      Pretty much all of them except the ones that are Arab.

    162. Re:islam by Computershack · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you cannot kill as a Christian, because 1. you can't kill

      Actually you can. Because the religious hypocrites who scribed the bible realised that they still needed people to fight wars for them they added a clause which said you can kill as a Christian without sin if you're a soldier fighting in a war and in other circumstances even civilians. David is praised for killing Goliath and one of his men credited for killing 800.

      Here's some good old hypocrisy from the Bible in Deutronomy 20:10-18 for killing civilians which seems quite familiar with what the Islamic Fundalmentalists say:
      - the population of cities outside of the Promised Land, if they surrender, should be made tributaries and left alive (20:10-11)
      - those cities outside of the Promised Land that resist should be besieged, and once they fall, the male population should be exterminated, but the women and children should be left alive (20:12-15)
      - of those cities that were within the Promised Land, however, the population should be exterminated entirely (20:16-18), specifically "the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites" (20:16-18). Deuteronomy 25:19 further commands the extermination of the Amalekites.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    163. Re:islam by Gibgezr · · Score: 0

      Substitute Nazi for Christian and see if you'd support "non-violent Naziism".

      See what I did there?

    164. Re:islam by Livius · · Score: 1

      True of the Byzantine Empire, but in Spain the "invaders" had been native for 600 years.

    165. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      Easy. The Crusades were primarily military operations aimed (and ultimately failing) at stopping the aggressive expansion of the islamic caliphates at the cost of the (primarily christian) Byzantine Empire. That the crusades were also quite harsh toward the civilian population is not something particularly exceptional during those times, the idea that civilians should be protected in times of war is a relatively recent invention.

    166. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated.

      Oh hey, look, 30 seconds of Googling and I've found a history of forced conversion to Christianity that stretches back for 1600 years.

    167. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, our governments are not killing and radicalizing enough muzzies. Our government incinerates the brown towel heads, and their little shit spwan by the thousands from Afghanistan to Iraq to Lebanon to Occupied Palestine, but damn like roaches they just keep popping up and taking our own. You think these fuggers are ISIS? Almost a century ago our forefathers, Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot drew the map for these uncivilized barbarians and told them to live in the boundaries like they are supposed to. Our forefathers knew how to keep these barbarians in check, not like they mealy mouthed bastards crying 'human rights!'. They're not human, which is why they are so easy to kill. Israel has it (partially) right, herd and kill those bastards. But now those assholes ISIS are just ripping OUR maps to pieces and drawing it the way they want to. WE told them where the maps are and they need to be taught a lesson. When we invaded Iraq in 03, we told the sunny muzzy bastards they cannot be part of the political process and the brown tards turn around and spit on our decree like rebellious teenagers and form ISIS. We should have nuked Iraq into glass ages ago. I mean they're living like dogs there now anyway so we would do them a favor. It seems the more of these brownies we kill, marginalize and exclude from the political process, the worse they get--so there is a case for nukes. Also, you have so many of these immigrant bastards running to our free society because they can't hack it in their war torn shithole. Again, if we just nuked them all, there would be no where for them to run to. So they killed our cartoonist for a joke, but the joke is on them because we incinerated hundreds of thousands of them over a joke! WMDs! These shitheads are so busy killing each other, half a million on each side over in Iraq/Iran during the 80's that they could not make a WMD if they wanted to! But that's only Iraq, I mean over in Iran our president told that fugging Shah to do what he had to do to put the people in check. All the Shah did was cook his citizens in torture chambers and use live rounds on protesters who wanted to elect their own government. But damn, they went off and put an Eye - a - tollah as their leader in '79 while holding our people hostage. That's why we gave chemical weapons to Iraq to use against the Iranians. That's why I laugh when our buddy Colin Powell said WMD's! I mean, we sold them the damn things! So we put the Iran and Iraq in a constant state of war and martial law so their "societies" could not go through a reform process. They couldn't make any WMD's even if they wanted to! As for the Palestinians, didn't Israel learn anything? You can't wall up a people and kick them like the dogs they are and not expect them to get bitten, not matter how weak and destitute the dog is. They should have used the final solution. That's the only way, really. I mean, Warsaw Ghetto! Hellooo! Notwithstanding the walking dead, dead people can't do an uprising. And Afghanistan, well...she-yit...As far as the 1800's our forefathers went in their to tame those bastards...but they are just too wild. The russkies went in there in the 70's to have a go, and we had fun using the turds as cannon fodder back then to take down the reds. I mean, better dead than red, right? We gave them all sorts of our goodies to take down the reds, trained 'em too. Reagan even declared a 'national afghanistan day', can you believe it? He said those brown 'tards reminded him of the American founding forefathers. Well first, the're not even white so I'm not so sure what ol granpa's been smoking when he said that. But he was a holee-wood actor...So these wild dogs are busy killing each other after the reds leave, which is cool, and then they start aiming at us. So forget history, we have to get in there now and tame those wild dogs. But the fact is, they are STILL too damn wild and they don't want us there. I mean, yeah, it looks like Barrack HUSSEIN Obama (ohhh, don't get me started...) watched the terminator too many times and offed a few Afghanis

    168. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you feel about the UK having the Church of England as the state religion?

    169. Re:islam by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      Try Marocco or, historically, Muslim Spain.

    170. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Capitalism will arise naturally in an economically free world. Politics, a religion, also naturally arise to stop it.

      FTFY. They're both naturally occurring forces, and in fact have the same cause: humans.

      Humans want to own stuff, thus you get private property and capitalism.

      But what does ownership mean? It includes other people recognizing your ownership. To influence other people so that they agree is in essence politics.

    171. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the religion of peace". That, of course, is a phrase used most frequently on right wing extremist websites. In the west we are threatened by both sides, Islamic extremists and neo-Nazi extremists. Both want the same thing. So far Europe is suffering the most, what with fire-bombing of Mosques in Sweden and England and thousands of fascists marching in Germany. It's surprising to find this on Slashdot, where I'd expect users to be wary of positions that would strengthen government surveillance.

    172. Re:islam by tipo159 · · Score: 1

      "How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???"

      Pretty much Zero, Nil, Nilch, Nada, None.

      Except for these?

    173. Re:islam by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Indonesia and Malaysia both enforce Sharia, a defacto anti-women set of laws.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    174. Re:islam by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you cannot kill as a Christian That certainly doesn't seem to stop them from doing it anyway [wikipedia.org]

      Yeah...but right now in this day in age, I'm not terribly concerned about all the Baptists running around beheading people, running around as suicide bombers, and shooting up news offices and killing innocent people.

      And PLEASEdon't give me shit about the anti-abortionists, they are fringe and rarely happen. Every group has a few fringe elements, but with the muslims, this is happening so often and so pervasive around the world, I don't think anyone can consider this type of action a fringe element.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    175. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U took a few brain cells from me by my reading that. Well played.

    176. Re:islam by caseih · · Score: 2

      Yes really. What makes you think these people celebrating are the majority? Do you know how many muslims there are and how many of them are ordinary, peaceful folk? We're talking 1.6 Billion people that identify as Muslim. If 1.6 Billion muslims hated Americans as you seem to think, I think we probably would have long ago fought World War III.

      And how is claiming all Muslims are terrorists any better than the many people that dislike America (we have great cause to be disliked, let's be honest) celebrating 9/11? If the world succeeded in destroying all 1.6 billion Muslim terrorists, then which group will become the new terrorists?

      Certainly all acts of violence are to be condemned, whether it is by an Islamist terrorist, a Christian terrorist, an atheist terrorist, or war and conflict in general.

    177. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      What about the treatment of Native Americans in the New World? Spanish Conquistadores conquered native villages, murdering or enslaving the men and beating the women until they "consented" to marriage with a Spanish soldier. They didn't respect the fact that the natives were already married, because they were "heathens."

      The fact that "the worst atrocity committed in the name of Christianity" that you can think of was something that happened in Europe just speaks to your extreme ethnocentrism; who cares about what happened in the colonies to non-white people!

    178. Re:islam by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just try getting elected in America to any high political office without being or pretending to be a believer in some god.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      That Frank felt more comfortable going public with his sexuality in 1987 than he did with his secular beliefs at any point during his House career says a lot about the stigma surrounding atheism in electoral politics.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    179. Re:islam by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Of course they had their own religion, so to speak, that they wanted to force on unbeliievers.

      Hence religion and politics are actually the same phenomenon, and are about expanding control.
      The correct solution is to recognize this and let people be free from capture by either, for the exact same reason.

      You already know this reason...for classical religion.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    180. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      how many people here say cops who dont turn in other cops are just as bad as the bad cops?

      so why is it different here???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    181. Re:islam by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      Maybe we should just nuke the middle east, turn the sand to glass....and just let things start over over there.

      The muslims seem to be itching to start the crusades again, ok...but this time lets finish this shit once and for all.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    182. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More revisionist history and oikophobia.

    183. Re:islam by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      We all know catholicism is pretty much as peaceful

      Yeah, that new Pope guy, always going on about killing Muslims and retribution.

      Oh, wait, you're utterly full of shit and building a straw man based on shit that happened hundreds of years ago. Like a complete fucking idiot.

      On behalf of atheists everywhere ... you fucking people sound like a bunch of squabbling children. Grow up, get out of the dark ages, learn some tolerance, and actually try to live in peace. I'm sure somewhere in your idiotic books that got mentioned.

      If you're going to rehash the same shit every week, go to your fucking room, shut up, and leave those of us who have achieved civilization to be free of your bullshit.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    184. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indonesia

    185. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct, religion is a tool of political control. The Jewish sect of Jesus, one among thousands, was not very popular after the fall of the Roman empire. The 'Christian' sect and its doctrine was later reintroduced in Europe by the Jew immigrant in order to convince the European peoples to fight, and die, for their holy land. The newly converted the middle east cult did so, and continue to do so even today. We should end this senseless war, let the Jew and Muslim kill each other.

      These bronze age retarded conflict of the middle east is cancer. it spread to most of Europe, Africa and Asia.

      Deport the Jew, the Muslim and the idiot Christian that still believe the lies.

    186. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the religion of peace....

      Everybody DUCK!!!! They are being "peaceful" again.

    187. Re:islam by ranton · · Score: 1

      Faith and religion are frequently used in a synonymous fashion. "People of various faiths" means the same as "people of various religions."

      Just like car and convertible are frequently used in a synonymous fashion. "I am driving my convertible" means the same as "I am driving my car". But not all cars are convertibles just like not all faith is religious in nature. The fact that faith and religion have very different meanings and purposes is not changed by the fact that sometimes the two words are used to describe the same thing.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    188. Re: islam by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 4, Informative

      Capitalism doesn't require faith to work because it's basically anarchy.

      Capitalism isn't anarchy. Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. So long as government allows private individuals to trade and engage in industry and the means of production, and allow them to have their profits or losses then capitalism exists.

      The "invisible hand" Is basically a nice way to say you're leaving things to chance...

      The 'invisible hand' is not a way of saying you're leaving things to chance. The 'invisible hand' is a way of saying that allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves often promotes the benefits of society, even when promoting benefits of society wasn't among their motivations.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    189. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Kill them all and let God sort them out". That was first uttered by a Catholic BIshop in charge of the siege of a town in France during the Inquisition. The town belonged to a Baron accused of heresy, (the real motive being the seizure of his lands and gold)... "Seriously, you cannot kill as a Christian", during the Inquisition approx 6 million people were tortured and murdered throughout the world, the last killed was in India in the 1800s... Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Islam stem from the same roots. Hebrew and Arabic are both semitic languages.

    190. Re:islam by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Those are hard words for a ganja dude.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    191. Re:islam by Livius · · Score: 1

      Well, the Crusaders started with Christian on Jew brutality while on their way. Just practising, I guess.

    192. Re:islam by penandpaper · · Score: 1, Troll

      Never heard of the Islamic Golden Age have you? While European Christians were burning witches, the Middle East was too busy with science, art and math. Or did you think algebra, algorithms, and Arabic numerals were from Christian superiority in rational thought?

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

    193. Re:islam by caseih · · Score: 2

      Did you even bother to read the link you posted? Here's a good quote from it:

      Bewildering as all this has been, Americans might have found it easier to negotiate if they had paid as much attention to the Arab side of the terrorists' identity as they did to the Muslim side. The friction between Lewis and Said loses some of its heat, for example, when 9/11, bin Laden, and al Qaeda are seen as key elements of a struggle that is taking place primarily within the Arab core of the Middle East.

      The ignorance of we in the west does us few favors. We often confuse culture and religion in the Muslim world. And many of us are unaware that Arab is not equivalent to Muslim. The vast majority of the world's Muslims are not Arab, and in fact not even middle-eastern--they are Asian! The Arab and nearby world represents a disproportionate amount of Islamist terrorism. In effect, we are seeing the results of a thousand years of culture clashing with western meddling to create some truly desperate folk. It surely wouldn't hurt to at least understand the dynamics of the situation before blindly stabbing. Odds are the criminals who murdered these people in France are probably immigrants from north African, countries (Arab mainly), who are not only escaping brutal, corrupt regimes (we fixed things so well in Libya), but are also un-integrated, disenfranchised in modern European society which has little understanding of their values. So they are exceedingly vulnerable to ideologies that purport to empower them, even if they are wrong and criminal.

      Islamist terrorists succeed in getting their recruits to dehumanize the west. Let's not do the same in our own ideology towards the Muslim world.

    194. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you cannot kill as a Christian, because 1. you can't kill

      Actually you can. Because the religious hypocrites who scribed the bible realised that they still needed people to fight wars for them they added a clause which said you can kill as a Christian without sin if you're a soldier fighting in a war and in other circumstances even civilians.

      "I'm going to pretend there's no distinction between killing and murder, and then intentionally apply my incorrect definition to assert hypocrisy on the part of religion, trololololol!"

      Seriously, are you trying to assert that any legal system that makes a distinction between forms of killing is hypocritical?

      I suppose you realize you are painting Judaism with your troll brush, because these rules were appropriated wholesale from Judaism into the derivative religion of Christianity. Uh oh, now what?! It isn't PC to bash Judaism!

      As others have pointed out, the commandment is actually more properly translated into English as "thou shalt not murder" rather than "thou shalt not kill".

    195. Re:islam by zieroh · · Score: 0

      Marxism is a religion in a way

      Marxism is not a religion in any way. It has similar qualities of a religion, just like you can find similarities between a truck and a wheel barrel, but they are very different.

      There is a reason why faith and religion are different words in the English language. Just because something requires faith does not make it religious in nature.

      Highlighting is mine. Penguinisto qualified his statement, which you willfully ignored.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    196. Re:islam by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      How about a non-Islam run country? The United States doesn't exactly have clean hands in this regard.

    197. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia? India isn't a muslim majority nation, but is the second largest muslim population. And your point about "non-violent Naziism" is kind of stupid, both because I'd much prefer it to violent Naziism, and because most muslims get along perfectly well with Christians (Jesus is considered a prophet, and some consider Christianity a splinter similar to Shiite). If there are 1.6 billion muslims, and about 6 million violent fanatics, it's both a real problem (that must be confronted by the Islamic majority) and not much evidence for your claim that Islam is fundamentally similar to Naziism.

    198. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      Indonesia
      87.2% Muslim
      My family there (Christian) have had no trouble at all about their religion.
      The island of Bali is mostly Hindu.

    199. Re:islam by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? Shinto aka the divinity of the Emperor

      Shinto has been around since before 600BC and is "the way of the gods", not "the divinity of the Emperor." And you're trying to tell me that the goal of the Imperial Japanese military was to spread Shinto, rather than their own influence? That the soldiers in battle were not fighting for their nation, but for their religion?

      "For Atheism!" They did but

      No. They didn't. If you disagree, cite a source that quotes someone engaging in a battle in name of atheism, for the purpose of spreading atheism. Not Marxism, atheism. Marxism and atheism are not the same thing. People fighting revolutions are not fighting to bring about atheism, that is not their goal. Their goal is an entire political, social, and economic ideology, not just the removal of organized religion.

      But, really, you don't care about any of this, do you? You just want to throw out some phrases about how Atheism itself (as some sort of organized thing which you imagine it to be) is responsible for the greatest number of deaths throughout history so that you engage people in meaningless debates where you pull out examples of people who were atheist and try to claim that their actions were done specifically in the name of atheism. We both know that's bullshit, but looking at your other comments that's obviously your goal. Good luck fighting your war against what you believe Atheism to be.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    200. Re:islam by khallow · · Score: 1

      If all it takes to be considered supernatural is to have theories that haven't been validated yet,

      Such as not having yet experimentally proven the existence of a omnipotent and omniscient god? Good luck with that.

    201. Re:islam by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      I see this come up a lot, and one has to wonder.....would the Ayatollah still come to power if Mohammad Mosaddegh's government hadn't been overthrown? Given what's just happened in Egypt, I'd say it's possible.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    202. Re:islam by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah, the same was true in Christian countries 500 years ago.

      The problem here isn't Islam, it's that the Islamic area is still living in the dark ages, where military power is key, killing your enemies is respected, and torturing people you don't like is accepted. This was true in Europe, Asia, and anywhere else. If Saddam were Christian, he would have been just as bad. If Gaddafi were atheist, he would have just as happily been a dictator.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    203. Re:islam by u19925 · · Score: 0

      Semantics of kill or murder don't matter, the whole logic is flawed. Let us say "student cannot copy in exam". If a student copies in exam, he or she does not cease to be a student. Same way just because Christianity forbids murder does not mean that if a Christian murders then he of she ceases to be a Christian. Same for any other religion.

    204. Re:islam by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The Wright brothers saw birds flying every day. And I am pretty sure that the Icarus episode was not actual history.

    205. Re:islam by ranton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would agree that Marxism is not a religion due to any aspect of faith, but it is a religion in the sense that it is an organized belief adhered to by many. It need not have any faith-based component or theology.

      Religion loses a lot of its meaning if any ideology can be considered a religion. A religion requires either supernatural beings or at least the belief in some kind of higher order to the world. Marxism is merely a belief that the relationship between labor and capital fostered by capitalism is not a desirable one. Many economic, sociological, and philosophical theories are derived from this belief, but again I see no reason why that crosses over to religion.

      I believe the theories derived from Marxism are flawed, but not ridiculous. While I can see why those who believe Marxism is ridiculous draw parallels between Marxism and religion, but not every ridiculous belief system should automatically be considered a religion.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    206. Re:islam by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      Many concepts that Marx promoted were implemented in Capitalistic societies, for example old age pension.

      If there existed two societies that were identical in every way except that one had an old-age pension supplied by government while the other one didn't, then the one that didn't would be more capitalistic that the one that did. Socialistic practices are often implemented in otherwise capitalistic societies.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    207. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      and what do you suggest we do? simply walk away and let them take over? I dont think we should have gone there to begin with, we should just let them kill each other. but its too late for that now. ISIS popped up because we left before the job was finished (again a job we never should have taken but we did, so we should finish it)

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Secondary, don't go overboard fighting terrorism. How do you suppose people here would react if Iran were dropping bombs in US suburbs to kill Christian terrorists, killing many civilians in the process? What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+? I think terrorism drops signficantly if we simply stop fighting it so hard for a few years.

      Thirdly, less support for Middle East dictators who happen to be pro-West. People don't like those who aid their suppressors.

      Fourth, don't freak out about every foreign government that is identifiably Islamic. Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.

      None of this is to say that terrorists are remotely justified, but for stuff like this it's best to think of people as existing on a bell curve where the left tail is complete pacifism and the right is terrorism. In the west the mean is closer to pacifist and the standard deviation is small, so our extremist groups tend to look more like the Westborough Baptist Church. But every aggravating action that occurs increases the standard deviation and pushes the mean further to the right, This creates more terrorists at the right hand tail.

      The point is that any action that would make you angry if you were a Muslim is going to create more terrorists, so before we do something that would piss off a lot of people we really need to consider if it's worth it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    208. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they won't lob a grenade and that's the difference between modern Christians and modern Muslims.

    209. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Except you define terrorism as automatically being anything to prevent or punish terrorists. You "pretend" that the US is targeting innocent people for purely political reasons in the same fashion the terrorists do. That's pure BS and you know it.

      Civilized men are force to fight an enemy that wears no uniform, carries no flag, relentlessly targets as many innocent civilians as it can murder to get attention, engages in slavery, torture, rape, kidnapping, ignores all borders, reject basic human rights, fights with no honor, rejects all forms of honorable combat, and takes great pleasure in its abuse of innocent bystanders. They hide in plain sight, return to civilian life at the drop of a hat, and can attack anywhere the next day. They set the bar pretty low on what is acceptable for modern combat. They made the rules of the game. Muslims universally blame the victims of terrorism and have strong sympathies for them. If the terrorists had a real military, our world would be a holocaust. They define victory as mutually assured destruction.

      They just need useful idiots like you to win. You empower them. You prove they were always right. With your help, they will never lose.

    210. Re:islam by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 2

      Wrong - it requires faith in the banking system.

      Capitalism doesn't require faith in the banking system. It doesn't require a banking system. It doesn't even require money. Capitalism could exist in a barter-based economy.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    211. Re:islam by wiggles · · Score: 1

      A feather and a stone can call each other hard; only one will be correct.

    212. Re:islam by disambiguated · · Score: 1

      Unless, you know, the people vote for it, which they do.

    213. Re:islam by amplesand · · Score: 1

      Any belief in the supernatural is begging for a disaster in the long run, be it Hinduism, Judaism, Animatrix, Obelix, Jesus, whatever. The violence you see in the Bible, Asterix and in the Wachowsky Epic is largely irrelevant. It is the belief as such which is the dangerous feed for the alienated.

    214. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      Christian missions convincing people it's a sin to use condoms...in countries where >20% of the population has HIV?! Church propaganda is directly responsible for millions of deaths every year.

      Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye...

    215. Re:islam by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Semantics of kill or murder don't matter..." Bullshit. They are two very, very different things not just semantics. The word in the commandment is murder, not kill. You may kill in self-defense. If a Christian murders, they may still call themselves a Christian but by consciously breaking a commandment, they have abdicated their god and religion. Those aren't just some sort of municipal law.

    216. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So called "moderate" Muslims might not be terrorists or violent themselves but they provide the intellectual swamp from which the actual terrorists get recruited.

    217. Re:islam by ranton · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Marxism is a religion in a way

      Marxism is not a religion in any way. It has similar qualities of a religion, just like you can find similarities between a truck and a wheel barrel, but they are very different.

      There is a reason why faith and religion are different words in the English language. Just because something requires faith does not make it religious in nature.

      Highlighting is mine. Penguinisto qualified his statement, which you willfully ignored.

      Saying that a belief system is religious in a way is a meaningless statement if all you then need to prove is there are a few similar qualities between religion and the belief system in question. Since religion is a belief system, then every single belief system is religious in a way.

      Since most people are taught religion by their parents, by using your argument everything taught to you by your parents would be religious in a way.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    218. Re:islam by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you cannot kill as a Christian, because 1. you can't kill 2. being Christian is defined by your actions, not your label.

      How convenient! Also, utterly and completely without merit. Killing in Christianity is undoubtedly a sin (and a grave one at that), but being a sinner does not in any way exclude one from being a Christian.

      Honestly, you win the Most Transparent Attempt at Deception award for that post.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    219. Re:islam by larkost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An Islamic country where others are free to practice their religions, that is easy: Turkey, Egypt, and Morocco immediately come to mind, as well as Malaysia. Really most Islamic nations have large, well-established, minority religions who have been practicing freely within their boarders.

      And you will have to prove that Islam has "destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated", since all of those places have had functioning societies for the last 1600 years. If you mean that invaders have taken political control and influenced the culture, well then I think you are a little confused about what "invading" means. If that is the case then you will have to look at what the U.S. has done to places like Japan (we decided they would be a democracy... then put the people we wanted in power).

      And Islam is no more or less violent or peaceful than Christianity. After all, the Christian Bible has the example of God commanding the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites, then punished them when they failed to kill all of the women, children, and babies. You really can't get more violent than that.

    220. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Capitalism on the other hand? It doesn't require any faith to work"
      yes - except that it does work for like 1% of the population (rich).

    221. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      Very very few.

      While Christians of various sorts have certainly killed many many millions over the last 100 years, they didn't do so because they thought it was a religious obligation of Christianity.

      - How many Buddhist clergy preach from the pulpit that they have a religious obligation to kill the followers of other religions?
      - How many Christian clergy preach from the pulpit that they have a religious obligation to kill the followers of other religions?
      - How many Jewish clergy preach from the pulpit that they have a religious obligation to kill the followers of other religions?
      - How many Sikh clergy preach from the pulpit that they have a religious obligation to kill the followers of other religions?
      - How many Hindu clergy preach from the pulpit that they have a religious obligation to kill the followers of other religions?
      - How many Muslim clergy preach from the pulpit that they have a religious obligation to kill the followers of other religions?

      Compare & contrast the answers.

    222. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using terrorism to fight terrorism, is called 'counter-terrorism'. (USA drone strikes.) It's like a counter-attack or a counter-punch.

    223. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot, actually, if you bother to look it up instead of just acting on blind prejudice and assumptions.

      If I understand that link, the number killed in the name of Christianity is less than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. That is still too many, of course. But to compare this to radical islamists who have easily killed thousands in the name of Islam demonstrates you have no sense of proportion.

    224. Re:islam by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Not realy but that doesn't matter. They are not activy doing it today or even advocating murder. Their curent stand on abortion actually seems to indicate they advocate the opposite now.

      I know its hip to bash Christians and all. But are you suggesting the moral equivilance of deeds of the past which ceased and current deeds still in practice? Or are you trying to justify the killings as a phase they have to grow out of lkke the church has?

    225. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marxism is based on dialectic materialism which is a philosophical system and not a religion.
      The only "religious" thing in Marxism is the end towards it wants to move history which is a classless society where humans will be free from human oppression. Nothing more and nothing less.

    226. Re:islam by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      So, why did it take Christians so long to actually "turn the other cheek"? Pretty much until the Enlightenment, Christians and Muslims were synonymous with violence.

    227. Re:islam by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      How about the country with the world's largest Muslim population: Indonesia?

    228. Re:islam by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse people of a certain religion killing people, versus people being killed for a religion. I doubt that anyone ever ran into battle shouting "For Shinto!" "For Atheism!"

      The famous killers who have been athiests have not killed people in the name of atheism. That contrasts with Christian killers who most certainly killed in the name of their religion, or Islamist killers who have done the same.

      "Oh My Science!"

    229. Re:islam by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      That money in your hand isn't really worth anything, we just have faith that it does.

      But we also put a lot of effort and energy in to establishing and maintaining systems and processes that make it viable as a way to avoid having to physically barter goods all day long. We don't have faith in the money, we have an appreciation for what we've done to make money a useful thing, and faith - if we must use that word - in the proposition that what worked yesterday (in the way of currency and financial instruments being a useful conveyor of value) will also work tomorrow. Which is to say, the trust is in the the civilization that arises from lots of people looking after their self interests, and wanting an efficient way to interact with each other. The proof that that trust isn't wildly misplaced is visible in the wildly superior standard of living that is enjoyed by cultures that get past walking sacks of goods to a market to trade for other goods every week. Boiling that all down to "faith in money" is too simple.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    230. Re:islam by dargaud · · Score: 1

      That was long ago. What about NOW ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    231. Re:islam by caseih · · Score: 2

      Oops I missed part of the quote.

      At the heart of this struggle is the political failure of the various Arab regimes that emerged after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the end of European colonialism. Those regimesâ"whether kingdoms, parliamentary democracies, or single-party socialist statesâ"were all roughly designed after western models, with elements of western law. But all quickly devolved into despotic states, corrupt and generally incompetent in meeting the basic needs of their citizens. Not coincidentally, leaders of some of those statesâ"notably, Egypt, Syria, and Iraqâ"for a time paid lip service, and perhaps something more, to a largely secular vision of pan-Arab political unity. A humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israelis in 1967 largely dashed that dream.

      Thanks for the link, by the way. It's a very good article. Worth bookmarking and passing around.

    232. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      straw man

    233. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

    234. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism requires only private property, not money.

    235. Re:islam by dargaud · · Score: 3

      Marxism is not a religion in any way

      It has its prophet, Marx. It has its bible, the little red book. It has its apostles, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. It has its saints/martyrs, Stakhanov and others. It requires faith. What else do you need in a religion ? Oh yes, It's damn stupid and it kills people who disagree.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    236. Re:islam by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They show up with nasty signs and video cameras"

      Well that certainly is exactly as awful as murdering 12 people in an office! Not SIGNS!!!!!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    237. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      ughh no, its the term they use to decribe themselves

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    238. Re:islam by wiggles · · Score: 1

      Short answer: Political ambitions, greed, and corruption - all things the Christian religion condemns. These things happened because Christendom wasn't following the teachings of its own religion. You can't blame the religion itself for the misdeeds of its followers. You must blame the followers themselves for not living according to their stated values.

    239. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      yes... they are. ive already pointed out that at least one on that list is christians taking back their land that was taken from them by the muslims. i didnt bother reading anymore being that was the very first one on the list

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    240. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof)." Sigh... Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, has official support for Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism.

    241. Re:islam by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      The only thing a western Christian can do to satisfy Islamists is to assume room temperature.

    242. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to boil a couple thousand years of geopolitical conflict into "they took our church", should I point out the people that original built that church sacked Rome?

    243. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marxism displays many of the key qualities of religion that frequently justify opposition to religion.

    244. Re:islam by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      I can't off the top of my head, but you still occasionally get things like this: Pakistani Muslims Form Human Chain To Protect Christians During Mass

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    245. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      i didnt bother reading anymore being that was the very first one on the list

      I suppose there's no argument against bigotry when it is reinforced by a lack of intellectual rigor.

    246. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why can't you just substitute Nazi for anything you support and see if you'd support "Naziism"?

      You've hidden the premise that the 'something' is equivalent to 'Nazi' in your statement, so you're just begging the question. Now you can agree with that statement and I certainly think of the violent Muslims as all too similar, but I can't exactly equate the peaceful folks with the violent ones just because someone slapped the same label on them and they're too intellectually lazy to look past a label.

    247. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "non-violent naziism" is rated highest level of "insightful"?????

      what exactly is the problem with non-violent naziism? if they aren't hurting anyone, what is the problem? socialism? you're still on the pinko train? check your tax return this year... "affordable care act"... socialism is already here. america is a communist nation built on a fiat currency churned out by bureaucrats that believe it will "trickle down" to you (at which point they realize they can take it back).

      you're an idiot.

    248. Re:islam by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      You are the standard ideologue... Everyone else's ideology is a baseless religion, but yours, well, it is merely the truth....

      That is ABSOLUTE GENIUS. Worthy of framing. Did you just come up with that, or is it from somewhere else?

    249. Re:islam by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, so what is the solution to capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Fascism? Clearly those are all more liberal than the great evils of capitalism.

    250. Re:islam by Bartles · · Score: 1

      And yet, they still don't kill infidels.

    251. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof)."

      Turkey.

      Want a few more?

      Egypt.
      Kyrgyzstan. (Lovely country, been there for work.)
      Indonesia.
      Qatar.
      Malaysia.

    252. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman. Not many.

    253. Re:islam by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it terrorism just as i would not call you a terrorist if you killed someone who was killing your family. I might call it murder or vigilante justice but terrorism seems compleately misplaced.

    254. Re:islam by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      How many wheels will fit in a wheel barrel?

    255. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marxism is simply yet-another Utopian nightmare, responsible for the more than 100,000,000 deaths: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

      Catholicism is in NO way comparable to Islam. It doesn't advocate spreading the faith at the end of a sword.

    256. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those you mentioned have only one thing, the core religion and nothing else.

      Can you say the same about all the Islam incidents in the past 30-40 years?

    257. Re:islam by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Insightful

      " And you're trying to tell me that the goal of the Imperial Japanese military was to spread Shinto, rather than their own influence? "
      They believed in "They way of the Gods", they believed the Emperor was a God, and they were fighting to put more area under the control of their Divine Emperor.... QED

      " People fighting revolutions are not fighting to bring about atheism, that is not their goal. Their goal is an entire political, social, and economic ideology, not just the removal of organized religion."

      But they were fighting for the removal of organized religion. You seem to fail to understand that was part of the ideology and a vital part. The fact that other things where involve is no different than any other "war" ever fought over any ideology including religion. As I said it is stupid to blame Atheists for the mass murders done by Atheists trying to spread an Atheist ideology as it is dumb to blame an followers of Islam for what a few do in the name of Islam or to blame Christians as a whole for what some did in the name Christianity.
      Sorry if you are offended by the idea of not being bigoted.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    258. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it was a pretty supernatural belief that humans could create flying machines.

      Well, except for all the animals that are able to fly...

      That said, science itself did form out of a supernatural belief, specifically that a rational God would create a rational world that obeyed rules that could be understood by humans..

    259. Re:islam by Bartles · · Score: 1

      The IRA killed about 650 civilians in it's 30 year conflict. How does that compare to civilians killed in the name of Islam? Islam kills that many in about 1 week.

    260. Re:islam by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      And the mad mullahs make the Shah look like Mr. Rogers.

    261. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever centuries past accomplishments they have had in the past, Islam of today is a useless cancer. It's about like a high school beauty queen who 10 years later is blowing guys down the alley for meth money.

    262. Re:islam by ranton · · Score: 1

      Marxism displays many of the key qualities of religion that frequently justify opposition to religion.

      Chocolate has many of the key qualities that makes my wife want me to stop eating so much fried food, but I still don't think they are the same thing.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    263. Re:islam by wannabgeek · · Score: 1

      Well, it may not be killing, but Chinese government harassed followers of a religion/cult Falun Gong because they had a different faith! How is it different from killing for religion?

      --
      I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
    264. Re:islam by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      A real democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what is for dinner. No thanks.

    265. Re:islam by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Except every time the fire said guns, they yell "Allah is Great".

    266. Re:islam by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure it was; I've seen the NTSB report. The pilot exceeded the certificated service ceiling of the aircraft; solar radiation caused primary structural debonding; and the pilot left a parabolic trail of wax, feathers and Greek obscenities into the Sea of Crete.

      Pilot error.

    267. Re:islam by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      A cop that sees a crime and does not stop it is a bad cop. That is what a cop signs up to do.
      A person that lives under a violent government and says nothing so they do not endanger their family is a victim.
      A person that lives in Canada and is Islamic has not responsibility as far as the actions of an extremist in France that they do not know or support in anyway.

      Hitler liked dogs so is every person that likes dogs in the world responsible for the things Hitler did?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    268. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conflict was about differing traditions and governance.

      Aren't they all?

    269. Re:islam by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      http://news.nationalpost.com/2... It's tough as many posters mentioned about non-terrorist vs terrorist. These imam may be of target as well as they are 'in the way'. FWIW I'm not a muslim.

    270. Re:islam by Gliscameria · · Score: 1

      Klaatu barada nikto?

      --
      X
    271. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what you would do. Come up with something, big man, as you watch your people killed. Show us your power.

    272. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      Indonesia
      87.2% Muslim
      My family there (Christian) have had no trouble at all about their religion.
      The island of Bali is mostly Hindu.

      I guess you aren't familiar with the Bali bombings by muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

    273. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > for the purpose of spreading atheism. Not Marxism, atheism. Marxism and atheism are not the same thing

      Stacking the deck much? Aside from the fact that atheism was a key part of their ideology and that they were trying to eliminate religion because they believed it harmful (wait, don't you share that part of their ideology...? how are you unlike them again?), it's funny how you can just say the labels don't apply when it's YOU, but anybody ELSE sure as heck will get labelled the same as the crazy murderer they don't know and have never met. Because of course their ideology is at fault... even though they don't share the same ideology as the crazy murderer, any more than all atheists share the Marxist ideology that requires them to purge the religious. (Well, except maybe for those talking about their desire to purge all religion due to crazy people, but we won't talk about those...)

      You're simply labeling everyone you disagree with using convenient labels to lump them with violent nutcases, while plugging your ears when people point out that the same nonsense can be done with atheism. Is it fair? Surely not, but that's the POINT. That you can see the obvious ridiculousness of lumping you with violent Marxists, but cannot see the obvious ridiculousness of lumping other people with violent nutcases they don't know, don't like and haven't met by applying labels out of sheer intellectual laziness.

      So no, I don't think you're somehow responsible for the Stalinist purges, even if you do share more of their ideology than I'm comfortable with. I would therefore appreciate not being tarred with derogatory labels due to the Crusades or other random violent nutcases I don't even know simply because you can find some label that you think applies to us both.

    274. Re:islam by Sun · · Score: 1

      OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      AFAIK, in Iran Jews do have the right to practice their religion. They are also represented in government.

      Don't get me wrong. They are legally defined as second class citizens, their government position is reserved, and they are precluded from participating in the general elections (which are not exactly free either), and their situation is, in most ways, worse than those of the Muslim Persian. Still, in your narrow metrics, Iran is such a country.

      I know there are also Jews in Yemen, and I think also in Turky. I don't know the details, but sketchy memory says that they do have at least some freedom of practicing religion. There are also Jews in Egypt, and there they are, at least according to the dry letter of the law, free to practice.

      Now, had that been an "and" list, I'm not sure I'd be able to come up with as long a list.

      Shachar

    275. Re:islam by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
      Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
      Kill Witches
      You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
      Kill Homosexuals
      "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
      Kill Fortunetellers
      A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
      Death for Hitting Dad
      Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
      Death for Cursing Parents
      1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB) 2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
      Death for Adultery
      If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
      Death for Fornication
      A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
      Death to Followers of Other Religions
      Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
      Kill Nonbelievers
      They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
      Kill False Prophets
      If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
      Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
      Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
      Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
      But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
      Kill Followers of Other Religions.
      1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other

    276. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can find similarities between a truck and a wheel barrel, but they are very different.

      The main one being that a truck is an actual thing.

    277. Re:islam by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Short answer: Political ambitions, greed, and corruption - all things the Christian religion condemns.

      Islam condemns that as well.

      These things happened because Christendom wasn't following the teachings of its own religion.

      You don't say. And how many interpretations are there of those teachings? What makes your interpretation right and over another? The KKK (or an abortion bomber, $(insert any violent idiot claiming to be christian) isn't following Christianity even when they say they are... But that logic doesn't apply to ISIS?

      You can't blame the religion itself for the misdeeds of its followers. You must blame the followers themselves for not living according to their stated values.

      But you can for Islam? And specifically for this instance, wasn't the cartoon an image of the ISIS leader and not of Mohammed? I don't think the Quran says anything about pictures of its leaders... So, why the double standard?

    278. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of people, of any religion or other ideology, are fundamentally cowards.

      Very few people are willing to storm a building and start murdering people because they offended their leader, prophet, god or Dick Dorkins. It doesn't mean they don't cheer when it happens.

      Where is this vast majority of muslims who love peace, and are condemning this attack and calling out the attackers as heritics?

      Link me even a single tumblr post.

    279. Re:islam by trigeek · · Score: 1

      What idiots are not modding this as "funny"?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    280. Re:islam by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      If you want an accurate translation, read the NIV, which specifically says "you shall not murder" for that commandment, which seems pretty distinctive from the word kill.

      NIV is also easier to read because, among other things (such as forgoing the "thou"s "ye"s, olf ye olde English) every verse doesn't begin with the word "and."

      Disclaimer: I'm an atheist, always have been one, even at the time that I read that bible (because all other reading material is forbidden during US Army BCT.)

    281. Re:islam by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 3, Informative

      'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

      President George W Bush, 2003

    282. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OR let me ask it this way. Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      Malaysia, Indonesia, Moroco, Turkey, Algier, Tunesia, Egypt, Libanon, Libya, etc.... Oh, you said one: PICK ONE!

    283. Re:islam by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      I doubt that anyone ever ran into battle shouting "For Shinto!" "For Atheism!"

      I would have thought the same thing, but just today a Marxist group carried out a suicide bombing in Istanbul...

    284. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i dont disagree with anything you said except for that last line. If i want to draw a cartoon, I should not have to worry about people killing me. and if i do, then i think its fair to kill them first

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    285. Re:islam by tsqr · · Score: 1

      The AC asked about people killed "in the name of Christianity", not people killed by Christians. Of the ten incidents in the list you linked to, you can scratch #10 (Timothy McVeigh), #9 (The murder of Alan Berg), #8 (Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas), #3 (Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting), and #1 (Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre). These were acts committed by people who were presumably Christian, but who did not tie their acts to their religious beliefs.

      As for the others on the list -- OK, point made. On the other hand, I don't recall mass rallies in Christian cities praising the perpetrators.

    286. Re:islam by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So you don't know what a phage is. Clever of you to point it out.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    287. Re:islam by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Not really hypocritical. The bible actually says not to murder. Most people who say not to kill just quote the King James Version, which was horribly translated, even by very old standards. It goes without saying that the Jews would be unfamiliar with that verbiage.

      And, according to the actual bible, that particular commandment was written by Moses for the Jews, long before Christ even had a name, and also before the Jews conquered Israel, killing its previous inhabitants in the process.

    288. Re:islam by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's Islam per se that's the problem here. I think it's the combination of Islam (or any fundamentalist religion) with an 'honor' culture that thinks it's okay to kill to avenge an injury to your honor. These killers think it's okay to kill your sister because she dishonored you by getting raped. So if their religion defines a caricature of the prophet as dishonor, killing is an appropriate response in that culture. I'm sure there are fundamentalist Christians that would be plenty upset about a cartoon that defames Christ. But most of them don't live in societies that condone killing to avenge your honor.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    289. Re:islam by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Name one Islamic Nation where Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists or anyone else is actually FREE to practice their religion (or lack thereof).

      Singapore and Malaysia to name two. You can have about any religion quite publicly as long as you don't try to convert Muslims.

      Not an ideal situation perhaps, but you openly practice non-Muslim religions in those countries.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    290. Re:islam by sdguero · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I always encourage non-muslims who say something about "moderate Islam" to go read the Koran. It makes the Old Testament feel downright warm and fuzzy.

    291. Re:islam by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      No, at least not at the scale of these guys. But it shows up in stuff like the bombing abortion clinics or some of these other things.

    292. Re:islam by Orestesx · · Score: 3, Funny

      You obviously aren't up on the latest logical reasoning. Here, let me spell it out for you: If a woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made out of wood and is therefore a witch. By the same logic, any two ideologies that require faith can therefore be classified as religions.

    293. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to muslims, noone gives a shit about a 2000 year old piece of paper anymore. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

    294. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Substitute Nazi for Islam and see if you'd support "non-violent Naziism".

      You seem pretty confident that doing so will make people change their minds. Sorry, but I would still support that. I certainly am no Nazi myself, but I will absolutely support the right of another to hold Nazi-like ideals, so long as they do not act upon those ideals in such a way that harms others.

      "First they came for the..." and all that.

    295. Re:islam by judoguy · · Score: 1
      Marxism IS a religion. It's just doesn't have a spiritual component.

      Priests(Marxist theoreticians), crusades, Inquisitions, enforced fervor, punishment for non-belief, holy books written by the founders(Marx & Engels), revered founders expressing revealed truth, etc.

      Did I mention the part where many, many millions have been killed in trying to produce the true believer?

      Sounds like a religion to me.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    296. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mainstream denominations you mentioned, Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, they ALL advocate the oppression of homosexuals. Many of them still do not allow women to hold positions in the clergy, and advocate that women are less than men and should be subordinate to men.

      I would say they are plenty dangerous.

    297. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your gedankenexperiment seems to boil down to "substitute 'asshole' for , and see if you'd support 'non-violent assholes'". well, yes i would. i don't have to agree with them, or like them, or associate with them, but assholes are free to be assholes if they keep to themselves.

    298. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      There is no logic in definitions. These passages seem pretty clear:
      Matthew 7:21-23
      Matthew 21,28-32

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    299. Re:islam by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      But we're talking about the here and now, and here's the difference: someone like Eric Robert Rudolf kills in the name of Christianity, is summarily denounced by 99% of Christians, and is hunted, caught, and convicted - largely by Christians. Something like what happened today happens, and some fraction of Muslims cheer it on, a large chunk of Muslims say nothing about it (split between quietly agreeing and approval of what happened and people fearing for their own life should they speak out against it), and a tiny fraction that speak out against it... and placating denoucnements like "we denounce the killing of innocents." Of course, to radical Muslims, non-Muslims are not "innocent."

      I'm not particularly religious myself, and I find a lot of preachy Christians pretty damn annoying, and they have little problem trying to control how I live my life... but at least I'm not in fear for it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    300. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'invisible hand' is not a way of saying you're leaving things to chance. The 'invisible hand' is a way of saying that allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves often promotes the benefits of society, even when promoting benefits of society wasn't among their motivations.

      ~Loyal

      In other words, it's...chance.

    301. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      This magazine had actually republished the original Danish cartoons of the founder of Islam, Mohammed. That was when the original threats to them started. Then they did cartoons of their own about Mohammed/Islam, and today, it came to this.

      And it's not just Europe. Remember Molly Norris, who once organized a FB competition called '"Everybody draw Mohammed" Day', in defiance of the Islamic diktat that nobody - whether Muslim or not - is allowed to draw pictures of the founder of Islam. In short, everybody - not just Muslims - are expected to follow Islamic laws, regardless of whether we're living in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan or the US.

      And this is what it all boils down to. Which is why immigration of Muslims to non-Muslim countries needs to be banned. B'cos unlike other immigrants, who usually assimilate, Muslims immigrate as cultural invaders. There are good portions of several European cities that police dare not enter - in Paris, Bradford, Malmo and so on, and even in the US, the term 'Dearbornistan' didn't come out of nowhere. Muslim immigration is just their way of doing civilly what they are incapable of doing militarily - overrunning the West like they did much of Asia and Africa in the 7th century, so that in the end, Europe, UK, US, Canada, Australia, India, Israel, China, and other places all become Muslim, and subservient to the caliphate - something already declared by ISIS.

      Of course, few dare point this out, lest they be branded 'Islamophobic' or racist. Regardless of the fact that this isn't about race, and that Muslims include a whole variety of races - Arab, Indo-European (Indian-subcontinent, Iran), Turkic, Malay, Berbers, Slavs (Bosnia, Kosovo) and most recently, Western converts to Islam. Problem is people embracing a religion whose stated goals (in all its holy books - Qur'an, Hadiths, et al) is to wipe out all other religions until all the world is either Islamic, or under Islamic law.

    302. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      The concept of capital sin, and for the Bible only fans, Matthew 25, are a bit more demanding than your syllogism about sin. Now if you argue that some Christians do not obtain salvation I could agree but then we have reached absurdity.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    303. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslims were at war with Hindus long before Gandhi's time - from the year 1000AD to be precise. When Mahmoud of Ghazni invaded India and had a policy of massacring Hindus and destroying their temples. This policy was continued by all Muslim rulers who succeeded him, right up to the Moghuls. Gandhi and Nehru were the only cretins who thought that Hindus were at fault for this, when in fact, it had been a 1000 year long war already, with the Muslim side wanting to do to India what had successfully been done in Iran, Syria, Egypt, Central Asia, North Africa and the Ottoman Empire

    304. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      "Sola fide" is a reaction to the Catholic, not so disinterested, accent on acts of salvation. Personally I'd let an all seing all powerful and just entity decide for itself whom is to consider a follower.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    305. Re:islam by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      what people dont like to talk about in the crusades, it was the christians fighting the muslims. which came first though the christian brutality or the muslim brutality? (in regards to the crusades)

      Neither.
      There was terrible economic upheaval in Europe at the time. Wars had pretty much died down and things were stable... which is bad for aristocracies . All those new princes being born and not getting killed in war. No land to inherit. There was a lot of Machiavellian machinations going on at the time as the politically savvy manipulated the devout into a holly war that would benefit the Savvy in many ways: 1. Lots of royals would get killed opening up land. 2. Wars cost lots of money which had to be borrowed from those that stayed behind. 3. If they did win the war, lots of new trade would open up.

      The wars in the middle east were for for the exact same reason they are today: Money
      and they were fought by the very same types of people: The naive and easily swayed.

      Until forever, on it goes through the circle, fast and slow. I know; it can't stop, I wonder.

    306. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The New Testament is all about "turning the other cheek"
      http://skepticsannotatedbible....

    307. Re:islam by meglon · · Score: 1

      Has anyone mentioned you have your head up your ass? You can TRY to redefine a word, but you just look stupider than fuck trying to defend that. If you're too stupid to use a word correctly, or don't know a words meaning to start with... buy a fucking dictionary. Quit trying to make the people around you be as fucking stupid as you are. I also suggest you try learning some history, as you don't seem to have a fucking clue there either.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    308. Re:islam by polar+red · · Score: 1

      The bible (old and new testament) are just plain fiction.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    309. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Bush had to feed the military-industrial concerns and the starving oil companies. Keep religion out of this.

    310. Re:islam by meglon · · Score: 1

      .... and as we saw during the great depression, a significant percentage of elderly people would be dying in the street in poverty because a capitalistic society cares about profit, and nothing else. There's a number of things Marx wrote about that, while fervent fascists dismiss them as ridiculous, we can actually see them in society. Its like these complete idiots still suggesting that their trickle-down voodoo bullshit economics "should" works, when all we have to do is look at the last 30+ years to see not only it's an abject failure, but it creates far more problems than it was supposed to solve.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    311. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam.

      Are you sure about that?

    312. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "invisible hand" is what happened during the robber barons days, but some people like to believe that didn't happen or that it happened for some other reason than pure greed. The only people who like the "invisible hand" are the ones who reap the benefit from it.

    313. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is precisely right. While people protest about ISIS since the latter was moronic enough to execute Western journalists publicly and videotape those, what ISIS does is right out of the Islamic handbook. Those methods had been used by Mohammed himself, not to mention his various successors, and other Muslim conquerors like Tamerlane, Mahmoud of Ghazni, Saladin and so on. Even today, they are common practice in Iran, Saudi Arabia, as well as by Hamas, Hizbullah and other Islamic organizations worldwide. Only difference is that most of them are shrewd enough not to do it publicly, whereas ISIS happily videotapes and broadcasts it all over. But that doesn't mean that what they do is foreign or hostile to Islam

    314. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it is true that not all belief systems should automatically be considered a religion, marxism is a religion. It's just that it's THE religion of lies and the biggest one is pretending that it is not one. The reason is tactical, if the leaders claim it's not one, they don't look as biased as islamists when they openly shout in public spaces that all (other) religions should be wiped from the face of Earth.

      Marxists are actually a worse cancer than islamists, they are behind most organized crime in the world and are allied with most terrorist groups, including ISIS and the islamists that attacked France, and when a land becomes tainted by them, progress stop forever, culture is obliterated, and corruption destroys both the economy and society until barter and pillage become the norm. Because they turn people into lazy cheaters and robbers, surrounding nations break all relations with them, resulting in isolated nations full of hate and resentment towards the rest of the world that abandons them, and because they have entire control of the media, the population becomes brainwashed to think everything bad it's happening because capitalism and evil banks and that the only solution is to give more power and more money to the tyrannical party while the country becomes poorer and poorer until hunger makes the population flee even under fire of machine guns.

      Islam sucks, but countries under Islam regime can last centuries. Marxist countries go bankrupt and disappear, and then the land becomes barren and their population becomes useless leeches forever.

    315. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except our example is not responsible for a majority of militant Islam. Iran for all its barking has very little bite and is actually pretty progressive(as a people). Compare & contrast persians in Europe w/ arabs & pakistanis(mostly sunni) and you will see a huge gap in the adaptation to western values. This is kind of like comparing moral norms of the english vs the russians and saying that since they are both Caucasian/christian background they must be the same.

    316. Re:islam by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because giving land back to a people who were kicked out by invaders (the Palestinians) is equivalent to a Crusade. Actually, they do both have very good parallels as they were both responses to aggression by the other party who acts like they are the victims not the perpetrators.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    317. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares, this isn't about christianity vs Islam. France is about as far from a christian theocracy as one can get. This is an issue of SECULARISM vs islam. Europeans by and large decided a long time ago that theocracy was not for them and part of our cultural norm is that religion is open to mocker..

    318. Re:islam by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly.

      Sorry, I wasn't aware that Charlie Hebdo was a mouthpiece of the Christian fundamentalists. Oh wait, it's not. From Wikipedia:

      Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication is strongly antireligious and left-wing, publishing articles on the extreme right, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, politics, culture, etc.

      So what exactly does your loaded question have to do with anything?

    319. Re:islam by boule75 · · Score: 1
      > Capitalism doesn't require faith in the banking system. It doesn't require a banking system. It doesn't even require money. Capitalism could exist in a barter-based economy.

      No. With no fiat currency, there's no real possibility to assemble large companies owned by lots of owners (that's capitalism per se).

      You are mixing the concepts of market economy with those of capitalism.

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    320. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Matthew 19:8, apply as principle, the Bible is not a ruleset, things change.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    321. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It does sound so good I'm suspicious that I must have seen it elsewhere.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    322. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      i dont disagree with anything you said except for that last line. If i want to draw a cartoon, I should not have to worry about people killing me. and if i do, then i think its fair to kill them first

      Well if you try to kill them first you'll just create more people you need to kill.

      Besides, I didn't say you can't do anything that makes people angry and potentially makes more terrorists. I said you should make sure it's worth it. I believe free speech is worth it.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    323. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marxist priests call themselves comedians and humorists, but you can set them apart from comedians and humorists in that marxist "humorists" don't even pretend to be funny, they merely point out "enemies" to be mocked, humilliated and destroyed. In fact, I would say that this act of terrorism on a "humor magazine" was exactly the same as bombing a mosque, because it fucking was one. To these islamists, it was as if some person bombed a mosque whose priest was every week shouting that westerners should be mocked and destroyed, but you shouldn't worry as it's only a joke *wink wink*.

    324. Re: islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the Enlightenment pulled Christianity's fangs. But I do remind you it took atrocities, unjust laws, and one of the worst wars in European history; the Thirty Years War, before the great Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke could convince the West that mixing religion and politics was as toxic a brew as one could imagine.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    325. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse than that, the maligned Crusades were reactions to defend themselves from the barbarian muslim invaders, and the Reinaissance was the result of reconquering the lands from them, and retrieved all classical culture that survived the destruction from those monsters.

      And most of the ugly aspects of christian religion don't come from catholicism, but from protestantism who claimed that all interpretations one could make from the holy texts are equally valid, which is the same stupid thing as the "death of author" that post-modernist cultural marxism preaches.

    326. Re:islam by jucer · · Score: 1

      1- Ten commandments != Christianity. They don't even equal to Judaism. 2- Faith leads to action. You can't pretend to have faith if you do don't have the corresponding behavior. Actually, you can't even pretend to have faith if your life doesn't show fruits that should come along with it. OTOH, even if you have the right behavior and your life shows what would be the fruits that come with faith, you can't claim you're a Christian if you don't have the faith too...

    327. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Turkey is no longer what it was under Ataturk - today, it is de-facto an Islamic state. Both Indonesia and Malaysia persecute non-Muslims, and in case of Malaysia, Malays are by law defined as Muzzies, regardless of whether they want to be or not, and Malaysia's bhumiputra apartheid system is a disguised jizia, out to tax non-Muslims (Chinese and Indians) for the benefit of Malays (Muslims) but not other indigenous people (such as Dayaks, who're not Muslim)

    328. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not any more.

    329. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      And when was the last time anybody was stopped from building a synagogue/temple/monestary/even mosque anywhere in England? Contrast that to Saudi Arabia - go there and try building a synagogue or a temple anywhere in Saudi Arabia (forget Mecca/Medina) and see how far you get. Then get back to us on how similar all countries that have state religions are.

    330. Re:islam by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The Kurds. Unfortunately, they don't actually have their own country, they just kind of do.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    331. Re:islam by zieroh · · Score: 1

      A Christian who commits the mortal sin of killing another human may still seek forgiveness from God. You seem to be arguing that between the moment that person commits the sin and the point where they are forgiven by God (which is in itself an indistinct boundary), that person is not a Christian. This is simply not the case, nor the way any rational person would define the faith of that sinner. If they were Christian before they committed the sin and they are remorsefully seeking forgiveness, they are still Christian in any and every way that matters.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    332. Re:islam by schlachter · · Score: 1

      u know that Hamas and their peers in Gaza are an islamist extremist movement who's stated goal is to destroy Israel and then take over the rest of the world.

      if they were jews or christians they wouldn't be wielding guns. or at least not attempting to kill infidel civilians all the time.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    333. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Very true. In fact, the reason the crusades originally started was that Muslims persecuted Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem/Jerusalem and other places in Palestine. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been such a call. And only the first crusade was successful in capturing Jerusalem, and every one after that failed.

    334. Re:islam by Bartles · · Score: 1

      What other things? Abortion clinic bombings are statistically insignificant compared to those killed in the name of Islam.

    335. Re:islam by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'd say roughly none. Unless there were anticrusades and reverse jihads that I missed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    336. Re:islam by Bander · · Score: 1

      Singapore is not a Muslim nation. Not even close. The majority religion is Buddhism, and as of 2010 (according to Wikipedia, I did not follow up by going to the primary sources), Islam was only 14.7%. I lived in Singapore until the late 1980s, and go back now and then to visit family... I would say that Singapore is actually quite secular, with most people way more interested in "profit" than "prophet".

    337. Re:islam by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, but the Koran includes the Bible. The Koran also contains what you describe, but the Bible is in there too.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    338. Re:islam by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow..

      Your insight to this is that because one group did something a long time ago that they do not currently still do, that we should accept another group currently doing it today. Simply amazing..

    339. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > so our extremist groups tend to look more like the Westborough Baptist Church.

      More like this actually. It's just assholes looking for something to rationalize their desire to be assholes. Religion is just one dish on that menu.

    340. Re:islam by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I mean every other attempt to fly for thousands of years had failed so it was a pretty supernatural belief that humans could create flying machines.
      Depends what you call flying.
      The Chinese had 1000 years ago kites big enough to lift observers to spy on enemy battle lines. But those kites where not "flying" but fixed with ropes at the ground.
      Hm, perhaps it is only 800 years ago ... to lazy to google it :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    341. Re:islam by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      Those paper dollars in my hand have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism and currency by fiat are distinct concepts.

      Capitalism has been dead in the west for many, many decades now. Currency by fiat is one of the things that killed it.

    342. Re:islam by meglon · · Score: 1

      I'd say no.

      In Egypt, we supported and kept in power someone not supported by a lot of people..... that ruffles peoples feathers (an amazingly simply fact a lot of people still don't seem to understand). He was more benevolent than say the Shah if Iran, but he was still strong armed in.

      In, Iran Mosaddegh was democratically elected in the real sense of the word, and the country at the time was very pro-western. Khomeini played on the fact that the Shah was a brutal dictator who had killed tens of thousands of people with his secret police death squads. Their outrage at the US, of course, was that we were the ones that fucked them over in 1953, and directly lead to all those people being murdered.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    343. Re:islam by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You need yo cite that then.

      I am not aware of any mainstream or even fringe christian religion within the last 100 years holding the killing of others within yheir doctrine. So please tell us.

    344. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The protestant british did far, far more damage the the New World that any other culture did. They hunted to extinction several bird and mammals, sometimes killing just for fun, and genocided practically all native population, exiling the remaining ones to small reserves. Rather than repent from their atrocities, they celebrate them even today and call it "Thanksgiving".

      On the other hand, the christian priests that arrived to America denounced the mistreatment of natives and even did everything in their hand to protect them. As a result, most of south america is descendant from the natives that inhabited the land before the spanish conquistadores arrived. Read more about it on the oatmeal

    345. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly do not know anything about Shinto or Japanese history.

    346. Re:islam by Bander · · Score: 1

      Singapore is not an Islamic nation. There is no official state religion in Singapore. The majority avow Buddhism, second-highest is non-religious, and Islam is third at just 14.7% (as of 2010, according to Wikipedia). Singaporeans in general are much more interested in "profits" than "prophets".

      Malaysia is an Islamic nation. My relatives who live there are quite concerned about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, though historically it has generally functioned as a mostly secular nation.

    347. Re:islam by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Marxism has atheism as primary requirement.

      That is nonsense. Most socialist states proclaimed Atheism as requirement, but marxism per se does not "demand" that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    348. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok so add up all the dead from every christian-initiated incident you mentioned from the last 1000 years and compare that to than the number of innocent people killed by islamic terrorist activity every month
        Critically Injured: 2225

      Are you insane or that stupid? You couldn't even make that work with the last 100 years. But 1000 years is just silly, that would include the crusades and the slave trade (both Christian and Muslim) and anything done during the colonization of the Americas.

    349. Re:islam by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But they were fighting for the removal of organized religion.
      No they where not. They fought to replace the old regime with one they believed would be better. Actually most of the revolution fighters in Russia where christians, not atheists, so obviously a contraditction to your ideas. Atheism was (if at all) spread AFTER the new government/rulers where set up ... and the idea of removing religion failed in all those socialist/marxist societies. So you have no point at all in your argumentation.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    350. Re:islam by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Again with the "brown skinned people" trope. Maybe that's all you care about, yes? Goes both ways.
      There's a difference between Verden and south America: The conquistadors primary aim was secular, to claim territory and riches for Spain, and to forge a better trade root to China and India; the religious component was there, and I admit I'd not thought of that, it certainly adds to the tally; but their evangelical motives, while strong, were secondary; they'd have slashed their way through South America even if it were already Christian (but technologically inferior), same as they tried warring against the English in vying for land and gold.
      I stand by my statement: the attack on Verden massacred 4,500 pagan saxons directly for their refusal to convert to Christianity. That was an attack committed expressly in the name of Christianity, much like Islamic extremists are doing today.

      Besides, slavery /= death. The post I replied to claimed the Catholic church was responsible for more deaths than all other religions combined. Granted, death was prevalent among the american natives due to diseases which the Europeans already had immunity to and probably didn't think much about. I doubt there was anything they could have done about it anyway, as they had no knowledge of microbes and viruses in the 15th century. . I've seen no evidence it was deliberate religiously based biological warfare, though I'm sure they figured it was a sign from God that He was on their side.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    351. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The indian genocide was in part due to protestantism views that it wasn't evil to kill the indians, because they had no chance at salvation anyways. On the other hand, catholics thought slaughtering natives was bad, and even the Spanish kings publicly legislated that american natives had the same rights as the rest of spanish citizens, and the Virrey was required by law to protect them.

    352. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Their goal is an entire political, social, and economic ideology, not just the removal of organized religion.

      Anything that qualifies as a serious religion also ends up defining much in all of those areas. It wasn't called "the holy roman empire" for the heck of it. Talmudic and Koranic laws aren't just restricted to things like how to pray, they cover all areas of society. For example, the one case of Jesus getting his wrath on was when he raged at the money-lenders in the temple.

      If some political ideology explicitly includes atheism, rather than having no position on religion at all, then pushing that ideology means pushing atheism.

    353. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a Christian but your argument sucks.

      The crusades were over 1000 years ago, and that is still the best example of Christian church-led violence you can come up with?, yet multiple fatalities of innocent people from islamic terrorist attacks are taking place every day.

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not condone let alone instruct the killing of anyone, especially not just because they insulted the name of Jesus. In fact Christianity teaches us to forgive.

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not teach denial of basic human rights and prevention of education of certain groups of people (because of their gender, race or beliefs).

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not have radical priests that brainwash believers into becoming human bombs. ...Want me to go on? ...and yes I on purpose spelt Christianity with a capital C but islam with a lower case i, as the even the name of such a scum-ridden religion doesn't deserve any respect.

      False, False, false, false.

      Have you READ the bible? Jesus specifically addressed some of the worst teaching, but the old testament is full of shit like that.

    354. Re:islam by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      But they were fighting for the removal of organized religion.

      That's about as intelligent as saying that Kim Il-Sung's goal was to nationalize the lumber industry. You're stating individual pieces like they're the entire goal. The purpose of the fighting was not the removal of organized religion, it was a much larger issue that they were fighting for.

      You seem to fail to understand that was part of the ideology and a vital part.

      You seem to fail to understand that it was one piece of a much larger issue.

      As I said it is stupid to blame Atheists for the mass murders done by Atheists trying to spread an Atheist ideology

      It's stupid to even claim that anyone has ever fought a war to spread "an Athiest ideology" in the first place. The defining quality of revolutionary socialism is not the lack of religion, it is control of the means of production. It is not an Atheist ideology, it is a socialist ideology. But you're busy trying to build a case that these people were fighting for Atheism as a religion. Sorry, I don't buy it.

      Sorry if you are offended by the idea of not being bigoted.

      Wow. Yeah, you *nailed* me there, didn't you? Yeah pal you're exactly right, I am absolutely offended that anyone would not be a bigot. Thank you for stating my position so eloquently, and you've got my permission to debate with yourself from here on out, because I'm not going to be a party to this crap. Your agenda is obvious.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    355. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim immigrants in europe show zero willingness to integrate: the best example would be the freaking SHARIA POLICE units roaming german cities. It's not about dehumanization; it's about admitting the failure of the whole "let anyone come in here" project and pull the plug before the losses become insurmountable.

    356. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Err...sure. Do you have a proposal? Note that you specify peaceful, so it has to be one that will satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians at the same time. This is despite the fact that neither side has shown any particular willingness to compromise. Oh, and it has to stay peaceful. It can't be like what happened in Gaza, where the Israelis gave the Gazans relative independence and the Gazans then built tunnels that they used to attack Israel.

      There have been at least thirty years of continual attempts to work on peace in the middle east (before that I was too young to notice). They haven't failed because people outside the middle east haven't wanted peace. They've failed because there are people in Israel and Palestine who want things more than peace. Part of the problem is that the Palestinians want Israel back. The Israelis don't want to give Israel back, or even the West Bank.

      Proposing middle east solutions is easy for those of us who don't live there. We can say things, like, "Sure, the Palestinians would be satisfied with a two state solution." Yet the evidence seems to show that they wouldn't. Yes, some Palestinians would. But not enough.

      Here's my suggestion: wherever you live, let's kick you and all your neighbors out. We'll let either the Israelis or the Palestinians live there. Maybe we'll flip a coin to pick which. We'll see if there is peace in quantaman country thereafter. Or maybe, we'll find that you crazy terrorists keep trying to take back your homeland and for some reason aren't satisfied with only getting pieces of it. You want the whole thing. And no one will be able to understand why the middle easterners aren't happy giving you back pieces of your homeland, even though you've proven time and time again that that's not enough to satisfy you.

      Maybe if we did that, you'd start to understand why there is no peace in Israel/Palestine.

    357. Re:islam by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... A bacteriophage /bæktr.i.ofed/ (informally, phage /fed/) is a virus that infects and replicates within a bacterium.

      Not all bacteria are bad. The point is, it's a virus as I said, it's destructive, it replicates, and goes well with the whole 'phobe 'phile suffix thing.
      Also, http://en.memory-alpha.org/wik...

      Your turn to enlighten me further.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    358. Re:islam by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      DHKP-C says it is fighting corruption.
      The DHKP-C statement said the motive was to protest at government corruption and avenge the death of a boy fatally injured by police.

      I'm missing the part where they say their goal is to spread atheism.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    359. Re:islam by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Can you point to me where Jesus taught we should rape and pillage everyone who doesn't believe in him?

      However, that is what was taught by M.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    360. Re:islam by gtall · · Score: 1

      You forgot enslaved. Islam has no problems with slaves...or women for that matter, they are merely the possession of the Muslim man. It isn't clear Judism or Christianity did either, but they were reformed. Islam is unreformable lest the ones using it for subjugation have no salve for their conscience.

    361. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fair number is Ireland. More than is reasonable. My sarcasm detector's not working yet this year so forgive the honest answer. They hid behind politics as well...

    362. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that Mitt Romney tried that. Guess it is only for the 'right' belief in God.

    363. Re:islam by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      harassing and terrorizing

      Harassing, yes.

      Terrorising - absolutely not.

      You are watering down the term to a level that means nothing.

      it's ridiculous to carry on with the delusion that this is somehow unique to Islam,

      Quite a lot more ridiculous to recognize it's not primarily members of the islamic faith doing this - and keeping women slaves, and all sorts of other fun stuff.

      But do keep complaining abut people merely holding signs instead of heads as "terrorists", so that we know you can be ignored.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    364. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.... but they're all "bad".

    365. Re:islam by seyyah · · Score: 1

      Lebanon. Jordan. Assad-controlled Syria. The Levant is not the Gulf.

    366. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Christians usually study the old testament but should follow the only direct commandment of the Christ :love thy neighbor as you love yourself.

    367. Re:islam by peppepz · · Score: 1
      The very same things can be said about Islamist terror. Ignorant people are being maneuvered by virtual caliphs who wish to become actual ones. Every human conflict in history can be reduced to a matter of "us vs them", with a "flag" motivation covering the real, always political, one.

      I can't speak to Islam, but what I do know is that Christians who use violence to spread their views can not be considered Christians.

      The quran, too, prescribes tolerance towards Hebrew and Christians. And christian holy scriptures contain incitements to violence, too:

      Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God.

    368. Re:islam by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just try getting elected in America to any high political office without being or pretending to be a believer in some god.

      It has been noted that America is actually run as an oligarchy, and anyway a republic is not as much democracy as people can handle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    369. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Central to the religion of Capitalism is faith in the notion that self-interest is somehow a more "natural" part of being human than solidarity is.

    370. Re: islam by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      Capitalism does indeed require faith to work. You need to have faith that the piece of paper in your hand is worth twenty dollars. When a population loses that faith difficult times ensue.

    371. Re:islam by dargaud · · Score: 1

      But let me just remind you that it was the US that initiated a coup in Iran that unseated a democratically chosen head of state to install a US friendly dictator.

      The US did a lot of dirty deeds in many places, for instance in central and south America. But you don't see Chileans or Nicaraguans or even Vietnamese going around with dynamite vests. Please explain why ?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    372. Re:islam by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Shit dud, show me the original copy of the bible before you claim anything. Not the one constructed by a non-believer Constantine to favour the defence of his power against those who rebelled against the past predations of the Roman Empire. If it was so important, seriously don't you think God should be capable of preserving at least one copy. I seriously suspect original copies were destroyed purposefully because they were more egalitarian and socialists than could be accepted by the monarchy of the day and, a self serving preacher class. Until you can show the original lets not get to preachy about interpretation. Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, murder is a legally defined type of killing, as is manslaughter, as is euthanasia and as is self defence. Rack of with the psuedo conservative re-interpretations of language, to murder is to kill. Shit dude, 'turn the other cheek' and that does not mean cut someone's head off, twist your butt around and shit down their throats.

      Best response, a massive satirical attack upon the religion via every avenue possible in all public spaces, that and of course the pursuit of justice not revenge.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    373. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "probably the worst atrocity committed in the name of Christianity was the Massacre at Verden by Charlemagne"

      Do you always just say what comes to your mind without bothering to check it first?

    374. Re:islam by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    375. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I point out the irony of your belief in the religious concept of "an economically free world"?

    376. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people died in Iraq as a result of the US occupation that instigated on false pretenses by the US's Christian President?

    377. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

      “...the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)

      “I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

      “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

    378. Re:islam by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 1

      Ninian Smart's book "The Religious Experience of Mankind" makes the case for Maxism to be considered a "religion". In his comparative study of the world's religions Smart applied a set of criteria against belief systems to in order to categorise them as the basis of religious experience, to wit Marxism - and the way it is commonly experience - falls generally into Smart's definition of religion.

      Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)

      Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it.

      Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private)

      Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public)

      Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm)

      Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form

      Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural



      At the time of reading this (about 20 years ago) I was surprised to find Marxism included in a study that looked at Christianity, Hinduism, etc. But I remember it making sense at the time. Maybe if I went back and read the book I'd be less convinced.

    379. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First of all, all but three of those are from the Mosaic Law code, which, not surprisingly, was a law code. It governed a nation. And everyone agreed to live under that law, as is evident from their affirmative acceptance of it.

      Of the three remaining examples, the one in 2 Chronicles is a repetition and application of a law, the one in Zechariah is a repetition of a law to the post-exilic Jews to point out why they got exiled in the first place, and the one in Romans is a post-Judaic application of the principles expressed in the law code that shows how, while the law doesn't apply directly to Christians, God hasn't changed his standards and the principles embodied in the law still basically apply. Note that at no time in that scripture in Romans does it mention that humans would be the ones carrying out the judicial sentence of death. That was well understood to be far above mankind's pay grade, as the Jewish nation was no longer recognized as the "blessed" people after they murdered the Messiah some 20-30 years prior to Paul's letter to the Romans and the Christians had been instructed to be "no part of this world" just as the Messiah's kingship was not an earthly one.

      Also of note is the tone taken in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, where these same disgusting practices are mentioned, and the recipients of that letter are called out as former practitioners of those things, but have been considered "washed clean", "sanctified", and "declared righteous". That doesn't sound like a call to arms at all, which makes your argument all the more incorrect.

    380. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Err...sure. Do you have a proposal? Note that you specify peaceful, so it has to be one that will satisfy both Israelis and Palestinians at the same time. This is despite the fact that neither side has shown any particular willingness to compromise. Oh, and it has to stay peaceful. It can't be like what happened in Gaza, where the Israelis gave the Gazans relative independence and the Gazans then built tunnels that they used to attack Israel.

      Frankly I don't think it's that tough. Israel withdraws to the '67 borders and agrees to Palestinian control of East Jerusalem, if possible they also give some sort of awknowledgement of the right of return. It will take a while but Palestinian extremism will start to die down and the violence will decrease.

      The problem now is that Israel has always had the uncritical backing of the US which basically makes them a tiny country that with the military might of a superpower. Whenever they're given a choice between taking land and compromise they rationally choose to take land because they have the US military as insurance against things getting out of hand, and in the future if they lose that backing the extra land will make them more powerful in their own right.

      The original creation of Israel was very unjust to the Palestinians (foreign population comes in with backing of the West and gets most of the land). But now it's a historic injustice which you can't reverse. If Israel creates a settlement on Palestinian land tomorrow it should be torn down. If you let the settlement stand for another 50 years with several generations of inhabitants then it's probably going to stay.

      I suspect that's the current Israeli strategy, continue to take as much Palestinian land for as long as you can and stall peace for as long as you can. Eventually you'll be forced to stop, and then you'll just sit on the current settlements until the Palestinians get used to it. At that point you have both peace and a ton of land. Of course in the meantime it's extremely unjust and it's inflaming and destabilizing large portions of the middle east.

      The solution is the US makes continued aid conditional on no new settlements. The west can't credibibly take away the military backing but they can impose diplomatic and economic pressure so Israel can no longer act without consequence.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    381. Re:islam by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Turkey ... They are not perfect countries, of course, but they are large, multicultural democracies with Islam as the state religion.

      You could not be more wrong.
      Turkey has no state religion but is like France by constitution a laicistic country.

      I would not wonder if your claims about Malaysia and Indonesia are both wrong as well.

      However they count as examples your parent asked for. They are mainly islamic and quite tolerant to other religions.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    382. Re:islam by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      You need to understand the reasons for what the US did in Iran before using that as an example about how Christianity is as violent as Islam.
      You're argument fails miserably.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    383. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just killed a beer in the name of atheism.
      And I'll do it again until those beers stop releasing CO2 into my air!!!!!

    384. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      Like invading countries and launching drone strikes until ISIS popped up?

      Actually ISIS (although going by a different name at the time) popped up during the US occupation and was put down by US and Iraqi troops (tribally organized not central gov't mostly) during the Anbar Awakening. An excellent example of the fundamental mistake being fools in Washington who insisted that the Iraqi Army be entirely disbanded. Yeah, get rid of the high ranking officers and the republican guard, but the jr officers and the majority of the enlisted troops should have been left in service and answering to US officers. As we did at the end of WW2 with German and Japanese troops.

      ISIS filled the vacuum created by a premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, before a credible Iraqi security force was in place, without any US stabilization force that could have been called in for assistance. For example had the US actually tried to get a status of forces agreement (it didn't, it made superficial gestures with no desire or intent to actually reach such an agreement -- taking initial rejection of an offer as a firm no and failing to sweeten the deal to get to yes as was required every other time in the past to get immunity etc) the existing Iraqi forces could have called in US air support. Its doubtful US ground forces would have been needed to assist. ISIS would not have been able to roll down the highway in their Toyotas with their heavy weapons from town to town with US air support around. ISIS only gained ground because Iraqi army units felt abandoned by the Iraqi gov't and the US.

      So ISIS was initially a creation of the Bush administration's foolish disbanding of the Iraqi army, but they corrected/reversed that to a degree creating the tribal security forces that fought along side the US.

      And then ISIS was resurrected by the Obama administration's foolish desire to be entirely rid of Iraq, and is now in the processes of reluctantly correcting/reversing that to a degree.

    385. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Franco's Falangists, Lord's Army, Various Latin American regimes.

    386. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that capitalism predates large central banking systems, yes? I tell you want isn't capitalism--funding mass consumption by printing massive piles of pretty paper and forcing everyone to use it. Nor is using all the unicorn money's to make whole failed businesses. In other words, what you see around you now isn't capitalism.

    387. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism doesn't require faith to work because it's basically anarchy.

      Capitalism isn't anarchy. Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. So long as government allows private individuals to trade and engage in industry and the means of production, and allow them to have their profits or losses then capitalism exists.

      Take away the government and those private individuals are still free. Capitalism can work quite happily with anarchy (until all the wealth gets concentrated and you end up with oligarchy). The two are opposites. Hell, you're both comparing an economic to governmental system here - apples and oranges. The parent at least is making the connection of free from government regulation of trade to free from government regulation in general.

    388. Re: islam by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I think you mean:

      The 'invisible hand' is term used as a way of saying that you hope allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves will actually result in benefits to society and you're wishing on a prayer that they don't have backroom deals, aren't colluding, , regulatory capture, or that one doesn't have a stranglehold on the other bending them over barrel.

      There we go.

      Anarchy is a system in which trade, industry, the means of production, as well as security, politics, and basic rights are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.

    389. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism isn't anarchy. Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. So long as government allows private individuals to trade and engage in industry and the means of production

      Then the "private" interests will always merge/takeover the public government, insist on bailouts, insist on special treatment (tax exemptions, subsidies, higher taxes for others) and capitalism never actually lasts...exactly like anarchy.

      The 'invisible hand' is a way of saying that allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves often promotes the benefits of society

      And then the "capitalists" redefine "the public interest" as "in my interests" and believe that what is good for them is good for "society" and "the nation" and they proceed, as before, to takeover government and the public sector, until (just like communism!) there is no longer any distinction between the public and private, because they have merged together, and redefined "what is good for the country" to instead mean "what is good for megacorp."

      "Capitalism" always sits atop a layer of communism and subsidies.

      http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

      What actually happens is "capitalists" decide putting everyone else in debt is good for them, since it gives them more power over others. There is no need to produce goods or provide a service that people want...all you have to do is bury anyone who disagrees.

      Capitalism is "anarchy" in the sense that it never lasts...they always come running to the government looking for a bailout, they always takeover the government and schools and redefine "what is good for the public interest" as "what is good for our profits."

      So yes, capitalism is effectively "anarchy" in all known implementations.

      Same as communism, only the people on top benefit from it. Capitalism and the "free market" always demands more and more government subsidies...just like communism, these people think it is a matter of people not believing hard enough, if only we keep trying the same failed ideas, they will magically work out for everyone.

      The ideal situation for "capitalists" is a government-ran market, where there is no risk of any competition, where they are gambling with other people's money, and where the public bails them out when they screw up.

      "Capitalism" is 100% exactly like communism, just a matter of who benefits, nothing more.

      In the end, it is more efficient and more "productive" and more profitable to dismantle the "free market" and barricade it up...no different than taking over a castle and building a moat around it...the first thing "capitalists" do is ask the government to protect them from the "free market" because that is too risky, too unstable, not as profitable as corporate communism.

      FTFY.

    390. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brevik was not a Christian fundamentalist. You should read his manifesto before saying stuff like that. It reads nothing like the beliefs of the religious right in the U.S.

      Nobody is claiming Christianity has been perfectly clean, just better in terms of fewer dead per adherent.

    391. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QamvIS Hegh qaq law' torvIS yIn qaq puS.

      Now, where's that copy of Hamlet...

    392. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The New Testament is all about "turning the other cheek", about martyrdom of peaceful saints, of loving thy neighbor.

      Is that why Jesus' companions were carrying swords when he was arrested and cut off the ear of an arresting officer?

    393. Re:islam by hostmaster · · Score: 1

      The colonization of North/South America and Africa was justified and defined in explicitly religious terms. It resulted in the deaths of millions.

      --
      -- Equity lord of the Trill Consortium
    394. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naziism is protected in the US, as is Islam. Sorry to break it to you.

      For the record, while not religious (I'm technically agnostic, believing any conclusions one way or the other to be unfounded) I don't give a fuck what your beliefs are as long as they don't involve going around murdering people because they disagree with you.

    395. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where the Shia dominated government pissed off the Sunni's to the point of revolt.

      Either way there's no such thing as a flawless war. Bush probably screwed up disbanding ISIS but the alternative might have been a Shia revolt or a military coup by the Sunni army. And if the US stayed in Iraq (after convincing the Iraqi's to let them) things might be better, or they might be in an '06 level surge of violence with ISIS spreading to Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey instead.

      It's possible to bring about peace and liberty with violence, but it's so difficult that it's far wiser to not even try.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    396. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That analogy would make a great cartoon.

    397. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Buddhism?

    398. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Not really. Most countries in the region don't truly care about the Palestinians. They do care about the existence of Israel but the suffering of the Palestinians is a tool to support an agenda, not a problem be solved.

      What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+?

      That is quite twisted logic and wording. The factions involved need little excuse to fight and mistrust each other. Start from there and give one faction brutal dictatorial power that repressed and subjugated the other for decades. That brutal dictatorship is what caused the fighting and ethnic cleansing type behavior.

      Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.

      It goes both ways. You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.

    399. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who doesn't understand Building 7 shouldn't have an opinion about 9-11.

      You have not studied that issue. No rational mind that deals with the evidence of Building 7 can believe the gov's story.

      It was a false flag operation, without question.

    400. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim's aren't dumb

      Modern Europeans on the other hand are dumb and peacefully accept Muslims into their land. There's a reason every nation with more than a couple Muslims is a shithole. It wasn't always like this, but after the West (well, US) ignited extremism during the 70s or so it makes no sense to willingly accept these barbarians.
      And before anyone says the Irish, I the IRA doesn't kill people for drawing leprechauns.

      Hopefully the French learnt something today and will convince Italy to sink the next invader boat instead of wasting resources rescuing them.

    401. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the religion of peace. There will be peace when all the infidels and followers of the wrong kind of Islam are dead. Ok there may be only person left and trouble if they schizophrenic.

    402. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of muslims support terrorism through their taxes, check it yourself. And when they give charity towards the victims of natural disasters, they always, always specify that charity is only to be given to other muslims.

    403. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Not really. Most countries in the region don't truly care about the Palestinians. They do care about the existence of Israel but the suffering of the Palestinians is a tool to support an agenda, not a problem be solved.

      I don't know enough to speculate on their states of mind or sincerity.

      What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+?

      That is quite twisted logic and wording. The factions involved need little excuse to fight and mistrust each other. Start from there and give one faction brutal dictatorial power that repressed and subjugated the other for decades. That brutal dictatorship is what caused the fighting and ethnic cleansing type behavior.

      Obivously the country needed to be in bad shape for that to happen. But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened. You would feel pissed off if a Muslim country jumped into a Western power keg and set it off?

      Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.

      It goes both ways. You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.

      And they always do.

      Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    404. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      No, my insight is that claiming one mainstream religion is better than some other mainstream religion is missing the point entirely. And yes, people still do that kind of stuff.

    405. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain for us how "assembling large companies owned by lots of owners" is a part of the definition of capitalism, which a quick google search defines as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

      Capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, which are operated by their owners (or their delegates) for a profit. There is no requirement that capitalism involve "large companies."

      Corporations are a legal fiction invented to *encourage* people to engage in trade for profit, and the risk-taking that business entails. They are not a precondition for the existence of capitalism.

      Also, publicly traded corporations existed long before we left the gold standard - before that, the dollar was a representative currency, not a fiat currency, so there goes your theory about capitalism requiring fiat currency.

    406. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the real world.

      Using terrorism to "fight" terrorism is, as any sentient being would realize, STILL TERRORISM.

      But it is "our TERRORISM".

      Hey! you call it Jihad? Let me show you how it should be done. Subedei way.
      Like sprinkling your home grounds with Plutonium, Cobalt and Agent Orange. Not enough? Send B52 , rinse, repeat...
      Do not leave anybody behind who can "sprout the beard" ...
      Until the day, when 10year old start shouting Allah Akbar too loud and his single/widowed mother will paddle his bottom ...
      You wanna play Jihad? We have more means and experience ...

    407. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the Islamic Calliphate expanded the Byzantine Empire needed help against attacks. The Western Christians were helping to defend the Eastern (Orthodox) Christians against the Muslims, and as counter-attacks progressed they rolled back the Caliphate.

      Well, that was (perhaps) the intention of Urban II. The way it actually went down, though, was quite a bit different...

    408. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a piece of you over there, and over there!

    409. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      You forgot the part where the Shia dominated government pissed off the Sunni's to the point of revolt.

      That is related to the complete US withdrawal. With US influence in the country the Shia government is more likely to be moderated or reigned in. Its the total US abandonment of Iraq that made the Sunnis desperate enough to rethink their relationship with ISIS.

      Either way there's no such thing as a flawless war. Bush probably screwed up disbanding ISIS but the alternative might have been a Shia revolt or a military coup by the Sunni army.

      A re-organizing of the Iraqi Army under temporary US command would probably have involve some tribal and religious considerations. Predominantly sunni troops in the sunni heartland, shia troops in the shia heartland, etc. The generals were aware of the complications, T. E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and such being required reading in all the military academies.

      And if the US stayed in Iraq (after convincing the Iraqi's to let them) things might be better, or they might be in an '06 level surge of violence with ISIS spreading to Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey instead.

      Doubtful. ISIS only became a powerful and news-headlining force in the absence of US power. Their early incarnation was marginalized by US and tribal forces. Their heavy weapons and power only permitted to exist in lawless areas such as civil war burdened Syria. Jordan and Turkey, like the US, possess air power that would not allow ISIS to roll down the highway with heavy weapons and get a foothold, outgun Kurds and other locals, etc. ISIS absolutely needs the power vacuum to get beyond being a marginal player.

    410. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only it really went down hill.

    411. Re:islam by evensteven6 · · Score: 1

      definitely sounds like a recipe for destruction ie not adaptive

    412. Re:islam by evensteven6 · · Score: 1

      the great contradiction. perhaps "we" care more about the present

    413. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often in this world, because "standing up to islamist extremest" often devolves into "persecuting any muslims we can find, to get revenge for what the extremists did". What happens is the islamist extremists do something horrible, which so outrages/terrorizes the local non-muslim population and/or government that they end up responding by doing something horrible to the local muslim population.

      Bla, bla, bla - most of the muslim groups that I know is "clannish" to the extreme. You know - do not trust anybody who is not related somehow to you and or is not Muslim.
      Let's use this feature - you want to be clannish? fine but it is your responsibility to police your own hot heads.
      Unless ... you do mental trick done in Russian revolution times - Jews as Bolshevik Comissars? No sir, they are Communists not Jews, we cannot be responsible for their actions. They are apostates.
      Muslim terrorists? They are not Muslims. They are Terrorists. Islam is religion of Peace. We cannot be held responsible for what we taught them in our homes, schools ...

      That's why it's critical to understand that the distinction to make is terrorist/non-terrorist, and not muslim/non-muslim. Otherwise you just get a never-ending spiral of retaliatory violence, with militants on both sides attacking non-militants on the other side (and radicalizing more non-militants to become militants for the next round).

      Yes, distinction is important. Here you have an example of Good Muslims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipka_Tatars
      It is the only group that I know which is playing fair with their neighbours. And they were loyal to their host country for over 300 years.
      And recently kicked out from mosque few Imams "imported" by "transient" Muslims (foreign students and such) from Middle East and Africa.
      And their women are not only "fair" but fairly treated - for example sitting together with men in mosque and having their own professional life.

    414. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wild Wild East? Central and Eastern Europe? Excluding post-Ottoman territories.
      Free to practice their religion? Yes.
      Free to force others to surrender to their view? No and The Hell No!

    415. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that any action that would make you angry if you were a Muslim is going to create more terrorists, so before we do something that would piss off a lot of people we really need to consider if it's worth it.

      While not a fully considered opinion, there is a very large part of me that wants to start a religious war to end all religious wars over this right now. Or rather, the real issue being freedom of speech and separation of church and state. I.e. go full throttle filling our free speech channels in the U.S. (and elsewhere) with depictions of Mohommed.

      Like few others here in the U.S., I sympathize with anti-U.S. sentiment, for reasons you summed up better than most mainstream journalists I see. And as such, I do see that the behgazi/southpark event, was almost even tolerable to watch as Obama chilled free speech in the U.S. After all, we'd seen wikileaks and collateral murder. We all knew that Cheney had gone and killed and maimed six figures worth of, as far as 9/11 was concerned, basically innocent civilians. So then, I was like, OK, I won't call for Obama's assassination over that seeming crack in seperation of church and state (treating Mohommed as more off limits than Jesus).

      But now, the U.S. has at least repented as far as the 6000 page torture report goes. The U.S. may locally have established that the torturers have won the ethical debate for now, but everyone knows the U.S. basically showed it deserved 9/11 post-facto, if not before the fact (but as anyone who as watched Bill Moyer's The Secret Government knows, the blood was aplenty on our hands already).

      So now, I feel like- fuck it. Anyone left in the world that believes they have the right to lobby their government to say what kind of pictures I'm not allowed to draw and share with friends and the public, they can go ahead and take up arms and get crucified by the U.S. military. If they defeat the U.S. military, God bless them. Let's burn this world down.

    416. Re:islam by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      The goal of the Japanese Militarists was about extending Japanese economic control, and seizing both raw materials and markets for goods. They didn't care if people converted to their religion or not. Religion is not why they fought.

      Rather, religion was used as a tool to legitimize and justify the actions that they wanted to take anyway. This is hardly an unusual case, because humans have been doing this since pretty much the invention of society. It's certainly not the only excuse - See also Spreading Civilization, Spreading Communism, Spreading Democracy, or any number of other past justifications for aggressive conquest or intervention that we as humans have come up with in the era since the West decided religious wars were probably not such a hot idea anymore. All of it had a strong tendency to coincide with other more material (i.e. economic) interests.

      That's not to say that people can't or don't murder solely based on insane ideological reasons, whether it's a religious or secular ideology, but the larger the scale, the less likely it is to actually be caused directly by that, and the more likely it is to be about other things.

    417. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this relevant? Two wrongs doesnt make a right. Religion is shit. Islam way more so, its a religion/ culture that doesnt work with any other religion/culture. End of story.

    418. Re: islam by norbertH · · Score: 1

      The "invisible hand" Is basically a nice way to say you're leaving things to chance...

      The 'invisible hand' is not a way of saying you're leaving things to chance. The 'invisible hand' is a way of saying that allowing people to trade according to terms mutually beneficial to themselves often promotes the benefits of society, even when promoting benefits of society wasn't among their motivations.

      ~Loyal

      In other words...you're leaving things to chance.

    419. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Who marked this insightful? Let's look at the non-Arab Muslim countries. Pakistan - regular persecution of Christians & Hindus, particularly kidnapping of underaged girls, and forced marriage to Muslims accompanied by conversion to Islam. Bangladesh - most Hindus have fled that country. Indonesia - regular persecution of Christians, and Ahmadiyahs. Malaysia - as someone else pointed out below, ethnic Malays ain't allowed to apostatize, and also, Malaysian Hindus have seen temples leveled, posthumous conversions to Islam and other novel forms of persecution. Afghanistan - since when is that an Arab country? Turkey - has been Islamizing since Erdogan came to power. Only the central Asian 'stans' are not Islamic, but even they don't allow freedom of any religion: only 'consolation' is that Islam too is included, so that they don't become Islamic republics

    420. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Selective reporting by Huffington Post. Obviously, they haven't heard about all the instances of Christian and Hindu girls regularly kidnapped and forcibly married off to Muslims and converted to Islam!

    421. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marxism is a religion in a way

      Marxism is not a religion in any way. It has similar qualities of a religion, just like you can find similarities between a truck and a wheel barrel, but they are very different.

      There is a reason why faith and religion are different words in the English language. Just because something requires faith does not make it religious in nature.

      French official Atheism is very similar to the religion. And it is Established state religion.
      Next step - you play our way or get out of here.
      Where is Charles Martel when you need him?

    422. Re:islam by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Capitalism on the other hand? It doesn't require any faith to work... in fact it specifically relies on the basest elements of humanity (namely, self-interest) to operate at all.

      That's not true. Capitalism relies on stable political environments to be able to operate properly and is just as vulnerable to corruption as marxism. Modern capitalism encountered that in the form of entities that were "Too big to Fail" an anathema to the competition required for capitalism to function properly.

      In reality the former ideologically opposed super powers have arrived at the same destination via different paths. Both are now dominated by oligarchs and corporatism and maintain a veneer of the values that was once intrinsic to them for the media to portray and the masses to believe. Those who cling to the quaint notion of left and right politics have their minds wrapped in an illusion designed to comfort them into feeling free whilst tewwor is used as tool to steal the rights earned for us all through bloody conflict.

      All ideologies kneel in the church of the corporation before the almighty dollar. Corporatism IS the new world order and terrorism is it's biggest advocate.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    423. Re:islam by porjo · · Score: 1

      The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated.

      Oh hey, look, 30 seconds of Googling and I've found a history of forced conversion to Christianity that stretches back for 1600 years. [wikipedia.org]

      Red herring. Forced conversions by so-called Christians is not an argument against the OPs point about Islam destroying civilzations. Can you provide examples of where the introduction of Christianity into a civilzation has made it go 'backwards' in terms of science, technology, arts etc ?

    424. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the west the mean is closer to pacifist and the standard deviation is small, so our extremist groups tend to look more like the Westborough Baptist Church.

      I agree with what you say, but, in situations as globally complex as this, I think you must reach back a few decades to the glory days of the KKK. Lynchings, beheadings, whatever. Or are black market drug gangs burning people to death in gasoline soaked tires any less crazy?

      Keep your heads down folks, it's a jungle out there.

    425. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Indonesia has also followed a systematic persecution of Christians, and done a Chinese style populating of all islands w/ Muslims. Initially, only Java & Sumantra were Muslim islands, but the last 2 decades, they've populated all the islands - Kalimantan, Sulawesi, et al w/ Muzzies

    426. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumb people following a stone age myth with the "promise" of a ridiculous future that can not possibly exist. If we can somehow force a brain cell into their collective skulls we could have a chance at peace, otherwise there is no chance. Like it or not religious zealots cannot, will not even glance at something that does not fit their dogma. In the case of these asshats anything that does not lick the balls of their imaginary friend makes their underdeveloped cranium overload and this is the result. If your pet behaved this way you would put it down. While people believe fairy tales instead of facts we are doomed

    427. Re:islam by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Notions of property rights are hardly universal.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    428. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Turkey doesn't have any non-Muslim minority, to speak of, and their genocide of Armenians is something they'd like to see go away. Kyrgyzstan too doesn't really have any religion - it's more or less an Atheist state. Egypt - what a joke! Copts get persecuted routinely. Indonesia & Malaysia - discussed elsewhere in this thread. Qatar - interesting example you chose: Qatar is a Wahabi country like Saudi Arabia and non-Muslims are only allowed to practice their religion in the privacy of their own homes. Emirates & Oman are slightly better, but even they have double standards for Muslims vs everyone else.

    429. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much disagree - ignoring the problem only works if a problem is going to solve itself. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

      Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.

      I may not be the brightest bulb on the planet, but from what I see, my opinions of Islam and Islamic states would be greatly swayed were I to see effort on the part of Islamic leaders to cleanse their mosques and neighborhoods of radicals. Instead, I hear the opposite - CAIR is embraced by our leadership, the media is pushed to censor themselves, isolationist Islamic communities are popping up all around, and the Islamic nation-states generally cheer these awful events on. Ignoring them only gives them power. They aren't just some little kids trying to get attention - they're out there trying to change the world.

      Please, pretty please, can we get some serious push from the Islamic community to help fight these guys, and some serious media attention around it?

    430. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Discussed Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey & Egypt above. Algeria & Tunisia until recently kept their Jihadis in a straitjacket, but after the recent 'Arab Spring' uprisings, Tunisia & Libya have become Islamic states, and Jews have fled the former. Morocco is barely stable, due to the control their royalty has over the population, or else, they too would have experienced an Arab Spring like uprising

    431. Re: islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What about Buddhism? Which Buddhist terrorists can you name? Steve Jobs?

    432. Re:islam by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Precisely! And not just that - the 'moderate' and other Muslims who are there provide the basis that Jihadis use to claim any territory for themselves. For instance, CAIR is a Hamas front, and has Jihadi links. Who do they claim to represent? American Muslims, that's who. So given that the general American Muslim population hasn't repudiated them, they are very much guilty of enabling an atmosphere from which we get people like Tsarnaev and so many others since 9/11

    433. Re:islam by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry I missed that. Maybe it was because no one said one religion was better than another, just that "The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated."

      You do understand that if I hate apples or say something discouraging about them, it doesn't mean I automatically like bananas or any other fruit you are thinking of right? Just like religion, you can have some or one or a lot that cause you to say something bad about it but that doesn't mean you think any other one is good. It just means you said something about one of them.

    434. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come it's always us versus radical Islam, instead of Islam versus radical Islam? Until that relationship changes dramatically, I don't fault anyone for taking the easy way out, especially when it comes to life and liberty.

      I am also certainly happy to firewall off the whole of Indonesia from my servers, even though there's a chance that some potentially paying customers may try to hit from there - with all the fraud and attacks coming from those ip blocks it's just never going to be worth it. Call me racist, call me an idiot, whatever - I don't give a shit. I only have so much time on this planet, my employer only has so much money to spend on staff and resources, it's simply not worth trying to work around it.

    435. Re:islam by porjo · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, Islam (or some members/sections of it) today is where the Christian/Catholic religion was many centuries ago

      The problem is that the fundamentals of both religions are so polar opposite-in terms of their agenda. Fundamentalist Christianity is what the disciples of Christ practised: love, peace, putting others needs first. Yes, there's a major emphasis on evangelism, but not at the point of a sword!! Nowhere did Jesus encourage violence, in fact he actively spoke against it. The Catholic church of centuries ago departed radically from that.

      On the other hand, the fundamentals of Islam is to subdue and opress by violent means if necessary - it's clearly laid out in the Quaran. Moderate Muslims who don't subscribe to that are actually moving further away from the fundamentals of their religion. The 'radical' teachers are not teaching some strange new philosophy, they are simply taking the Quaran at face value.

    436. Re:islam by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Are there those who twist that message? Absolutely. Just don't call them Christians.

      Would you give the same courtesy to Muslims?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    437. Re:islam by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >*all of which were surrounded by religious fervour.* //

      That's absolute crap. The IRA weren't battling to spread Christianity in any way shape or form; some of them may have been Christians however. The Provisional IRA are probably the group most associated with terrorist activity (at least in my lifetime), the Manchester Bombings are probably the event that I most remember from "the troubles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

      If you can find any reference to them considering they were waging a war to promote Christianity I'd be very interested; they're mostly associated with Marxism from what I can tell. Here's the Papal view on what you're calling Catholic terrorism (if it contradicts the pope it ain't [Roman] Catholic):

      >'9. Secondly, peace cannot be established by violence, peace can never flourish in a climate of terror, intimidation and death. It is Jesus himself who said : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt 26 :52). This is the word of God, and it commands this generation of violent men to desist from hatred and violence and to repent.'

      >'I join my voice today to the voice of Paul VI and my other predecessors, to the voices of your religious leaders, to the voices of all men and women of reason, and I proclaim, with the conviction of my faith in Christ and with an awareness of my mission, that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society. I pray with you that the moral sense and Christian conviction of Irish men and women may never become obscured and blunted by the lie of violence, that nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder, that the spiral of violence may never be given the distinction of unavoidable logic or necessary retaliation. Let us remember that the word remains for ever : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword". '

      (Pope John Paul II, 1979 visit to Ireland, http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat...)

    438. Re:islam by Tetetrasaurus · · Score: 0

      First deepest post!

    439. Re:islam by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's Islam per se that's the problem here.

      I do. Killing as a response to mocking is a tradition that was established by the prophet Muhammad himself. He ordered the killings of several poets for doing nothing else than writing negative poems about himself. Anyone who does not see how this is the reason for the killings today, considering that Muhammad is seen within islam as the most perfect human being ever and an example to follow for all muslims, is either delusional or extremely naive.

    440. Re:islam by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Religion today, and long into the past, is a business. None of this crap is done for free. The 'ideology' is a distraction from the financiers.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    441. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded up? Almost everything in this post is a reference to the Old Testament, which while recognized as historical by Christians, is absolutely not recognized as *commandments* by Christians - that is what separates the Christians and the Jews (who have additional scriptures and other interpretations of some of this as well and are today also very peaceful).

      Your one New Testament reference is labeled by yourself as "Infidels and Gays should die", yet it says nothing of the sort, there is no commandment in there to kill "infidels and gays", as this is actually taken out of context and is a reference to a letter from Paul to Christian followers in Rome. The life and death phrased in this chapter is a direct reference to passage into heaven (life) and eternity in hell (death). This is an extremely common theme throughout the New Testament. That's also why, even though the language may seem strong when taken out of context, it didn't start a war between the Christians and the Romans (other than issues with the persecution by the Romans) - turn the other cheek, and let God suffer them their fates. This is quite different than the Koran. Also, in this case Paul is trying to convince these other Christians that God will be suffering them their fates, and "this is why". The Roman empire as it was at the time didn't end up lasting too much longer now did it?

      That is why Christians generally believe their religion is inherently peaceful. That isn't to say Christianity hasn't been used to grievous ends by some of those in power at various times, however in any case I can think of, nation-state leaders were behind the actions. The radical Islam problems we have now, on the other hand, appear to be "grass roots" as a community activist might say.

    442. Re:islam by porjo · · Score: 1

      That contrasts with Christian killers who most certainly killed in the name of their religion

      The military and political leaders conveniently used the defacto religion of their time to further their own selfish ambitions. Their underlings simply did what they were told. Nowhere does Jesus command his followers to kill or even use violence in his name. That contrasts starkly with what the prophet Mohammad taught, and that is where the real issue lies.

      The famous killers who have been athiests have not killed people in the name of atheism

      The difference being that a religion like Islam commands it, so the followers go out of their way to proclaim it. Somone acting from an athiestic worldview is doing so because that is the natural, logical conclusion they have come to: there is no God (noone to answer to) and life is essentially about survival of the fittest (My actions are only limited by how much power I have and what oppourtunities come my way).

    443. Re:islam by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      It's surprising how many Christians have never read the bible. Thanks for pointing it out to them.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    444. Re:islam by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Hitler was a catholic who hated Jews because of his belief system. That's quite a high score for Christians.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    445. Re:islam by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Also, name one islamic state that's a good place to live.

      The worst places on earth are all dominated by Muslims.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    446. Re:islam by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The factor you're missing is immigration (and also travel): if Iran dropped bombs on US suburbs because of alleged Christian terrorists, it would be incredibly stupid of Iran to then allow large number of US Christians to immigrate into their country, or even to travel in it. Yet that's exactly what western countries are doing.

      It's like going and murdering someone's kid (but in a way that the police can't pin it on you, even though the victim's family knows full well you did it), and then inviting him to come live in your house. What kind of idiot does that?

    447. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You repeat yourself. That's all heresy is and forever shall be.

    448. Re:islam by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      The same reasoning holds for capitalism as worshiped by free market fundamentalists. There's a supernatural agency (the invisible hand of the market), both to suspends disbelief about actual human behaviour (who form cartels and monopolies to dismantle competition) and to explain why things aren't working as expected (all evil is caused by regulations). Checks all of the boxes as well.

    449. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am in Singapore, where everybody stays beside each other, no special separate districts for different races and religions.

      Our Northern neighbor, Malaysia, a Muslim country, has various people staying together as well. Although they tend to be problematic about people converting away from Islam.

    450. Re:islam by Calavar · · Score: 1

      The crusades were over 1000 years ago, and that is still the best example of Christian church-led violence you can come up with?, yet multiple fatalities of innocent people from islamic terrorist attacks are taking place every day.

      I can come up with plenty of examples of modern day violence. (Skip to the end of this post if you want to see them.) You probably never heard of any of these incidents, but that's simply because western media doesn't report on them. (Not because of some kind of religious bias on the part of the media, but because violence by Christians is typically directed towards backwater groups that westerners have never heard of, and that doesn't make for a good news story.)

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not teach denial of basic human rights and prevention of education of certain groups of people (because of their gender, race or beliefs).

      Are you fucking kidding me? What about persecution of Jews? Have you ever heard of the Spanish inquisition? And are we just going to pretend that Christian persecution of homosexuals never happened? There are still Christian mobs lynching homosexuals in countries like Nigeria and Ghana. Hatred for both of these groups can be found all over the New Testament. See Matthew 23:31-33 and Romans 1:24-32

      Unlike islam, Christianity does not have radical priests that brainwash believers into becoming human bombs

      You're right. Instead of telling their followers to tie bombs to themselves, they told them to tie bombs to innocent civilians and then threaten to kill those civilians' families unless they detonated the bombs in specific locations. Look up "proxy bombs" and the "Claudy bombings."

      As promised, a compilation of modern day acts of Christian terrorism:

      • The National Liberation Front of Tripura, a group closely associated with the Baptist church of the Indian region of Tripura has killed hundreds of Hindus since being founded in 1989. The group has stated multiple times that one of its main goals is to convert all residents of Tripura to Christinanity using any means necessary, including force.
      • The National Socialist Council of Nagaland, also based in India, has raped and killed Hindus and Pagans since its formation in 1980. They also aim to forcibly convert their province to Christianity.
      • The anti-Balaka are a Christian militia in the Central African Republic that has engaged in large-scale ethnic cleansing of Muslims as recently as 2014.
      • In 1995, Orthodox and Catholic Christians working with the Bosnian Serb Army (a separatist group) killed more than 8,000 unarmed Muslim civilians.
      • In the 1990s, the Army of God, an extremist Christian organization based in the US, bombed multiple abortion clinics, murdered multiple abortion doctors, and wounded over 100 spectators at the 1996 Olympics.
    451. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      None of our business. We shouldn't be backing either side.

      Secondary, don't go overboard fighting terrorism. How do you suppose people here would react if Iran were dropping bombs in US suburbs to kill Christian terrorists, killing many civilians in the process? What if they invaded France for no good reason and sparked civil unrest killing 100,000+? I think terrorism drops signficantly if we simply stop fighting it so hard for a few years.

      Maybe a strawman, maybe a slippery slope, but you seem to imply that there exist a substantial percentage of the Islamic population who do not condone acts of terrorist. I believe you are wrong. My own personal anecdote: somebody interviewing a very middle class accountant in Indonesia with his two kids and wife the day after 9/11 saying "The US had it coming.. YAY!" I don't hear the so-called 'moderate' Muslims protesting ANYTHING.

      Cluster bomb the fuck out of them. All of them. If they want a war of civilizations, I say we give it to them. They're going to lose.

      Thirdly, less support for Middle East dictators who happen to be pro-West. People don't like those who aid their suppressors.

      Totally agree, and while we're fracking take part of the proceeds and plow it into alternative energy infrastructure.

      Fourth, don't freak out about every foreign government that is identifiably Islamic. Muslim's aren't dumb, they notice the freakout the west has whenever they hear the word Islam, if you're treating someone like your enemy they're likely to do the same in reverse.

      That's there problem, not ours. Kill one of ours, we kill 10,000 of yours. Attempt to develop nuclear weapons and we bring back the neutron bomb, one of the only arguably 'usable' nukes. Iran would be my first example. I have no problem with genocide or enslaving a population that would behead my neighbor because he's homosexual or tell my daughters that they're chattel.

      Somebody in another thread said that the term 'appeasement' wreaked of parody; I disagree and would like to punch him in the face, as would many who died in World War II. You are an appeaser. In addition, Europe is already a lost cause, with the possible exception of the Dutch, who appear to have the only set of balls in the area.

      I'm not worried, when the time comes, people like me with military experience and technology backgrounds will save your pussy asses, but more importantly our own asses as well. You can thank us then. When the first shopping mall is shot up by a Muslim, the rest will leave because they will know.. THE WILL KNOW.. that all of them and their children are marked. Unlike the EU, these pieces of human excrement will not be tolerated.

    452. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But some do kill abortion providers in the name of Jesus, though I understand your distinction with "uncontested innocents" to some degree...

    453. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the religion of peace....

      Peace through annihilation.

    454. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not christian either, but your argument sucks too.

      There are plenty of other comments refuting your comparisons with biblical citations. But your wrongness is of a larger scale than scriptural ignorance. Though I wonder if you consider military chaplains radical for counseling our American violence bringers? When I say 'our' I am assuming you are an American, who knows many christians. It is pretty clear that's who you identify with. I think a comparison of the relative proportion of 'scum' who adhere to a particular religion who be quite interesting, how confident would you be that today's christian population would come out ahead?

      They are killing many of us, and we are killing many more of them. Religion is rarely the reason for the conflict, but is a nice propaganda tool. One that seems more effective in I wonder how a comparison between their islam religion and our mass media religion would compare on the promotion of real violence around the world?

    455. Re:islam by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "being Christian is defined by your actions, not your label."

      I'm not knowledgeable on all Christian derivatives but certainly Catholics and probably all other that accept baptism as the way to enter the club *do* get to be Christians by their label, not their actions.

    456. Re:islam by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Often in this world, because "standing up to islamist extremest" often devolves into "persecuting any muslims we can find, to get revenge for what the extremists did"

      yeah, no it doesn't and people need to stop spreading this idea. people aren't by in large stupid. we know the difference between them muslim kid on our son's soccer team and the fundamentalists murdering people in paris. we can draw that distinction. can you?

      That's why it's critical to understand that the distinction to make is terrorist/non-terrorist, and not muslim/non-muslim.

      "A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      and there's your problem. 38% of muslims think terror is justified (rarely?). how many people is 38% of muslims? the muslim faith needs to adjust itself and start ostracizing people with such attitudes.

    457. Re:islam by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Most Christians don't believe that. They believe that Christianity is defined by faith, and faith alone."

      _sola fide_ is about God's pardon, not Christianity belonging. That's accrued by baptism.

    458. Re:islam by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we don't follow this stuff literally, it's all from the bronze age/iron age. It's the 21st century, you don't follow any book from another age blindly. Islam was formed in the dark ages, and yes they lived in the dark ages too, they just pillaged learning and thinkers from other cultures.

    459. Re:islam by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      'original' text? of a bible?

      there is no such thing. it was designed by committee.

      if you think 'god' had anything to do with it, you could not be more wrong.

      its 100% man-made. and so, there is no 'original word of god'. simply because, there is no god.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    460. Re:islam by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      israel was attacked in 67. they fought back and won. they got extra land. that's how LIFE fucking works, dude! its how its ALWAYS worked.

      anyone who suggests the winner 'turns over the land they won' to the losers, I want to see the US return all the land it stole from the native indians, first.

      THEN we can talk about israel returning land it won fair and square in a war they did not want or start.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    461. Re:islam by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      "And in fact the criminals who murdered these 12 people are not followers of Islam though they claim to do it in the name of Islam."

      BULLSHIT. That's a simple "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's a religion, they follow the religion. An extremist, homicidal version, but it's still Islam. Just like Anders Behring Breivik is Christian. Their versions of these religions are sick and twisted, but they're still Islam and Christianity, respectively. All it takes to be a member of a religion is to claim belief, and (for some) to go through an initiation ceremony (eg baptism).

      --
      Not a sentence!
    462. Re:islam by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I think you've swapped cause and effect there. The cause is being uncivilized bastards, the effect is the belief in Islam.

      Civilization changed Christianity. That's why it's not the same as it was 500 years ago.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    463. Re:islam by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Fucking-A. This.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    464. Re:islam by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      You know, if these asshole muslims quit cutting people fucking heads off and just yelled at them and video taped them letting their woman drive, or whatever bat shit crazy muslim law was being broken, I'd not be concerned about them.

      Comparing people yelling outside a clinic to asshat zealots that strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in a crowd of people in a hotel, or shooting up folks that draw harmless cartoons is just beyond stupid. There is NO comparison.

      Seriously...lets tally up over the past say 2-5 years the number of atrocities that the peace loving muslims have enacted upon folks around the world vs the anti-abortionists and see how that scorecard looks at the end.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    465. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Pretty much all of them except the ones that are Arab.

      Sorry buddy, you are living in your fantasy world. Do you read ISIS news? Even they boast about their killing - don't act as though your head is buried in sand like an ostrich.

      If I recollect .. non-islamic people are killed by islam-labled-societies .. from the East to the west ..

      Indonesia/Malaysia - law unequally discriminating non-islam followers.

      Bangladesh - reasonably neutral, though society is non-islam-follower phopic, I don't here mob-execution though

      Pakistan - if you are non-islamic (or a sect ahmedi who is constitutionaly declared as non-islam), you are easy prey to blasphamy-death by your neigbhor , if they love to take away your posessions. Just google for "non-islamic people thrown into burning kiln" - Even Nazis killed with tolerable-gas-poison, They are worse than Nazi.

      Iran - If you can be accused of "preaching" your religion you are dead.

      Iraq - If you are non-muslim easy prey, also other sect gets killed. Less people were dying when Sadam was in power.

      Syria - ISIS, death to non-muslim.

      Jordan - Nothing I ve hered.

      Saudi Arabia - There are different criminal-laws that govern Non-Saudi. A saudi can rape you and then accuse you of raping you, and get yourself killed. A saudi can marry you (Quebecois) take your children there, and you will never see them. A saudi treats even same sect muslim from other country as a lowly being - despite them being the stupidest guys with lot of money.

      Egypt ... Copitcs became minority after arab invasion, and there you can die if you are non-islamic, current millitary govt keeps it relativly safe for non-islam people.

      Morocco/Tunisia - looks more tolerant towards non-islam people..

      Libya - non-islam is in trouble/death.

      -------------------- Non islamic countries where muslims were killed in 2014 ? ----
      List down... also list if that country-criminal-law distinguishies between islamist vs others.

    466. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I KNOW YOUR DAMNED WORDS!

      lamness filter is lame
      lamness filter is lame
      lamness filter is lame

    467. Re:islam by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Most Christians don't believe that. They believe that Christianity is defined by faith, and faith alone. Actions have nothing to do with it.

      Which is why, if the perpetrators of this attack declared their undying faith in the freedom of press and speech and the sanctity of human life, we should take them at their word. Actions have nothing to do with faith, after all.

      --

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

    468. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Romani Ite Domum

      Why not see better examples like non-christians that did not persecute others in history. Why should islam followers quote history of christians and say i'm like christian, follow other religions that did not persecute, and say "Islam will not persecute like xyz religion role model".

      Islam has a prophet that "spread religion with sword", unlike other religions figures that preached/spread by non-violent means.

    469. Re:islam by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> I am assuming you are an American, who knows many christians.

      Wrong on both counts there friend.

    470. Re:islam by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, capitalism doesn't require a banking system.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    471. Re:islam by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Are they still doing it?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    472. Re:islam by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      "If it quacks like a duck"... Let's take a look at Communism: prophets, check. Scripture, check. Clergy, check. Portraits of "saints" everywhere, check. Proselytism, check. Future paradise, check (earthly). Religious hymns, check. Hate towards other religions, check. Prosecution of heretics, check. Rituals and ceremonies, check. Just compare 1st May processions to ones Catholics do on Corpus Christi.

      Same with Adolf and Mao. Not that different from deification of Roman emperors...

      Heck, a good part of modern religiology classifies Juche as a proper religion.

      It doesn't matter that adherents claim it's not a religion. It's all about dogma.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    473. Re:islam by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I'm in favor of understanding terrorists and other people as a general skill in interpersonal relationships, as well as foreign policy.

      However, do you understand that they were upset about a cartoon? It wasn't about support for dictators, it wasn't bombs in Syrian suburbs, it was a cartoon. Please at least show you understand that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    474. Re:islam by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      All your comments are about a few examples of isolated loony supposedly christian radical groups who's actions aren't even close to being in line with the teachings of the religion itself (New testament).

      ISIS (or whatever they currently call themselves) and most other radical islamic groups like Boku Haram are operating on a whole different scale to everything you mentioned, and you either know it and you're trolling, or you are VERY badly informed.

      Your 4th example is probably the biggest in terms of deaths but is factually way off; The Bosnian Serb army was entirely responsible for the killings, not the christian church. You can blame Radovan Karadzic for dictatorial powermongering, radical nationalism and ethnic cleansing far more than you can legitimately claim the siege of Sarajevo had anything to do with promoting Christianity.

      Not the Pope or any other legitimate Christian leader ever preaches death or even bad treatment of muslims or anyone else, yet many if not most imams publically support jihad: literally the armed struggle against, and therefore death of, everyone who isn't muslim. In fact the qu'ran makes it clear that jihad is actually the duty of all good muslims.
      Thats one major key difference.
      Whilst I agree that Christianity has its own issues and a violent past, Your implication that Christianity as a religion even comes close to being as fucked-up as islam is, especially these days, is completely unfounded.

    475. Re:islam by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> False, False, false, false

      Really? so either the crusades did not occur 1k years ago, or multiple fatalities of innocent people from islamic terrorist attacks are not happening daily? ...and you are seriously claiming that Christianity instructs the killing of people if they insult jesus and/or Christianity does not teach us to forgive? ..and that Christianity teaches the denial of basic human rights?

      Perhaps you'd share where in the new testament is all this?

      dude the old testament bible hasn't hardly been relevant let alone dictated the tenets of modern Christianity for over 2000 years. Its what Jesus was all about.

    476. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I'm in favor of understanding terrorists and other people as a general skill in interpersonal relationships, as well as foreign policy.

      However, do you understand that they were upset about a cartoon? It wasn't about support for dictators, it wasn't bombs in Syrian suburbs, it was a cartoon. Please at least show you understand that.

      I'm fully understanding of that, which is why none of my points involve infringing our freedom of speech.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    477. Re:islam by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      And in fact the criminals who murdered these 12 people are not followers of Islam though they claim to do it in the name of Islam.

      Sorry, but have you read the Koran? Those criminals did exactly what ordered, with the relevant commandment repeated umpteen times. These murders were no less inspired by the word of Muhammed than, say, the murder of Asma bint Marwan.

      You're probably mistaking the Koran for the Bible. The latter contains so many contradictions that you can't be a Christian without a steaming pile of doublethink and cherry-picking, which makes most of us think the Koran suffers from the same. It does not: rather than a series of books written over ~700 years, it's the product of careful editing by a small team of scribes overseen by one man. It bears nearly no contradictions, basically just permissibility of alcohol (16:67 vs 2:216), whether angels are the same as jinn, and some literary devices. And even those are governed by an "upgrade clause".

      So, while a majority of people with islamic cultural roots are good people, that's not thanks to Koran but despite of it. They are sinners who fail to obey the scripture, while the murderers are true believers.

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

      >Well let's see... the IRA/English's battle over Northern Ireland (largely drawn across Catholic/Protestant religious lines)

      No don't kid yourself most of them were not religious at all, that just happened to be one of the differences between the groups because of their origins, it was more about their attitude to English rule. I met a guy who was a driver for IRA killers, it had nothing to do with god or religious pedantry it was without a doubt a gang like fight for territory with the most active players being criminals as much as they were terrorists. Sure certain political figures used those guys for their dirty work but the killers were rarely the type that cared about intellectual questions of politics and religion, they just enjoyed the brutality, and the occasional rewards for doing that dirty work.

      This fad going around at the moment, to link radial Islam with nominally Christian groups who practised terrorism, is just a ploy to legitimize them and it is actually based on false claims and misunderstanding about the true nature of the individuals involved.

    479. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to reiterate ONE MORE TIME: you're leaving it to chance.

    480. Re:islam by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you cannot kill as a Christian, because 1. you can't kill

      Uhm, killing is not only condoned but even required (at the pain of death!) in a good number of cases. You're relying on a bad translation, the Hebrew text has "thou shalt not murder".

      And Yahveh "himself" ordered genocides of multiple whole tribes.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    481. Re:islam by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      not to go all no true scotsman on you, but I would say that catholics have been a force for peace in the last 6 years (i know pretty well the post-war era, not as much the pre-war II era).

    482. Re:islam by Sun · · Score: 1

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Personally, I don't think it is as big a part in solving that problem as you seem to think. My personal take on this is that it is a very convenient straw man to use ("we're only doing this to help the poor Palestinians", with no limitation on what "this" is). History suggests that very few Muslim and Arab leaders care much about the actual Palestinians. Should that problem magically (because no other option seems likely at this point) disappear, Muslims will just pick (manufacture?) another one.

      Regardless, I'm curious. How do you get peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? I'd like you to try to limit your suggestions to things that had not been tried before (as those, obviously, do not work).

      Also, saying that solving one problem is a key factor in solving another means that if the first is impossible, so is the other.

      Shachar

    483. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a wheel barrel? For someone who puts so much faith in the differences between words, you're playing pretty fast and loose.

    484. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Explain the Crusades, if Christians are so brotherly."

      Religion of peace made killing trips to southeast europe for a couple of centuries. The peacefull religion of christianity got tired of turning the other cheek and slapped back. That's the crusades for you in a nutshell.

    485. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The big one is a peaceful resolution to Israel/Palestine.

      Personally, I don't think it is as big a part in solving that problem as you seem to think. My personal take on this is that it is a very convenient straw man to use ("we're only doing this to help the poor Palestinians", with no limitation on what "this" is). History suggests that very few Muslim and Arab leaders care much about the actual Palestinians. Should that problem magically (because no other option seems likely at this point) disappear, Muslims will just pick (manufacture?) another one.

      Regardless, I'm curious. How do you get peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? I'd like you to try to limit your suggestions to things that had not been tried before (as those, obviously, do not work).

      Also, saying that solving one problem is a key factor in solving another means that if the first is impossible, so is the other.

      Shachar

      There's obviously something that's inflaming tensions and I think it's a cop-out to just blame religion. Religion plays a part but is generally dominated by practical realities.

      As for my solution I laid out my thoughts in another comment.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    486. Re:islam by Sun · · Score: 1

      You're missing a ton of background, but this is increasingly getting off topic.

      If you like to know why that would not work (as well as some good reasons why Israel cannot do that, at least not in the literal way you wrote it), email me (your email is not public).

      Shachar

    487. Re:islam by quantaman · · Score: 1

      It's slashdot everything is massively oversimplified :) But I think the basic idea (West is enabling Israel to make some very bad decisions) is accurate.

      Either way getting further into it is a bad idea for my time management.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    488. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if you're atheist.

    489. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the argument was that it was nothing specific to Islam, not that anyone should accept it. And please stop dividing people into groups and start acknoledging that everyone is an induvidual who is responsible for his/her own actions (and no-one else's).

    490. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turkey is not an Islamist nation. It is a secular country where a majority of residents are muslims.

    491. Re:islam by ogma · · Score: 1

      Well let's see... the IRA/English's battle over Northern Ireland (largely drawn across Catholic/Protestant religious lines) cease fire was just over 20 years ago. And the final peace accord was only 17 years ago. That marked the end of 30 years of assassinations, murders, bombings, and attacks all of which were surrounded by religious fervor.

      I realise that's the narrative that many people believe around the world, but it's also a complete misunderstanding of Irish history. The warring parties *were* divided across religious lines, but that was an historical accident. English colonists happened to be protestant, native Irish happened to be Catholic. They were fighting over many things - land, self-determination, equal rights, republicanism, loyalism, etc. - but religion was *not* one of them. To the best of my knowledge (I lived in Ireland during the troubles, as I do now) no-one was killed during the troubles over a theological difference of opinion. Their religious identities became convenient labels, but nobody was under any illusion that the conflict was actually about religion.

    492. Re:islam by Mjlner · · Score: 1

      How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

      Ahem.... Six million? Killed by Christians because of the very sin of being non-Christian.

      --
      Lemon curry???
    493. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the first comment that makes a lot of sense

    494. Re:islam by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Whatever problems Marxism has, requiring belief in the supernatural is not one of them.

      Counter-revolutionaries and capitalists did, in fact, exist.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    495. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Yeah...but right now in this day in age, I'm not terribly concerned about all the Baptists running around beheading people, running around as suicide bombers, and shooting up news offices and killing innocent people."

      Sure, but head to Africa and see how the LRA treat you. Go to Ireland and see what the IRA think of you. Head to Mexico and see how well the Knights Templars treat you.

      The problem is that Islamic terrorism gets the headlines because it's currently the biggest threat in most Western nations that we currently consume our news from.

      But the fact remains that there are large parts of the world where violence of equal levels of atrocity are coming from each and every religion.

      The common thing isn't religion but simply the cycles of violence in those areas. The butcherings we see by Christians in parts of Africa and Mexico are at least as bad as anything ISIS pulls off but the Western media has largely gotten bored of Mexico and Africa now. Horrible people are horrible people, and sure, being able to give them a convenient label might be useful for venting anger and hate towards the problem, but it does nothing to recognise and resolve the underlying problem itself.

    496. Re:islam by colinwb · · Score: 1

      My enemy's enemy is my friend is a dangerous quarter-truth. Worse is acting on a principle that anyone who isn't with us is against us.

    497. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      Not even close to true. Places like ancient Persia are famous for their contribution to science, mathematics and so forth.

    498. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know about that. This guy makes kind of a good point:

      http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...

      And really, even the whole ISIS/Iraq/Syria thing doesn't hold much of a finger up to the Rwanda genocide which was primarily orchestrated by Christians.

      Hell, in the Yugoslav wars Christian Orthodox Serbs massacred 10,000 Bosniak muslims in one sitting at Srebrenica.

    499. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      You could twist the argument in exactly the same way by claiming ISIS' battle is as much about wanting their own sovereign state as it is about religion so it's silly to say it's a religious battle.

      But really all you're doing is making excuses for your own misguided prejudices, which, given your firm Christian views probably isn't too surprising that you'd suggest that in one case it wasn't about religion when Christianity is involved but in another it obviously is.

      Like it or not, the IRA's campaign was primarily one of Catholics against Protestants. It had no more and no less of a religious angle to it over a sovereignty angle as ISIS currently does. Fact is battles for sovereignty and religion often go hand in hand, but you can't excuse it in one case and not in another just to try and suit your anti-Islamic prejudice.

    500. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      "It's a common mistake to look at the IRA murders, bombing, etc in a religious light - as you said, the sides were largely drawn across Catholic/Protestant lines, but what the IRA did was never in the name of religion, it was in the name of nationalism."

      You can make the exact same argument about the varying factions including ISIS in Syria right now, so I'm not really sure what your point is unless you're implying we should apply double standards against Muslim conflicts as compared to Christian conflicts.

    501. Re:islam by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.

      But they do! Everywhere except, apparently, in stories reported by the mainstream media. Gotta keep fear alive.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    502. Re:islam by colinwb · · Score: 1

      North Korea isn't exactly a paradise, and doesn't have much (in fact zero?) domination by Muslims. We can only imagine what Marx would have written about a "communist" system that gives the appearance of being a hereditary monarchy.

      In 1994 there was a genocide in Rwanda: the religious affiliations in Rwanda in 2002 were about 57% Roman Catholic, 26% Protestant, 11% Seventh-day Adventist, 5% Muslim, 1% other, according to this Wikipedia article, which also has information on the role of Christian religions in the genocide: "... Timothy Longman has provided the most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide in Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda, published in 2010. Longman argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing. ..." Read the article for a more nuanced fuller picture. Actually, these articles on the Rwandan Genocide, Religion in Rwanda, and Islam in Rwanda suggest that Islam bad, Christianity now at least not so bad (I paraphrase what I understand to be the general thrust of some posts on this) is an oversimplification.

      And that's before we start thinking about the Chinese Communist "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution", the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia, the Korean civil war, and the two World Wars (which were arguably two European Civil Wars, the second of which ended less than 70 years ago), including the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe. And, as I understand it, Islam played no part in the Sri Lankan civil war.

      I'm tempted to say that religions/ideologies don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't believe that either.

    503. Re:islam by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      what I do know is that Christians who use violence to spread their views can not be considered Christians

      And normal, moderate Muslims would say that ISIL and the rest can not be considered Muslims.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    504. Re:islam by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Ah.... good points.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    505. Re:islam by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      you mean the crusades against the very much christian russians and czech? and since when were livonian peasants conquerors who's land had to be retaken?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    506. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with quoting anything in the old testament is that Jesus ushered in a new covenant. This is why Christians are allowed to eat pork.

    507. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think an important point needs to be made here, as people keep bringing up the Crusades for some reason.

      The "Christians" of the time of the Crusades are nothing like the Christians of today. The most important distinction is literacy. Almost none of them had ever read any part of the Bible - they were completely illiterate. Almost everyone was a serf, and the standing armies were mostly made up of such serfs. The only thing they knew about the Bible, about God, they had been told by their local church leaders. Make no mistake about it - back in the dark ages, the church leadership was strongly political.

      This changed dramatically with Luther's religious revolution (as well as several others that were going on at the same time), mostly brought about by technology - the printing press. For the first time, religious texts were freely available, and as people became more literate (it didn't take everybody, just enough to read to others) and copies of the Bible became available for people to read, the political strength of the church began to wither away.

      By political strength, I naturally mean ability to write history and unilaterally determine dogma. I would estimate that the general populations of the European area of the time were much more like the population of North Korea today, rather than anything resembling current Western civilization. Their "Christianity" of the time would have been much the same.

      My point being - the Crusades were in the past fought by a bunch of illiterate people who were likely for the most part lied to and never had any opportunity to know much truth beyond the end of a sword. Imagine if they would have had the kind of literacy and free press that we have today, how much different would those wars have been.

    508. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the hell should israel compromise?
      The partition plan of 1948 may not have been particularly fair to the arabs but it was the arabs who outright rejected it and went to war. They lost and as a result of a war of aggression they wound up with less territory than they would have had through peace. <spoiler>you may see this repeating later in the story </spoiler>

      It's also worth noting at this point that while you may think that the west bank and gaza became "Palestine" they didnt. The west back became part of jordan, and gaza was taken over by egypt.
      Now we move on to 1967. The arabs, led by egypt, decided that they'd kick israel around a bit. The closed the Straits of Tiran, blocking access to israeli ports. This is an act of war btw. They we posturing about invading israel and we on full mobilisation. So israel did the only sane thing it could and stuck a preemptive blow. In six days they beat egypt, syria, jordan, lebanon and iraq. In doing so they took more arab territory. To the victor goes the spoils.
      Israel did not go to war to gain territory. The went to war to preserve their very existance. They took no land from the palistinians in this case. They took land from jordan and egypt.

      There's no real point in going into the next war aside from noting the arabs started that one too.

    509. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. So it is your opinion that Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the many self-proclaimed / autonomous Muslim areas in sub-Saharan Africa are all religiously free societies?

    510. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Introduction of Christianity no, but introduction of Socialism has a perfect record of totally obliterating cities, states and countries even decades after they fall out of grace, and the lands desolated by this plague still show no sign of recovery. See slashdot beta.

    511. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you called?
      Ah, you're under the mistaken belief that the problems in ireland are caused by religion. They arent. It's tribal.
      There's the protestant tribe, and the roman catholic tribe. The tensions between them have nothing to do with a belief in transubstantiation or heretical rejection of papal infallibility.
      It's them verses us. nothing more, nothing less.

      From a Protestant Brit who married a Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church and lets said wife take our kid to the same church every sunday cos it means i get a lie in.
      BUT I WILL BE GODDAMNED IF I'M GOING TO LET HER LEARN IRISH. seriously. they're taking the piss with the accents and fadas. And their tendency to try to smuggle extra letters in their names is an insult to civilized peoples everywhere. And don't get me started on their spelling. bh is not pronouced V. stupid catholics.

    512. Re:islam by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      Yea nice reference but this isn't helping the situation that is happening in France d34thm0nk3y

    513. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copied my post from above

      you called?
      Ah, you're under the mistaken belief that the problems in ireland are caused by religion. They arent. It's tribal.
      There's the protestant tribe, and the roman catholic tribe. The tensions between them have nothing to do with a belief in transubstantiation or heretical rejection of papal infallibility.
      It's them verses us. nothing more, nothing less.

      From a Protestant Brit who married a Roman Catholic in a Roman Catholic church and lets said wife take our kid to the same church every sunday cos it means i get a lie in.
      BUT I WILL BE GODDAMNED IF I'M GOING TO LET HER LEARN IRISH. seriously. they're taking the piss with the accents and fadas. And their tendency to try to smuggle extra letters in their names is an insult to civilized peoples everywhere. And don't get me started on their spelling. bh is not pronouced V. stupid catholics.

    514. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There was the Christian fundamentalist in Oslo that shot up that kid's camp, leaving 77 dead because he felt that immigrants were eroding their "Christian Values""

      Except he's an agnostic, but reading and listening is too hard for "journalists".

      Ireland was never about religion.

      Antibalaka is a REACTION and is...a form of aggressive self defence. They are NOT missionarys.

      Is the rest more truthful?

    515. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....missionaries...

    516. Re:islam by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      A first-order approximation of historical or cosmological laws doesn't count as religion. Everyone has to resort to such predicates in order to focus. The terms "philosophy" or "perspective" or "ideology" apply, not "religion".

    517. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism killed more than 100.000.000 million of people, is the worst ideology ever invented by man.

      That's because the atheism you profess is actually cultural marxism. Marxism considers itself the only true religion, but it doesn't call itself one so that it conveniently evades the persecution to which all other religions get subjected. Their maxim is that (all other) religions must be separated from state, so that they are barred from dictate the policies of a country. Thus, the only "official" religion able to specify policies in the country is marxism, as defined by the ruling socialist party. All other forms of "socialism" are heretic, not really socialist, and must be purged from the country.

      It's known that China's official executions are 99.95% of all executions done worldwide each year.
      Regarding religious freedom, the URSS and China have been their worst enemies, conquering other countries with expansionist and imperialist practices and destroying their religion and culture, because socialism thinks everybody must be "equal", work "equal", dress "equal", and think "equal". It's the worst form of dictatorship, as it controls every minute of your private life and how you should act.

      Unlike religions who are based on clear heuristics, marxism is just a bunch of crazy, arbitrary and contradictory rules that constantly change, so there's no defined path to follow and thus "progress" is logically impossible. What atheists (marxists) call "progress" is merely what pushes their current agenda, even if that "progress" is actually a major cultural, ecology, or technology setback, which is what usually happens as marxists are scientifically illiterate postmodernists. They were pushing for single-parent families a few years ago and it backfired spectacularly, they were pushing for Keynes and created the biggest bubble of debt in history, they demonize rote memorization as an education tool when it's known to be the one that gets the best results, and instead make up "new pedagogies" and implement on large scale without testing it beforehand with absolutely disastrous results.

      History is not something to preserve and study to gain wisdom and get closer to the truth and path of God, but a propaganda tool that can be manipulated and changed at will to support the current agenda of the Party. Nazis magically stop being socialists when they become enemies of Stalin, for example. That's why sites like Wikipedia are not trustful as primary sources of information, as it's the perfect example of the total lack of respect towards history that socialists/atheists profess, as long as there's something that can be manipulated to further their agenda, they will "change" history, so that for example Alan Turing becomes a savior and martyr persecuted by homophobes when in fact he was a rapist paederast who committed suicide after he got caught and before the story went public.

    518. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I got you now.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    519. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      how is anything i said considered bigotry? I found a flaw in the argument based on the very first point, If the first point is bad, theres a good chance that the rest are bad as well.

      If someone comes in kills my family and takes my home. Im well within my right to kill the people who moved into my house

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    520. Re:islam by oobayly · · Score: 1

      You can make the exact same argument about the varying factions including ISIS in Syria right now, so I'm not really sure what your point is unless you're implying we should apply double standards against Muslim conflicts as compared to Christian conflicts.

      Yes, you could make the same argument about ISIS in Syria, but that's not what I was saying. Yesterday was about factions, it was about radical muslims killing infidels. What I'm saying is that when there are men killing journalists in cold blood and executing policemen in the street, while being heard to say "Allahu Akbar" and "we have avenged the prophet", then I think it's pretty safe to say that what happened in Paris yesterday was done in the name of religion.

      In fact, to support my comment that "the problem we have is that it's always pretty easy to find a Imam in the UK condoning and rationalising the methods used..." I present to you Anjem Choudary on Paris shooting: 'Muslims do not believe in freedom of expression':

      He continues: “Why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity of its citizens at risk?”

    521. Re:islam by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Damn it, that should have read

      Yesterday was not about factions

    522. Re:islam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the people also voted hitler into power, how well did that work out.....

      A person is smart, people are stupid

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    523. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus said he was here to uphold the old laws. Quit making shit up!

    524. Re:islam by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The military and political leaders conveniently used the defacto religion of their time to further their own selfish ambitions. Their underlings simply did what they were told. Nowhere does Jesus command his followers to kill or even use violence in his name. That contrasts starkly with what the prophet Mohammad taught, and that is where the real issue lies.

      I'm talking about individuals rather than nations. When someone goes and bombs an abortion clinic, for example, they typically do it because they think they are serving their god, they are doing it for their religion. The Islamists in Paris were following similar beliefs. I'm not trying to argue whether or not the official doctrine of any religion includes killing people. Self-proclaimed members of both Christianity and Islam would both argue for and against their religion allowing them to kill people under certain circumstances, I'm not trying to get into that debate.

      The difference being that a religion like Islam commands it

      I see that you, on the other hand, are in fact trying to have that debate. I'm not your opponent for that debate though, there are plenty of web pages that give arguments on both sides.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    525. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All three of those countries have experienced recent waves of 'official' hatred against Christians and Jews. The populations of those who hew to minority religions has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years in exactly those countries.

    526. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      You can't protect or refuse to criticize muslim extremists merely because they share your faith. When non-muslims have legitimate grievances against muslim extremists then moderate muslims need to side with the non-muslims.

      But they do! Everywhere except, apparently, in stories reported by the mainstream media. Gotta keep fear alive.

      First of all the attack on the Pakistani schools would not count since the victims were muslim. the non-muslim v muslim element is not present.

      Second I'm not referring to PR statements to the western media and other western venues that the extremists will never read or care about.. I'm talking about the local papers explaining that some attack was wrong and counter to islam, that extremist justifications and teachings are counter to islam; I'm talking about the local imams preaching these things in the local mosques; etc. That is where extremism used to be stopped.

    527. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many abortion clinics have been bombed in the name of Christ?

    528. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of these countries don't accept conversion from Islam, at least Egypt. It seems to me that only two "Arab" countries permit it: Lebanon and Israel.

    529. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I am saying exactly that. As in a vegetarian who is eating meat is not a vegetarian. Maybe he reverts to a veg diet later, ok.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    530. Re:islam by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It should, perhaps, be noted that your "examples" come from a pre-Christian era.

      Useful hint: the Old Testament is God's arrangement with his Chosen People (the Jews). The New Testament is god's arrangement on, well, anyone who wants to accept it. Islam (and I say this as a complete amateur, since I've not spent too much time reading the Koran, much less studying it (and my Koran, being an English translation, is more or less disavowed by Muslims everywhere)) is the editorial commentary when it was realized (by God, Muhammed, whomever) that everyone else had mangled the message....

      Which, among other things, means that the Ten Commandments are not binding on Christians except insofar as they choose to be bound by them. They're bound by that NEW covenant that the four Gospels talk about.

      Oh, and note that the commentaries after the Four Gospels are just that - commentary. They're not binding.

      And, in case you're wondering, I got this PoV from a Sunday School Teacher many years ago....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    531. Re:islam by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      On the spectrum of Capitalism -> Communism, pensions line up behind socialism. When a capitalistic society adopts social programs, they loose a little of their capitalism and slide a little towards socialism.

      And for anyone keeping score, the U.S. is NOT a pure capitalistic society, and never has been. We live under "modified capitalism", which is itself a euphemism for "not as socialistic as France."

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    532. Re:islam by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > And in fact the criminals who murdered these 12 people are not followers of Islam though they claim to do it in the name of Islam. And the vast majority of those who are Muslim in the world do not condone nor celebrate these kind of murders done in the name of Islam, and really do want, as most of us do, peace.

      Does it mean that we can't draw some correlation between such acts, and a specific religion, maybe in an attempt to understand and avoid the causes? Statistics could do a good job, going through potential explanatory variables and assessing the predictive power of each.

      In other words, who the hell cares if these terrorists weren't "proper" muslims, and what's your measure anyway for how good an adherent is? All aspects around this specific massacre relate to religious (muslim) issues.

      And please don't make the rookie mistake of equating murders. There will always be social outcasts and nuts who load their weapons and go for the neighboring school, subway etc. But let's not sweep together religious fundamentalist terrorism with gangster & maffia crime with nutcase shootings. .....

      Reading through a number of comments from many of us, it seems like a commonality among the overly PC, relativizing crowd is to bend the truth by highlighting irrelevant details and glossing over relevant ones. It's pretty transparent. There is a systemic link between a specific religion and the erosion of Western values. Even if the terrorist events are just the fuel or the casus belli for the process. This opinion does not make me a hater of Islam or Muslim people, or prejudiced. From a reasoning perspective: I'm OK with an Arabic person next to me on the subway because him being Arabic does not make him significantly more likely to commit a terrorist act there and then (or ever). There is a roughly equal, incredibly tiny chance that the guy (whether Arabic or Caucasian) next to me is crazy or fundamentalist or on a revenge. BUT this does not mean that we can't detect pattern in the data, and lawmaking everywhere might be able to reduce incidence rates by, for example, not allowing all kinds of sometimes militant teachings in the odd mosques in European cities. Btw. I appreciate a lot about Middle Eastern culture and most people I got to know from that region.

    533. Re:islam by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Never mind, a PC apologist will bring up whatever centuries outdated or otherwise irrelevant point just to be righteous, pretentious and deserving of his Moral High Ground and transcendent liberalism.

    534. Re:islam by khallow · · Score: 1

      There's a supernatural agency (the invisible hand of the market)

      The dynamics are quite visible. The "invisible hand" is not that invisible.

    535. Re:islam by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > I am all about being correct. And in this case, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity is, if you judge it according to the respective holy book.

      Irrelevant even if it were true which I don't think it is. A religion is more than some set of books. It is a social phenomenon with some correlated distribution of values. Things like women's rights and education (or lack thereof), acceptance of corporal punishment and stoning to death, or tolerance towards other religions (or its lack thereof), or the distribution of moderate vs extremist fundamentalists who are ready to kill and die for their cause (fat tail distribution). It is in this neutral, objective, practical light that you can safely say that from the viewpoint of Western civilization, Islam is a more violent religion than Christianty, without risking your holy PC-ness status.

      > it was the US that initiated a coup
      > US friendly dictator
      > Ayatollah Khomeini
      > armament through the US
      > has been destabilized by US
      > cement US influence

      Blah blah irrelevant points from a moral high ground wannabe who doesn't mind to consequently live in a permanent conflict zone that Western Europe may become.
      For it is a terrorist act in France, committed against a French newspaper's stuff, by muslims living in France, killing French Caucasians and Muslims in the process, in the name of Allah. Or are you a violence apologist for whom having suffered collective injustice is a good reason to give a license for killing anyone and everyone they feel like, because it's against their values? What if hiding women behind veils is against my values, can we relativize away my violent revenge then, or would you (in this hypothetical case) call me a terrorist or racist? Only Caucasians can be racist?

    536. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that was how many years ago? 500+? The Catholic church and it's beliefs have greatly changed since. The way I see it, Islam (or some members/sections of it) today is where the Christian/Catholic religion was many centuries ago was. Trying to force their beliefs on others and wanting to kill those that don't accept.

      Acutally it was happening here in the US until the late 1800s. Ask any Native American. Actually the taking of Native American children from their parents and sending them to church run Boarding Schools went on up the the 1960s. Yes forcinng their beliefs on others that did not want to accept. Ever wonder why people from Latian America are all Catholic? Well it wasn't so long ago if you didn't convert you got "cleansed" (killed) Matter of fact it is sill Catholic law. Maybe not still praticed but its still ok with the church to cleanse a heathren.

      Native America
      Fighting terrorism since 1492

    537. Re:islam by Optali · · Score: 1

      Well, Anders Breivik wasn't a muslim, right ?

      I still have to hear somebody say "Christianism, the Religion of Peace"

      And neither your US native Hutaree, KKK and abortion doctor killers are Muslims, yet I am not hearing a single voice condemning Christianims, while it certainly deserves it.

      There is not one single Religion of Peace, not a single one. It took only one fucking Christian to kill 6 time as many people as 3 fucking muslims, and it was here in Europe. Just imagine what they can do in your country. You can mostly spot a muslim, but who spots a Christian? Who suspected a blond guy in a land of blondes?

      Now everybody is screaming loud against the whole Islam, yet not a single voice is raised when the butchers are the followers of this other piece of crap religion they call Christianism.

      But do you know what pisses me of more? That many of these motherfucking right wing nuts who masturbate to Anders Breivik are now airing voices condemning the Paris shootings were 12 members of a leftist publication were shot, yes, leftist, the same that this same Christian fuckers are always more than willing to execute themselves, in the same way they do, in the same way they attack and execute personal of abortion clinics, blow up US government buildings (does Oklahoma ring a bell?).

      Fuck all religions, at least the three based in these piece of shit books they call Torah, Bible and Quran. Fuck them. Fuck Jesus, Fuck Mohammed and Fuck Moses.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    538. Re:islam by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> You can make the exact same argument about the varying factions including ISIS

      I disagree. ISIS's entire objective is to set up an ISLAMIC state. The IRA weren't ever trying to set up a catholic state, just an independent one.

    539. Re:islam by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      Capitalism in the classic sense relies on faith that the "invisible hand" of the free market will promote competition ... which obviously it does not, without regulation to prevent monopolies from taking over.

    540. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Capitalism requires faith in private ownership of the means of production. Consequently, it requires faith on private property in general, and that is not a natural concept (as in, it requires a society to meaningfully exist).

    541. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Arab leaders don't care much about Palestine. But your average Arab (or, more broadly speaking, Muslim) certainly does, in a very genuine way. If you remove the reason for them to care, you remove one of the biggest trump cards that the leaders use to goad the masses into war.

    542. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as "offopic" on Slashdot.

    543. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Islam is more violent than Christianity in that Islam has a larger number of standing commandments (i.e. that are not considered in any way invalidated, superseded etc in mainstream Islam, and which are impossible to invalidate without abandoning core Islamic precepts such as infallibility of the Prophets). Christianity was easier to defang because most of the messy OT stuff is directly contradicted by at least some of NT stuff (while also supported by some other NT stuff; but you can just bring up the contradictions), and so gradually a consensus emerged that NT has superseded OT in all respects when it comes to teaching of morality or way of life, which is the mainstream Christian position today. If Islam has anything like that, it would be much easier to deal with it, but unfortunately they do not.

    544. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not to support OP's argument as a whole, but Persia was arguably one of the civilizations "pillaged learning and thinkers" by Islam (in a very similar way to how Romans "pillaged" Greece) - their achievements predate Islam, and after Islam came there, its advances in science and tech were largely founded on pre-Islamic Persian tradition.

    545. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You're right to correct him about Turkey, but wrong about both Malaysia and Indonesia. Malaysia has Islam as a state religion; Indonesia states generic monotheism. Both have a bunch of laws giving Muslims preferential status, or discriminating against non-Muslims. Laws, some on federal and some on provincial levels, exist in both countries criminalizing things such as apostasy and blasphemy.

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

      Turkey is pretty much the only Muslim majority country in the world that has remained truly secular for a long time (and even they are seem to be falling now... hopefully they still have some Kemalists with balls in their army to step in soon).

      The only other examples I'm aware off are Central Asian countries that are ex-Soviet republics - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan - but they haven't existed for long enough to make any conclusions, and most of them are undergoing Islamization. Tajikistan, for example, has already had a civil war between Islamic fundamentalists and the rest back in 90s. Others are not quite so bad, but getting bad fast enough, except possibly for Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan in particular looks promising because they're modelling Turkey in many respects.

    546. Re:islam by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Was probably true back in Arafat's days. Is probably less true now.

    547. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under ISIS, he gets a chance to combine the two, and die on his knees.

    548. Re:islam by weblolek · · Score: 1

      The simplest way put atom weapon on Earth. Kill all life on, and will be piece forever.

    549. Re:islam by weblolek · · Score: 1

      Religion it is the strongest drug. People will always kill others with God name on the mouth.

    550. Re:islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has its prophet, Marx. It has its bible, the little red book.

      You are probably refering to Mao's little red book.

      Come back after reading Das Kapital (4 volumes, thousands of pages), perhaps you will know then what you're talking about.

      I'm not a Marxist, but saying Marxism is a religion is nonsense.

    551. Re:islam by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      Of course they made some advances, mostly however they did "borrow" from other cultures (0 from Hindu culture etc.) and like below says there were pre-islam advances. My main point was that we don't follow rules from the bronze/iron/dark/middle ages because they're totally inappropriate today. If they can't work out which bits are totally wrong for modern society (not hard), then islam need their own "Vatican Two" re-write with rules for today. They can keep 95% of it and chop out the barbaric/stupid/intolerant/slaving parts.

    552. Re:islam by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      First of all the attack on the Pakistani schools would not count since the victims were muslim.

      I'm floored. Something like 90% of victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslim. Attacking non-Muslims is the relatively rare case. What you're saying is that criticising the vast majority of heinous acts by Muslim extremists doesn't count as criticising Muslim extremists. That makes no sense at all.

      But since you asked, there's plenty of criticism going around about this crime. Do you want links, or can you use Google?

      I'm talking about the local papers explaining that some attack was wrong and counter to islam, that extremist justifications and teachings are counter to islam; I'm talking about the local imams preaching these things in the local mosques; etc.

      What research did you do to verify that this isn't happening? Did you read some local papers, attend Friday prayers in some of these local mosques?

      Having said that, do remember that groups like ISIS and the Taliban are something akin to organised crime or an occupying force in places where they control. Much of the resistance is underground because it has to be.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    553. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The IRA weren't ever trying to set up a catholic state, just an independent one."

      Of course they were, in fact, Northern Ireland today is grossly at odds with the rest of the UK on a number of laws precisely to appease the IRA as part of the peace plan. For example in Northern Ireland it's illegal to have an abortion even if you were raped and this is wholly to satisfy the IRA's Catholic pro-life dogma.

    554. Re:islam by Xest · · Score: 1

      Personally I think there's two ways of looking at it, I think you can either believe that religion is the cause, or you can believe it's the excuse.

      I think there are good arguments either way and so I'm not about to disagree with your viewpoint. I do however still sit on the fence on the issue and think it's worth considering that it may just be an excuse.

      Consider this, if religion is the cause of the problem, then how do we explain away the other 1 billion muslims that aren't engaging in any such terrorism and are living lives no less peaceful than that of your typical atheist?

      Another interesting example is that of Buddhists in Burma who have been massacring muslims Rohingyas in recent years. Buddhism teaches non-violence as one of it's core tenets and is often cited as the most peaceful religion known to man. If the teachings of a religion are relevant in determining what a person does or doesn't do then how do we explain this sort of situation given that these people have been preached non-violence to more so than pretty much any other group of people on earth?

      As an atheist I do have a negative view of religion, I think it's pointless and encourages poor thinking and ignorance. But I'm not wholly convinced that that poor thinking leads to terrorism. I think terrorism exists by itself as a result of people being poor and disenfranchised amongst other things, and terrorists just look for a cause to try and justify and excuse their actions.

    555. Re:islam by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      So much nuance needed here.

      It is easy to look at Islam and consider it to be the root of all evil. Quite frankly this strikes me as a clean cut case of confusing correlation with causality.

      Let me start by saying I do not condone violence of any kind, whether it's sectarian for any religion we know of or just plain assholery. So I don't condone the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Gaza or the invasion of Charlie Hebdo's premise in any way, shape or form. Too many innocent and civilian lives are squandered tragically by all of these actions. Whether it's Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the IRA, ETA, IDF or Rote Armee Fraktion, US Army or Halliburton that's engaging in violence, I don't care. It's all the same barbarism to me when civilians die.

      However, I do find myself at odds with the notion of freedom of speech. I'll illustrate by means of a small segway:

      Ha-Joon Chang, the Korean economist has once stated that there is no such thing as a free market. A free market has an unlimited amount of sellers, an unlimited amount of buyers and no regulations whatsoever. As soon as there's a discrepancy between the supply and demand side, like monopolies, cartels, monopsonies the market isn't truly "free".

      Then as soon as you regulate the market it isn't truly free. Now for those libertarians out there, or those "no-government is good government" folks on this forum: "Capitalism" as translated into free market doctrine really sucks at morality. Do you agree that child labour ought to be illegal? Are you against slavery? Do you think some oversight should exist as to the circumstances under which labour is performed? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you yourself do not believe in a "free" market.

      Similarly, my Constitution's Article 7 is colloquially called the Free Speech article, but really what it states is that Censorship is illegal as long as what you are saying, writing or broadcasting DOES NOT BREAK THE LAW. So the law says that hate-speech, slander and lastly "mis-representation of facts for commercial purposes" are all illegal.

      As such, you are totally free to think what you like, but you can't say what you like. By that token: Nobody batted an eye when the Dutch courts forbade an organisation that openly advocated pedophilia. In this case, the consensus is that "free speech" should not be so free, think of the children, etc. But as soon as we are looking at insulting religion, speech should be "free".

      Now if we look at the colonialist forces that shaped much of the Muslim world, all the way from Afghanistan to Syria, from Baghdad to Algiers, we should also get a notion of the socio-economic circumstances that arose after our collective (French, English, American and to a degree Belgian) intervention in those areas. And we can then safely conclude that those circumstances are highly conducive for violent crime: There is poverty, no rule of law, borders are haphazardly drawn across cultural and religious boundaries, and 19-35 year old males regularly have no prospect of procreating.

      Then quite a few people fled these colonial FUBARs, and settled in Europe. This is about 4.5% of Europe's population, and they have been marginalized, discriminated and even treated with violence. If you look at the amount of violent attacks on mosques in the last 12 years, the list is staggeringly large as compared to attacks on synagogues or papers such as Charlie Hebdo.

      So we are dealing with an impoverished population that has residual colonial trauma and is constantly being attacked from all angles, and then we wonder why violent excess enters the picture.

      This is a very long winded way of saying that as far as taking the piss at Muslims is concerned, White Privilege becomes part of the equation. We can mock the RC Church more freely, because we are the elite and it is an institute of our own making. However, when we mock Islam we need to be mindful of the socio-economic and power structure we created in which these people survive.

      It's akin to the difference between a black US citizen dropping the N-word vis a vis a white middle class male dropping the N-word. We need to be more cautious about viewing the whole picture if we are to solve radicalism in our societies.

    556. Re:islam by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      But then religion has already lost all meaning. It just doesn't realize it yet.

      I understand the need for some notion of spirituality because people can be freaked out by the prospect of a finite and largely meaningless life, so in order not to go insane I guess some of us need imaginary friends and a promise of an afterlife.

      However, in daily life neither my religious neighbors nor I do not ask god to charge our mobile phones. We use a charger that was built and engineered by mankind. Similarly, I don't need a god for morality either. Simple empathy will enable us to do the right thing. We can recognize suffering and decide to try and end or minimize it all by ourselves.

      I'd even go as far as to say that a morality that hinges on an external factor dictating it is weaker than a fully internalized and autonomous morality.

      Given that opening statement, there is no practical and discernible difference between a religion, dogma and ideology.

    557. Re: islam by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      "Capitalism" is really quite a useless term. It frames the discussion in terms of a dichotomy that does not exist in reality. The Americans have now even started equating Socialism with Communism and by proxy of that full fledged Marxism, and then turn around to oppose this with "Freedom" or a "Free Market".

      Now I have said this in another post, but there is no such thing as a free market. A free market has an unlimited amount of sellers, an unlimited amount of buyers and no regulations whatsoever. As soon as there's a discrepancy between the supply and demand side, like monopolies, cartels, monopsonies the market isn't truly "free".

      Then as soon as you regulate the market in any way, shape or form it isn't truly free. Now for those libertarians out there, or those "no-government is good government" folks on this forum: "Capitalism" as translated into free market doctrine really sucks at morality. Do you agree that child labour ought to be illegal? Are you against slavery? Do you think some oversight should exist as to the circumstances under which labour is performed? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you yourself do not believe in a "free" market.

      This means we can quit demonizing "Socialists" because of their alleged "anti-freedom" stance, and we can get on with having some constructive discussions on how we want to redistribute assets so as to maximize the welfare of the world population as a whole. Preferably based on fact rather than faintly religious notions.

      Now the notions of a "free market", the "trickle-down effect" and most importantly the "rational actor model" that have been put forth by the Chicago school of economics and their ilk have been proven to be wrong and ineffective countless times. It should become clear if you look at the state of the US today, actually. For reference I would point towards the collected works of Joseph Stiglitz and Ha-Joon Chang.

      Yet the public at large seems to want to keep paying lip service to these faulty theories and continues politicians, bankers and businessmen to act in accordance to that which is known to fuck up.

      If you are saying people act according to "mutual benefit" you are a proponent of the "rational actor model" I talked about earlier, and that notion is bunk. This is not only made clear by Kahneman et al, but if you delve into George Lakoff's work you'll see that even our definition of rational thought is somewhat fictionalized. Dan Gardner will allow you to see how there is nothing rational about our calculation of risk and Barry Schwartz and Dan Azriely have written volumes on how we are impacted by choices.

      To cut a long story short: Cognitive science has long proven that we wouldn't know what "mutual benefit" really is if it kicked us in the ass, which is illustrated by the ever narrowing of the definition of "rationality" in the rational actor model. So yes, the invisible hand as you define it is fictitious at best and completely religious at its worst.

      We need government and we need to make some moral decisions as to the kind of society we wish to live in, and enforce that notion through the rule of law, also where economic policy and redistribution of wealth are concerned.

    558. Re:islam by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Jesus asked if he wanted it healed, but the guy ignored him.

      Actually Luke records that Jesus does heal the ear (the other three gospels don't).

    559. Re:islam by weblolek · · Score: 1

      That different situations. 500 years ago catholic church try keep control under all people, Now Islamic terrorists are try to scare surrounding people and say all other religions: they must gone for ever.

    560. Re:islam by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      No. With no fiat currency, there's no real possibility to assemble large companies owned by lots of owners (that's capitalism per se). You are mixing the concepts of market economy with those of capitalism.

      Here's what Wikipedia has to say about capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.

      Here's what Merriam Webster has to say: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

      Here's what Yahoo! has to say: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

      Although all three sources allow for the existence of large companies and many owners, none of them require it. Therefore, capitalism doesn't require banking. Even if capitalism did require large companies and many owners, which it doesn't, those can exist without banking. And even if large companies and many owners did require banks, which they don't, banks don't require fiat currency. Furthermore, if I'm conflating the market with capitalism then so are Merriam Webster and Yahoo!. I think it much more likely that you are the one confused.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    561. Re:islam by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      ... and as we saw during the great depression, a significant percentage of elderly people would be dying in the street in poverty because a capitalistic society cares about profit, and nothing else. There's a number of things Marx wrote about that, while fervent fascists dismiss them as ridiculous, we can actually see them in society. Its like these complete idiots still suggesting that their trickle-down voodoo bullshit economics "should" works, when all we have to do is look at the last 30+ years to see not only it's an abject failure, but it creates far more problems than it was supposed to solve.

      So...you agree with what I wrote?

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    562. Re: islam by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 1

      Anarchy is a system in which trade, industry, the means of production, as well as security, politics, and basic rights are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.

      rsilvergun's original claim was that capitalism is anarchy. My claim was that some non-anarchys are capitalistic. Your counter-claim is that all anarchys are capitalisms. Your claim, even if it were true, doesn't refute mine. It's like saying that since all fish live in the water, everything that lives in the water is a fish. It ignores, for example, mollusks and anemones.

      ~Loyal

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
    563. Re:islam by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Sadly the "job" was never taken up properly, and Iraq was already a disaster in 2003, more so the following year with the battle of Fallujah and other events.
      Had the US sent 300,000 troops and not disbanded the Iraqi army immediately after "victory" things might have looked very different (even though I agree it'd have been even simpler to not invade)

    564. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I have said this in another post, but there is no such thing as a free market. A free market has an unlimited amount of sellers, an unlimited amount of buyers and no regulations whatsoever.

      Incorrect. There have been many free markets throughout history, and there are many free markets today, if one adopts a reasonable definition of what it means for a market to be free.

      If, however, you choose to come up with an unreasonable definition of what it means for a market to be free, then of course you will be able to show that no such animal exists.

      Think of it this way: there are many triangles / line segments / points in the world, but none of these objects exist in the real world in the manner defined by the mathematician. A line segment is infinitely thin as defined by a mathematician, but nothing real is infinitely thin. Does this mean line segments do not exist? Since triangles are made up of line segments, does this then mean triangles do not exist?

      The answer is: triangles do exist in a practical sense. The definitions from the mathematician's fantasy world are not directly applicable to the real world, and alternative definitions must be used.

      In short, the definitions used by the mathematician are useful for certain purposes, and not for others. The same applies to different ways to define what we mean by the phrase "free market".

      Don't mistake the model (or a model, often one of many possible models) for reality. It's one of the classic blunders in logic.

      Then as soon as you regulate the market in any way, shape or form it isn't truly free. Now for those libertarians out there, or those "no-government is good government" folks on this forum: "Capitalism" as translated into free market doctrine really sucks at morality. Do you agree that child labour ought to be illegal? Are you against slavery? Do you think some oversight should exist as to the circumstances under which labour is performed? If you answer yes to any of those questions, you yourself do not believe in a "free" market.

      Why is the the critics of capitalism always claim that regulation is not a part of it? This myth keeps coming up, over and over again. Adam Smith devoted a large number of pages in his seminal book on capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, to the need for regulation: freedom in the free market sense does not refer to the absence of regulation. We have a deeper understanding of many aspect of this today (e.g. we now understand a lot more about environmental issues than was possible in the past), but the Smith's basic ideas are sound given the limits of the science (social and physical) of his day.

      Any good introductory economics class (or book) will expose students to this fundamental distinction. It is amazing how many people don't understand this, and make all kinds of basic mistakes in their reasoning as a result. As a society, we really should require students take a year of economics to get a high school degree. You can't reason coherently about something you don't understand. You might as well try to reason about movement without a correct understanding of force, momentum, or energy (particularly the distinctions between how physics defines those terms, and how they are used in ordinary life).

      Note that Smith didn't invent the term capitalism -- Karl Marx did that. We shouldn't assign any particular significance to that with respect to the validity of Marx's thinking. Actually, Marx's economic analysis was largely erroneous: he jumped to a lot of incorrect conclusions because he was a sloppy researcher and was missing a lot of key data.

      Since your society has not educated you in this area, perhaps you might try reading the Wealth of Nations? Smith, incidentally, was a strong and influential advocate of universal education, hardly a position compatible with the notion that child labor is somehow part of capitalism. Take a look at Smith's book on morality, as well.

      You might also read a d

    565. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Baptism, "the way to enter the club"? I guess it was J. "I am the way" Christ.
      Baptism is more like the club's bumper sticker.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    566. Re:islam by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      The timetable and agreements for the US departure from Iraq were done by the Bush administration too. (not that I want to introduce some "partisanship" here, I believe there was a great continuity between the two administrations. Or maybe there were more important changes in policy following the 2006 US elections rather than the 2008 ones)

    567. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When's the last time you bought something? That piece of paper that says "20" in your hand isn't worth twenty dollars anymore, it's worth about five. I hear it's going to be worth a dollar in the future.

    568. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, why are ATMs still stocked with 20s? You can't buy anything with a hundred dollars. They should stick it with 100s, and increase the maximum daily limit to 1000, so you can actually buy something. Then the economy would start moving. Nobody has any money because of all the restrictions.

    569. Re: islam by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Your counter-claim is that all anarchys are capitalisms

      Read it again. My claim is that capitalism is a lot like anarchy. There are some important differences. If they're so similar that you didn't notice, well, that's kinda my point.

      But really, my main thrust is that in a capitalistic society you have to simply hope that the players are playing fair, and that there are plenty of ways for powerful people screw over the masses for profit.

    570. Re: islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like cliterectomies?

    571. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      It was left for the new administration to negotiate a status of forces agreement that was expected to include a residual force to be left behind. When the Iraqis initially said "no" to immunity for US troops the Obama administration essentially used that as an excuse to leave no forces at all. No serious effort was made to overcome this "no" to immunity. The Bush administration also received an initial "no" regarding immunity in its various agreement, however it increased its offer and the Iraqis agreed to immunity in those past agreements. The initial "no" is a bargaining tactic to get more out of a deal. The Obama administration wanted to be rid of Iraq completely, to them the initial "no" was the perfect excuse not a starting point for negotiations.

    572. Re:islam by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      Then you are being very small minded.

      Christianity was just the political vehicle for the message: Kill for me (subtext: and make me more powerful)
      It displays an overall truth that is as relevant today as it ever was.

      There have been many others:
      - "Religeon"
      - "Freedom"
      - "Justice"
      - "Communism"/"Socialism"
      - "War" on Drugs
      - "War" on Terror
      - Cold "War" (i.e. "War" on non-capitalists)
      - "Stability" of neighbouring nations
      - War on people of colour (does not matter which colour - including white)
      - etc...

      Why so many "quotes". Because in each and every case the use of the above concepts has been a complete and utter hypocrisy-filled farce. They have to be because their publicly stated aims and actual aims are so far apart.

      The much greater truth is that certainly sociopathic human beings love, nay need, to have other people debase themselves for their glorification and increase in power.

      This is bad enough although not surprising, but the REALLY sad truth is that there are many, many sheep-like creatures (sheeple) out there all to willing to follow along in a cult like fashion:
      - True believers
      - Sycophants
      - Other sociopaths playing the same game
      - Authoritarian followers.
      - The weak/desperate
      - The ignorant/disgruntled

      And of course the very, very stupid - a very very large category of people.

      This is how it has always been. This is how it is. This is how it will always be until humanity learns accept, embrace and then rise above its true nature.

      Peace.

    573. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the topic. That tolerance for extremist views that allows for attacks on the west and westerners is far more acceptable in modern times than historically more distant times (say 100 years ago). The criticism of the attack on the school in Pakistan does not counter this because the target was local not western. In the past criticism of the extremists was not so selective.

      The lack of criticism for pro-caliphate teachings is not restricted to areas under ISIS influence. That is the problem, not that people with an ISIS gun at their head remain silent.

      Furthermore the historical point stands that past generations (100+ years) repeatedly put down taliban-like isis-like "lets establish an caliphate" movements. The advocates of such groups were looked down upon. The views of such groups were pointed out to be heretical. Ex. Near the end of WW1 when one such group tried to exert power in newly liberated Damascus they were immediately driven from city hall, when they organized and attempted to revolt against the "moderates" they were put down by force. The various sheiks who assumed control and carried out these anti-caliphate actions openly stated that the caliphate advocates were unfit for any leadership roles because of their heresies and their inability to use logic in decision making. The sheiks had overwhelming public support for these anti-caliphate actions. This all occurred before British forces arrived, moderate muslims policed their own. The sheiks explained to westerners that the pro-caliphate extremists attempted mischief one or twice a century and were overwhelmingly rejected by the people as heretics and put down by local authorities before they made too much mischief. They expected the cycle to continue.

      However something has changed and the pro-caliphates are now tolerated or supported to a far larger degree.

    574. Re:islam by spitzig · · Score: 1

      I would mostly agree about your definition of religion, but I think it misses the mark. I'd say it's about "holy stuff". Maybe has supernatural beings. Some sort of organization.

      Marxism does have a belief in a higher order of the world. There is a belief about the "inevitability of history"-toward that economic system. The way they talk this about sounds like religion. It's a stretch to call it a religion, though.

    575. Re:islam by drnb · · Score: 1

      The President of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, made an interesting speech to a group of Imams supporting my position that moderate muslims in the region have not done enough.

      "I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move because this umma [community] is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost — and it is being lost by our own hands."
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

    576. Re:islam by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      First, the OP and GP set the groups- not me. However, I do not see how you can fail to have groups when the discussion is about two groups or people defined by their religion.

      And yes, the argument specifically was something to do with Islam. The GP said

      The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated.

      which the parent actually quoted. His reply was not a well constructed argument into why or how that was incorrect, but simply to show other groups do it to which raised my comment about how stupid it is to accept the atrocities of the present because they at one time happened in the past.

      Now, this next part sort of makes it appear as if you have your ears plugged and hands over your eyes.

      start acknoledging that everyone is an induvidual who is responsible for his/her own actions (and no-one else's)

      When those individuals claim to be acting on behalf of a group, when that group defines itself by the same sources as the hate the perpetrators used to justify their actions, when the overwhelming majority of others within the group fail to denounce the acts and instead cheer it on, it is safe to say it is more than a couple of crazy people acting out of turn.

      You may not like that, you may even need to look a little further than the two members of the group you personally know, but if you continue to ignore it, things will only get worse.

    577. Re:islam by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Baptism, "the way to enter the club"? I guess it was J. "I am the way" Christ."

      Well, you are wrong, then.

      "Baptism is more like the club's bumper sticker."

      No, it isn't.

      In the Catholic dogma, sacraments are so called "effective": they do exactly what they say -they are not just a sign of what happens but the way to make the thing to happen or the thing happening itself.

      And then, baptism is considered one of the three sacraments with "character", which means they imprint on the soul an indelible sign: you forcibly need to be baptised to become Christian, being no other way to become Christian, and once that you get baptised you can't be "debaptised": you'll be forever a Christian even in case of apostasy -you rebel of what you are but you can't stop being what you are.

    578. Re:islam by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "You're relying on a bad translation, the Hebrew text has "thou shalt not murder"."

      Those quotes imply your cite is literal.

      Good to know I can understand Hebrew... or else, your quote is not the literal Hebrew, right?

    579. Re:islam by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      "lo tirsah", if you want to go there. The Wikipedia article I linked to has an in-depth explanation.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    580. Re:islam by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Please don't lump all muslims into the terrorist bag....I know plenty friends and coworkers who are of muslims, none of them peddles their religion or endorses violent acts. The radicals are a minute minority, but they grab the headlines for destroying an entire religion.

    581. Re:islam by boule75 · · Score: 1
      Hi and thanks for the reply.

      Although none of those definitions explicitely implies a fiat currency would be necessary, I wonder how one would pracically conceive "corporately owned" means of production or "accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" with no fiat currency...

      One can conceive a market economy with no fiat currency, based on barter. Capitalism implies another scale, and a fiat currency allows for such a bigger scale to be achieved.

      I stand by my point.

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    582. Re:islam by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Consider this, if religion is the cause of the problem, then how do we explain away the other 1 billion muslims that aren't engaging in any such terrorism and are living lives no less peaceful than that of your typical atheist?

      That's a very valid point, and I look back at what I would have written a year ago and slightly worry that I'm becoming more reactionary than I should. Likewise, you mention buddhist led massacres - I'm aware of those and it has changed my view of it being a "completely" peaceful religion. The difference is that I've only heard non-buddhists referring to buddhism as a peaceful religion (though I admit I don't know any buddhists), whereas muslims regularly describe islam as a religion of peace. It's a bit like a country with "Democratic" in the name, it tends to mean they're not.

      I don't think we should blame 1 billion muslims for terrorism, but I do feel that the muslim communities in the West should realise that it's not just our problem, it's theirs too, and simply saying "they're fake muslims" will not make the issue go away. Muslim communities have to explain to those who are likely to become radicalised that freedom of expression is a core tenet of our society, and satire and criticism is not victimisation - everybody has to deal with it.

    583. Re:islam by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Maybe I've been living outside The Republic for a bit too long - I never knew that abortion in the North was different from the rest of the UK. However when I was growing up, I never thought of the IRA trying to set up a catholic state, to me it was always about independence. The fact NI's policy is different shouldn't really surprise me, catholic dogma still has a massive political sway in the [whole] island, but I do wonder if this case is more of a correlation versus causation issue.

    584. Re:islam by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      All consecration is standalone? or where does it originate from? Holy spirit, which is one with the Father and the "I am the way" Son.
      As for the eternal value of the consecration, it's likely that some baptized guy does not receive salvation, no matter how high you value that consecration.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    585. Re:islam by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "All consecration is standalone? or where does it originate from?"

      Sorry, my English seems not to be good enough, as I can't understand what you mean.

      "As for the eternal value of the consecration, it's likely that some baptized guy does not receive salvation"

      So what? I was answering about how someone becomes Catholic. Being Catholic is a necessary condition for salvation within their rules, but not sufficient condition.

    586. Re:islam by kencurry · · Score: 1

      Very good point you make here regarding old vs. new testament. I wish more christians got that point.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  2. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    will be funny when they get there and its 72 little boys

    also, why would anyone want 72 virgins???? gimme some women who know what they are doing!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  3. White House... by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is still trying to decide if it's Terrorism or Work Place Violence.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:White House... by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clearly these gunmen were victims, and we should not judge them for their actions. They should be rewarded for standing up against the big bad papers for printing cartoons.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:White House... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Before You Ask for a citation.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends... do the country of their origin have oil?

    4. Re:White House... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Check this response from CAIR back in 2005 to riots and violence in France.

      You can't make this shit up.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:White House... by alphatel · · Score: 2

      Also, we need to have more surveillance. This could have been prevented if we just allowed the government to track us all the time and listen to every conversation and see every email.

      Oh right, they already do that. Well, we need to invent something more invasive. Think of the Cartoonists!

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    6. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya... I bet they knew of it, but didn't do anything for fear of "Profiling" accusations.

    7. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to have more guns. The only thing that could have stopped a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Oh right, we already have plenty of guns. We need to invest in more! Think of the children at Newtown!

    8. Re:White House... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have plenty of guns...the French, no so much. Well, except for the Terrorists. They seem to have plenty of guns.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    9. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to be "workplace violence" because to admit otherwise will expose the rank hypocrisy of denying that the Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terrorism. Why does this matter? Well, for the administration, there can't be a record of terrorist attacks on US soil. For the wounded, it's a matter of being denied proper benefits. For the families of the deceased, it's stolen honor.

    10. Re:White House... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly these gunmen were victims, and we should not judge them for their actions. They should be rewarded for standing up against the big bad papers for printing cartoons.

      This is the real irony. The Prime Commandment of Islam is that You Shall not add gods to God.

      That's the reason why so much Islamic artwork is geometric or calligraphic and does not portray humans or animals. Because apparently Muslims are so weak against temptation that even the slightest glimpse of a female body will incite the faithful to uncontrollable lust and any picture or statue is a potential idol to be worshipped in place of Al-lah, The God. Even children's dolls have been made suspect, though the Prophet himself gives them a pass.

      When the Prophet is portrayed, it is with his features obscured or veiled.

      In other words, they treat him as a God.

      And a weak God at that. Any god who needs the violence of armed men against the unarmed to protect Him is a feeble god indeed.

      The Qur'an says it over and over again: God will be the judge. If you have faith that God is the all-wise, and all-powerful, you should have faith that He will take care of himself and his own and that no force on Earth can truly harm Him or those under His protection. And certainly not some silly pictures, whether ridiculing the faith or sympathizing with it. To assume the role of judge and punisher in the name of the one who can create and destroy whole worlds is an act of unspeakable arrogance. And that is true regardless of your religion.

    11. Re:White House... by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well said..

    12. Re:White House... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      We? Are you French? The French aren't allowed guns for the most part. They're sitting ducks for these guys.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    13. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One article that I read this morning had a witness account that said the first three police on scene decided to leave after seeing the perpetrators were armed. I sort of imagine even an American meter maid unholstering a sidearm and calling for backup.

    14. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also, we need to have more surveillance.

      Funny you should say that. They have, in fact, done just that. A couple weeks ago. On Christmas Eve!:

      http://news.softpedia.com/news/France-Passes-Online-Surveillance-Law-That-Makes-It-Legal-to-Spy-on-Internet-Users-468631.shtml

    15. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French police have plenty of guns.

      As for Americans with guns - not much use when someone is crashing jumbo jets into buildings, are they?

    16. Re:White House... by Livius · · Score: 1

      The one thing that genuinely makes me feel terrified is the fact that so many people actually think that way.

    17. Re:White House... by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Stand by for the captured gunman to be described "asian" "youths" by the BBC.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    18. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm Yeah, because more guns always solves the problem of gun violence.....?!

    19. Re:White House... by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Well, generally speaking, armed resistance is what usually stops active shooters. Not positive thinking.

    20. Re:White House... by drolli · · Score: 1

      Yes, and instead of a few well prepared terrrorists you have 100 times more stupid young people who accidentally have a gun in the wrong moment. I think that the number of students killed in average per year in the US by bullied and/or antisocial classmates exceeds 12.

    21. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nobody needs an AR15 with a 30 round magazine." "Why would anyone need a weapon that powerful?"

    22. Re:White House... by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Alright. Positive thinking it is.

    23. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fucking christ, you wonder why we call you gun nuts? The answer for you guys is always, they should have had a gun. Here some news for you, not all of us are pussies who need a piece to make them feel safer. The same pussies claiming you should carry a gun around all at times, are the same ones crying that all of the laws after 9-11 are an overreaction. Because buying a gun for protection in times where crime is at its all time lowest is not an overreaction? Admit it, you suck the dick of the NRA scaremongers the same way we sat back and let our government lie to us about laws being imposed after 9-11.

    24. Re:White House... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand the need to pray five times a day - it's like Allah wants his (her?) followers to check in with him (her?) every few hours or something. For Christians it's (supposed to be) once a week!

    25. Re:White House... by will_die · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of historic garbage.
      There are are couple of reason for the why there were laws against images of animals or human.
      The first was a law against idolatry.
      Then you have had an edict that came out later that drawings where a challenge to allah and that creation was unique to him. There is also some text dealing with artists breathing life into their creations and have to deal with that at the end days. This came out after mohammad death so you find artwork in building, books, statues,etc that was produced between that time.
      Some additional restriction have come out just because of tradition.

    26. Re:White House... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Ya..you rely on other people carrying guns to make you feel safe.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    27. Re:White House... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why there is never a shooting at the NRA conventions?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    28. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about this scenario for a moment:

      Every adult is legally obligated to own, understand the operation of and to carry a loaded firearm. How many people do you really think are going to commit crimes knowing that they'd have a hundred guns to their head before they were able to do anything?

    29. Re:White House... by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      I do not remember any local hero saving the day during the latest shootouts in the US.
      Besides, you might want to gather more information on the police response before talking too much.

    30. Re:White House... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I assumed you were just a Republican extremist. Thank you for the link...that is disturbing...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:White House... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Oh, the original plan was 50 times - mohammed negotiated w/ allah and brought it down to 5!

    32. Re:White House... by drolli · · Score: 1

      Because the opponents of the NRA are not nuts enough to go amok there?

    33. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually that article itself points to another article from the same publication reporting that President Obama called it a 'Terrorist Act'.

      Both articles were published BEFORE you posted your first comment. So when you said "The White House... ...is still trying to decide if it's Terrorism or Work Place Violence" you already knew it wasn't true.

    34. Re:White House... by Shompol · · Score: 1

      There was a time interval during which White House was hesitant to label it as terrorism, and that in itself is pretty astonishing. Where they contemplating to go with "Freedom Fighters"? "Firearms Incident"?

    35. Re:White House... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Oh man, do I agree with your eloquent words!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    36. Re:White House... by Teun · · Score: 1

      France has very little oil.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    37. Re:White House... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is the real irony. The Prime Commandment of Islam is that You Shall not add gods to God. That's the reason why so much Islamic artwork is geometric or calligraphic and does not portray humans or animals.

      You got this part right.

      > When the Prophet is portrayed, it is with his features obscured or veiled.

      +5 Insightful? Really? For the rest of your garbage?

  4. GODDAMMITT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...

  5. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by T.E.D. · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...or 72 clones of themselves.

  6. Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... waiting for absurd backlash!!

    1. Re:Muslims by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Exactly what kind of backlash would be absurd? Demanding that they tread pig blood on an image of the prophet before entering the country? The analogous didn't work out so well for Japan, but that doesn't make it inherently absurd.

      It appears (I'm not certain on this point) that Muslims don't consider their word to be sufficient to bind them to follow the laws of the country in which they live. What I'm not certain is that they made any such promise. (If we're talking about religious motivations and matters of honor and faith, then practical matters like prospect of physical punishment shouldn't signify.)

      It would be interesting to know whether the perpetrators were French citizens or not. The most radical Muslims I've encountered were native US citizens who had converted.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Issues involving free speech and threats to free speech is both a nerd issue and "news that matters." It also is a tech issue because improvements in communication have allowed people to get worked up all over the globe over things that are happening farther away that they wouldn't know about at all otherwise.

  8. Why be the terrorists enablers? by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    All anyone needs to know is that they shouted an Islamic religious oath. There is no need to pass along their actual message for them.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  9. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Inviting inflammatory discussion?

    If the first two threads are any indication....

    Now we can have the obligatory "Islam sucks" conversation, which will lead to the inevitable "all religion sucks" conversation, both of which are infinitely more enjoyable than simply leaving it at "Crazy people suck."

    There's a low but non-zero chance that we might actually have an insightful conversation about free speech and the costs thereof but I wouldn't hold my breath. One of the new civil rights is the right not to be offended by anything at anytime....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  10. re-post the cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the more reason to share and repost the cartoon across the internet.

    1. Re:re-post the cartoon by jomama717 · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    2. Re:re-post the cartoon by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Below, made a tentative post with 3 cartoons + translation, here. It's at the bottom so pretty much unseen.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:re-post the cartoon by jomama717 · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    4. Re:re-post the cartoon by lhbtubajon · · Score: 1

      Bastards

    5. Re:re-post the cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the best one is missing : one portraying Mohammed sobbing and saying "it's hard to be loved by dumbasses"
      Most relevant line ever.

    6. Re:re-post the cartoon by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      I was actually surprised the BBC posted a few.

    7. Re:re-post the cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say don't share or repost any more than normal. Because it shows a response. Terrorism, is, at one level, a troll. Don't feed the troll.

    8. Re:re-post the cartoon by unixisc · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to share and repost the cartoon across the internet.

      This, exactly!!! The best response to the murders of yesterday would be to publish those cartoons in ALL newspapers, as well as all over the Internet. Let there be so many targets for the Jihadis that they just don't know who to kill. And have shoot on sight orders for any Jihadis who tries taking 'revenge'.

  11. In the name of Allah ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They bombed the London Tube for Allah

    They bombed the Madrid train station for Allah

    They crashed planes into the World Trade Center at NYC and at the Pentagon for Allah

    A film director was murdered in the Netherlands for Allah

    Hostages had been killed in Sydney for Allah

    And now, at least 12 person have been cold-bloodedly slaughtered, in Paris, for Allah

    In the name of "Allah", who will be the next victim ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hopefully the bold tag?

    2. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody should have the right to practice a religion that tells you to kill infidels in the instruction manual.

      Islam needs to be banned worldwide. Fuck religion, but fuck Muslims even more.

    3. Re:In the name of Allah ! by schlachter · · Score: 1

      typical muslims. they seem happy to kill and murder anyone who insults them or their beliefs. they also seem so happy to die themselves. if only they would value life like the rest of the world.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    4. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe whoever uses the name of Allah in vain? Oops! That could be you and me!

    5. Re:In the name of Allah ! by JonWan · · Score: 1

      I think someone should shoot this Allah guy and put a stop to this crap.

    6. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't want to discount the threat of fundimentalist religious lunatics(of any stripe), nor would I stand in the way of reasonable efforts to put them down, but lets be real here, and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups.

      Whats even worse is that because you can project the actions of a few, who are organized into organizations for such, onto a much wider population, you'll ultimately fail at stopping terrorism because you wouldn't know where to start by fighting it. You'll also easily be thrown off track into attacking strawmen, and other no-value targets sparking wider conflict out of stupidity. Its not just that the "take them all" approach will invaribly kill innocents, its the fact is that its prohibits higher order thinking needed to form a more reasonable plan of attack with a higher chance of success.

      The end result of American culture disvaluing intellectualism at all levels is that we start loosing wars because we distrust anyone smart enough to proccess all but the most simple of stratagem. People like you would rather loose than be labeled a nerd for trying to strategize. This is the real cause for the fall of western civilization.

    7. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Allah's snackbar?

      *ducks*

    8. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Allah is a false construct of a deluded desert rat named Mohammad. Before Mohammad had his "dream" to start Islam, the Arabs had a god for every day of the year. "Allah" was the moon god. He co-opted "allah" and turned it into what it is now. Welcome to Islam (Arabic for "submit") -- that wonderful religion of turn or burn.

      Screw Islam, Allah, Mohammad and the ratty, flea-infested camel that he rode in on...

      Before the Europeans caved in and allowed the Islamists in, the EU was largely a civil place to live. No longer.

    9. Re:In the name of Allah ! by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      The day they fuck with the Chinese either in Africa or the mainland, Islam is toast. You think the PLC and CCP are very tolerant of Christianity or any other religion for that matter? No, not really. But if you use religion to fuck around with the Chinese officials, wha, look out! Those guys wouldn't hesitate to push forth a great "global purge" of radical Islamic pockets. ISIS for example would no doubt be marked dead all while giving diplomatic reason to ramp up their military industrial complex to flex power in the Pacific region.

      At least the nukes wouldn't be used on the West.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DEATH TO <b>
      LONG LIVE <strong>

      AND CAPS

    11. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill AND murder? That's not typical, that's EXCEPTIONAL!

    12. Re:In the name of Allah ! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      How much muslims were killed in the Middle east ? Iraq ? Afghanistan ? Chechnya ?

    13. Re:In the name of Allah ! by x0ra · · Score: 0

      typical christian as well... No one is truly morally better than the other...

    14. Re:In the name of Allah ! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      You INFIDEL !!! How dare you mock god ? [sic]

    15. Re:In the name of Allah ! by T.E.D. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the name of "Allah", who will be the next victim ?

      Almost certainly a Muslim. Islamists kill more Muslims that all their other victims combined.

      In fact... here's your answer: 38 poor saps killed today in Yemen who were minding their own business. All Muslims.

      And don't think you (or at least I) are particularly better in this regard by virtue of being Christian. Christian extremists don't seem to have any more trouble with marching into Christian church services right here in the USA and murdering people they have religious disputes with.

    16. Re: In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the Chinese don't engage in glibal military ventures. Their army is equipped and trained to fight internal dissent, and they haven't had much success fighting abroad, even on their own borders (hell, the Vietnamese even held them off). The Chinese would be more likely to adopt isolationism in the region attacked and focus on developing elsewhere.

    17. Re:In the name of Allah ! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      oh man that is great. i would LOVE to see that at a beach somewhere

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re: In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do not mix content and presentation. Thanks.

    19. Re:In the name of Allah ! by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      by other muslims??? more than by us

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re:In the name of Allah ! by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups.

      No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.

      You be real. One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence. Essentially two mainstream religions feature a scripture that preaches violence against its enemies, the Islamic and Jewish faiths. The latter does not have any prevailing interpretations advocating violence outside a small patch of land.

      Christianity has the New Testament which is supreme over the Old and is very consistent in its advocacy of nonviolence. Where violence is "called for" the specified actor is nearly always God who will be doing the damning, smiting, cutting down of, etc.. Its not up to the individual. Generally this pretty compatible with modern society. They up the road can hope as much as he likes God will strike me down, as long as he does take the initiative himself I am not especially concerned. One can be a practicing Christian using most main line interpretations without doing much direct harm to anyone else.

      Islam on the other hand host lots of prevailing interpretations that very much do require followers to attack others. Its not socially compatible at all. When polled you actually find quite a lot of support for groups like ISIS and Boko Haram from "western" faithful (ignorant teenagers anyway) even if they are not about to take up arms themselves.

      These might be "fringe groups" but its a pretty damn large fringe compared to the fringes of other major religions.

      I am not saying governments ought to step in an stop people from practicing their faith but I do think the rest of society might do well to express a little less religious tolerance and acceptance. A little social exclusion would probably lead lots of younger folks to drop it, and maybe after a generation or two most followers who remain won't bring it up often at all and will boil it down to a few annual excuses for naked commercialism.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    21. Re: In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately M. the prophet was a warlord who committed attrocities. And the holy books are filled with stuff that spews hate for Jews and Christians.
      Muslim as a people may be largely nice but Islam as a philosophy is really no better than Nazism.

    22. Re: In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear hear!

    23. Re:In the name of Allah ! by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      typical muslims. they seem happy to kill and murder anyone who insults them or their beliefs.

      And yet Europe is not in flames, despite the EU having around 20 million Muslims and lots of people who aren't shy to express their dislike of Islam. How odd. You'd almost think the perpetrators were simply homicidal maniacs who also happen to be Muslims.

      The purpose of these strikes is to provoke non-Muslims into reacting without thinking. If Muslims are integrated into modern Western society, then religious fanatics will have no power over them. That's why they're trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest. If you continue spouting absurd garbage like above, you're effectively supporting the terrorists.

      --

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

    24. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously dude, you cannot compare that kind of isolated incident with what is happening wherever you find muslim parasites.
      But you are right about muslims killing muslims. Same with africans killing africans. They just love doing it.

      I happened to watch some ISIL videos on youtube a few weeks ago. Christ, but those fuckers are mind numbingly cold blooded.

      All in the name of allah. Fuck him and his cock sucking prophet. mow-hammid or whatever the fuck his name is.

    25. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just who is going to enforce than ban You Americans you couldn't even handle one Muslim nation properly Pick your favorite from the list Of Iran, Iraq, Egypt or Syria with out leaving more of a mess than before you went in search of profit in the guise of spreading 'Freedom'.

      Handle them all? To Quote Nelson Muntz "HA HA!"

    26. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You compared a daily activity of Islam committed upon thousands of people (daily), that totals millions of dead people yearly, to a single event that killed one. Nice equivocation.

      By that measure, all the liberals associated with the billionaire child molester in Florida is proof that all liberals are child molesters. Actually thinking about it, there is much more evidence towards sexual predation of children by staunch liberals than there is of Christians of killing abortion doctors.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    27. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want to detract from you've written, because I respect it a lot, but it's "lose," not "loose." It's become a common spelling error over the last decade for some reason. It distracts from your main points--to talk about "loosing wars" implies starting them, or setting them in action.

      Anyway, I agree with what you're saying completely. I worry that a lot of Americans have lost sight of what's really been the driver of success, which is competitive, intelligent pragmatism. The government only becomes stronger by respecting individuals and treating them as such--it forces them to do better at what really matters, as opposed to taking the inefficient, easy way out (e.g., vacuuming all domestic communications in case there's 30 out of a billion that they might need some day--that doesn't advance anything in terms of decryption or forensics, it's just a matter of convenience, as strange as that sounds given the costs involved).

    28. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Allah is a false construct of a deluded desert rat named Mohammad.

      Don't forget about his paedophilia.

    29. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence. Essentially two mainstream religions feature a scripture that preaches violence against its enemies, the Islamic and Jewish faiths.

      So, where specifically is the violence by the Judes advocated?

    30. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I LOVE them! They are so nutty and crunchy!!

    31. Re:In the name of Allah ! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      A little social exclusion would probably lead lots of younger folks to drop it, and maybe after a generation or two most followers who remain won't bring it up often at all and will boil it down to a few annual excuses for naked commercialism.

      Maybe in the long term, but in the short term it would boost radicalization significantly by making mainstream Muslims feel isolated and "otherized," which is exactly what terrorist groups want BTW.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    32. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Microlith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.

      So basic logic was legit 20 years ago, but now it's invalid?

      One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence.

      You mean a subset of people who consider themselves to be part of a religion.

      I am not saying governments ought to step in an stop people from practicing their faith but I do think the rest of society might do well to express a little less religious tolerance and acceptance.

      But only against those you choose to be intolerant again. And when you are intolerant, you express blanket intolerance. Great way to make enemies and end up like Europe.

      A little social exclusion would probably lead lots of younger folks to drop it

      Or it would make them feel oppressed and alienated, leading them to lend an ear to the extremists. Oh wait, this is exactly what is happening. You are your own worst enemy.

    33. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Before the Europeans caved in and allowed the Islamists in, the EU was largely a civil place to live. No longer.

      Give or take few million gassings of jews, a few million Romani exterminations, a few million people massacred in colonial Europe, not to mention civilizational destabilization in those regions.

      Or maybe you really meant to say "largely a civil place to live in... if you were WASP, naturally"

    34. Re:In the name of Allah ! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Allah" was the moon god. He co-opted "allah" and turned it into what it is now.

      Bullshit.

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

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    35. Re:In the name of Allah ! by jomama717 · · Score: 1

      It's not the "handful of incidents, and fringe groups" that make me find islam to be a particularly repugnant religion, it's the millions of other muslims that are complicit in these acts of terrorism, or at the very least claim support or understanding for the groups that carry them out.

      I don't hold all muslims responsible for these acts, but I hold them responsible for taking a more active role in denouncing and preventing them. Show me an islamic neighborhood in Europe openly displaying the comics in public as a form of protest and I'll be pleasantly shocked. Fat f**king chance.

      BTW: "lose", "losing" - look into it.

      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    36. Re:In the name of Allah ! by scsirob · · Score: 1

      You mean a subset of people who consider themselves to be part of a religion.

      It's not the subset that are the problem. It is the 1.2 Billion followers that do NOT raise their voice against these atrocities that worry me. Muslims do not stand next to non-muslims to declare these subset as idiots, *that* is what worries me.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    37. Re:In the name of Allah ! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Do you mean like the guy in Calgary recently who killed eight people and then himself, the people in the US who go on shooting sprees, the drug gangs in Mexico, child rapists across the whole world, ....

    38. Re:In the name of Allah ! by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? Want me to compare atrocity to atrocity? Because I can go on all day with RECENT killings, mass murders, homicides, war crimes, etc. You're talking to someone sitting an easy drive from the ruins of the Murrah Building. There's no reason that couldn't happen again tomorrow.

      The real problem here is extremists. Period. When you start to think a dispute with another person is best solved by killing people, you become an instrument of evil, no matter where you sit yourself on Sunday morning.

      Violence against "those people" (whoever "those people" happens to be in your mind) is simple human nature, and it has to be fought everywhere, if you don't want the place you live in to start looking like the miserable places where it is currently running rampant.

    39. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, our governments are not killing and radicalizing enough muzzies. Our government incinerates the brown towel heads, and their little shit spwan by the thousands from Afghanistan to Iraq to Lebanon to Occupied Palestine, but damn like roaches they just keep popping up and taking our own. You think these fuggers are ISIS? Almost a century ago our forefathers, Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot drew the map for these uncivilized barbarians and told them to live in the boundaries like they are supposed to. Our forefathers knew how to keep these barbarians in check, not like they mealy mouthed bastards crying 'human rights!'. They're not human, which is why they are so easy to kill. Israel has it (partially) right, herd and kill those bastards. But now those assholes ISIS are just ripping OUR maps to pieces and drawing it the way they want to. WE told them where the maps are and they need to be taught a lesson. When we invaded Iraq in 03, we told the sunny muzzy bastards they cannot be part of the political process and the brown tards turn around and spit on our decree like rebellious teenagers and form ISIS. We should have nuked Iraq into glass ages ago. I mean they're living like dogs there now anyway so we would do them a favor. It seems the more of these brownies we kill, marginalize and exclude from the political process, the worse they get--so there is a case for nukes. Also, you have so many of these immigrant bastards running to our free society because they can't hack it in their war torn shithole. Again, if we just nuked them all, there would be no where for them to run to. So they killed our cartoonist for a joke, but the joke is on them because we incinerated hundreds of thousands of them over a joke! WMDs! These shitheads are so busy killing each other, half a million on each side over in Iraq/Iran during the 80's that they could not make a WMD if they wanted to! But that's only Iraq, I mean over in Iran our president told that fugging Shah to do what he had to do to put the people in check. All the Shah did was cook his citizens in torture chambers and use live rounds on protesters who wanted to elect their own government. But damn, they went off and put an Eye - a - tollah as their leader in '79 while holding our people hostage. That's why we gave chemical weapons to Iraq to use against the Iranians. That's why I laugh when our buddy Colin Powell said WMD's! I mean, we sold them the damn things! So we put the Iran and Iraq in a constant state of war and martial law so their "societies" could not go through a reform process. They couldn't make any WMD's even if they wanted to! As for the Palestinians, didn't Israel learn anything? You can't wall up a people and kick them like the dogs they are and not expect them to get bitten, not matter how weak and destitute the dog is. They should have used the final solution. That's the only way, really. I mean, Warsaw Ghetto! Hellooo! Notwithstanding the walking dead, dead people can't do an uprising. And Afghanistan, well...she-yit...As far as the 1800's our forefathers went in their to tame those bastards...but they are just too wild. The russkies went in there in the 70's to have a go, and we had fun using the turds as cannon fodder back then to take down the reds. I mean, better dead than red, right? We gave them all sorts of our goodies to take down the reds, trained 'em too. Reagan even declared a 'national afghanistan day', can you believe it? He said those brown 'tards reminded him of the American founding forefathers. Well first, the're not even white so I'm not so sure what ol granpa's been smoking when he said that. But he was a holee-wood actor...So these wild dogs are busy killing each other after the reds leave, which is cool, and then they start aiming at us. So forget history, we have to get in there now and tame those wild dogs. But the fact is, they are STILL too damn wild and they don't want us there. I mean, yeah, it looks like Barrack HUSSEIN Obama (ohhh, don't get me started...) watched the terminator too many times and offed a few Afghanis

    40. Re:In the name of Allah ! by brownshoe · · Score: 1

      I don't want to discount the threat of fundamentalist religious lunatics(of any stripe), nor would I stand in the way of reasonable efforts to put them down, but lets be real here, and not blame an entire religion of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups....

      I agree with the general point you are trying to make in indiscriminately blaming a large group of people for the actions of a few. However, spending a significant amount of time in Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain and others over the past 27 years I have become intimately familiar with the ideology that you describe as "the fringe" which is much more mainstream than many westerners believe even if only a small fraction of those people act on their beliefs in the form of terrorist acts. In western society, we have different opinions left or right of the political spectrum. Even so, western societies largely agree on basic moral standards of what constitutes a "civilized society" which I would argue are simply orthogonal to moral "standards" in mainstream Muslim communities.

    41. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not enough.

    42. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if these were "typical muslims" then we'd have a lot more bombings. these are "typical muslims" like the Hutari were "typical christians" or any and every school shooter is a "typical gun owner." 10% of the people cause 90% of the problems. muslims aren't any different.

    43. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 5, Informative
      Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

      Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

      Kill Witches

      You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

      Kill Homosexuals
      "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

      Kill Fortunetellers

      A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

      Death for Hitting Dad

      Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

      Death for Cursing Parents

      1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

      2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

      Death for Adultery

      If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

      Death for Fornication

      A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

      Death to Followers of Other Religions

      Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

      Kill Nonbelievers

      They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

      Kill False Prophets

      If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

      Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

      Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

      Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

      But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

      Kill Followers of Other Religions.

      1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your

    44. Re:In the name of Allah ! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 2

      He did fuck a 9 year old girl, though (he was 53 at that time).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    45. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 2

      Christianity has the New Testament which is supreme over the Old and is very consistent in its advocacy of nonviolence.

      “Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!”

      New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:

      I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations. This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god. Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes. I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored. Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it! After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws.

      1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

      2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

      3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

      3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

      3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

      4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

      5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

      6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

      7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

      8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

      9) “...the

    46. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typical christian as well... No one is truly morally better than the other...

      Yep, no one is truly morally better than Stalin or John Wayne Gacy.

    47. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

      So, where specifically is the violence by the Judes[sic] advocated?

      Oh, let's see here. Exodus 17:

      14 Then the Lord said to Moses, âoeWrite this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.â

      15 And Moses built an altar and called the name of it, The Lord is my banner,

      16 saying, âoeA hand upon the throne of the Lord Jacob! The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

      One of the more notable examples, but there's plenty more the Old Testament if you look.

      Christians get to claim that Jesus revoked those parts of the Old Testament, though it must be admitted that for many periods of history, they didn't act much like it.

    48. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Once one examines the percentages of the population taking part in and/or condoning the activity, one finds your argument is fatuous.

    49. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe in the long term, but in the short term it would boost radicalization significantly by making mainstream Muslims feel isolated and "otherized,"

      And then perhaps they would start taking further action against the people making them otherized by the rest of civilization? That would be radical all by itself.

      which is exactly what terrorist groups want BTW.

      Since it's never been tried lets try it out and see if it's as desirable as you seem to think terrorists would find it.

      People like you want to kill mosquitoes while ignoring you live next to an untreated swamp.

    50. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You write as if your knowledge is certain and yet your moniker points out that cannot be the case.

    51. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also call BS on the EU being a pretty civil place to live. They fought two world wars!

    52. Re:In the name of Allah ! by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      You'd almost think the perpetrators were simply homicidal maniacs who also happen to be Muslims.

      Really? That's your theory? That three guys loaded for bear were just homicidal maniacs out to kill for the sake of killing, and by incredible coincidence, they happened to be Muslims shouting Islamic slogans and saying they were avenging the prophet? You're not even fooling yourself. Stop it.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    53. Re: In the name of Allah ! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Tell that to all the fucks who think they are 'Web Developers.'

      It's a markup language. You don't have permission to push your 'code' onto my machine.

    54. Re:In the name of Allah ! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No more than yours does, since it also doesn't indicate that you're infallible.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    55. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      All of your cut-n-past hate comments have 'read the rest of this comment' at the bottom.

      Please stop spamming the discussion. It's tiresome.

    56. Re:In the name of Allah ! by wired_parrot · · Score: 1

      You be real. One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence

      While this may be true for events of the last 15 years, this hasn't always been the case for even very recent history

      During the 90s, most suicide bombings worldwide were being carried out by a primarily Hindu group (Tamil Tigers) and christian-on-christian religious violence in Northern Ireland would go on to kill more people than died in the 9/11 attacks

      During the 70s, terrorism was mostly politically motivated, with far-right and far-left groups carrying out hundreds of bombings. Italy suffered through the Years of Lead, with several thousand people dying in bombings. In Germany, far-left groups like the Red Army Faction and the Revolutionary Cells carried out more than 300 bombings alone.

      During the 50s, it was primarily nationalist and anti-colonial in nature. Guerrila groups resisting colonialism in Asia and Africa were the primary instigators then.

      And go back to the 1920s, and you see radical Anarchists as the main culprits (e.g. see the 1919 Anarchist bombings in the US)

      Saying that muslims are responsible for a majority of terrorism is a myopic view of contemporary history - the nature of terrorism has varied greatly with each generation. In another generation we'll likely be looking at another ideology or group to lay blame on.

    57. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they must be the most incredible psychopaths, because they manage to gain political and financial support, AND to find each other out of a pool of 20 million.

      Is there something like a hookup site for psychopaths do you think?

      Because as a single straight, white male, I'm bound to spend a good part of my life looking for my other half out of a pool of billions ...

    58. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See Qur'an 37:158)
      See Qur'an (6:100)
      See Qur'an (53:19-22 ; 16:57 ; 37:149)
      See Qur'an (53:26-27)

      Don't trust Wikipedia over anything other than pop star biographies (after they died).

    59. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America killed approx 700,000 in Iraq for "freedom".

    60. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Tell me how the Jewish faith preaches violence against it's enemies.

    61. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      There are already Islamic radicals attacking the People's Republic of China from within. China has a western 'autonomous region' called Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region that is majority Islam and crawling with Fundamentalists. The hammer is swung very hard against terrorists there.

    62. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      It's tiresome to read the comments of a bunch of ignorant bigots who seem to think that their religion is superior to someone else's. Calling this a "discussion" when it's mostly hate-filled rhetoric is pretty fucking ridiculous.

    63. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And yet Europe is not in flames, despite the EU having around 20 million Muslims and lots of people who aren't shy to express their dislike of Islam. How odd. You'd almost think the perpetrators were simply homicidal maniacs who also happen to be Muslims.

      Of course there are not 20 million madmen. But there's also not three. Thousands have left Europe to fight for IS, many more support them and millions more won't lifter a finger to stop them. And the common cause of all these "homicidal maniacs" is Islam. There's very little reason to believe any of them would be homicidal maniacs in general. And they're not manics, they're assassins and executioners. Go see that uncensored video and you'll see what I mean. As for the "Europe is not in flames" bit, I suggest you replay it with the Nazis and the 1930s. Because the answer remains no until suddenly it's yes.

      The purpose of these strikes is to provoke non-Muslims into reacting without thinking. If Muslims are integrated into modern Western society, then religious fanatics will have no power over them. That's why they're trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest. If you continue spouting absurd garbage like above, you're effectively supporting the terrorists.

      No, the purpose of these strikes is to take away our freedom. Sure you can have freedom of speech - but you'll have an terrorist hit squad killing you for using it. Fear. Intimidation. Terror. They don't care that much about the divide, after all they're at war with a great many Muslims too. They expect the moderate Muslims will mostly quietly hate them - that's how a few tens of thousands of soldiers controls millions in Syria and Iraq - while we're the great external enemy. "Westernized" Muslims are no threat to the terrorists, they're used as proof to the average Muslim that we're trying to corrupt them and turn them away from true Islam.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    64. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can interpret any religion in any way. You can justify pacifism within Island. You can justify crusades in Christianity. The only reason radicalism seems more widespread in Islam is butthurt, because since Ottoman Empire's failure to bring Islam deeper into Europe Islam is no longer growing. In fact, it's on decline. Islam countries are no longer world's knowledge powerhouse like they were during middle ages. And no longer can grow via conquest since they lost their technological edge.

    65. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Island/Islam. Screwed by spellchecker :/

    66. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They DO raise their voices. They are constantly doing so and most news stories regarding terrorism/terrorist acts include such voices. That you attest otherwise is what worries me.

    67. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 2

      No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.

      no srsly, what happened in the last 20 years that hasn't happened since the dawn of Abrahamic faiths?

      You be real. One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence.

      correlation != causation.

      Essentially two mainstream religions feature a scripture that preaches violence against its enemies, the Islamic and Jewish faiths. The latter does not have any prevailing interpretations advocating violence outside a small patch of land.

      both are over 1000 years old, as christianity. You analysis of ancient religeons only focusing on the last 20 years is not a real analysis. Lets also be frank, war has more to do with politics than beliefs. In History Christianity has killed just as many. Also, Judaism is only a major religeon in two places on earth, the United States, and Israel. Everywhere else its extremely obscure.

      Do you know when Christianity stopped killing people? When we stripped its political influence from the state. The state kept killing people however. It seems to me reliegon is not the cause, but the State, and various types of government that require the extreme use of force to aquire and maintain their rule.

      Christianity has the New Testament which is supreme over the Old and is very consistent in its advocacy of nonviolence.

      Thew new testamant has a lot of things. In history, like both judiasm and islam, its followed and re-interpreted as its followers see fit for political reasons. Judaeism in the USA more or less re-interpreted their values around mainstream moderate christanity. All three religeons also have many "interpretations", so you can litterally read anything anyway you want. In history, many Christian sects have re-interpreted the New Testimant to mean violence.

      When polled you actually find quite a lot of support for groups like ISIS and Boko Haram from "western" faithful (ignorant teenagers anyway) even if they are not about to take up arms themselves.

      which they have more support from western teenage muslims than they do from muslims in Islamic countries. Why? Most muslims won't take their shit, and don't want that crap. All the people on the front lines against both groups fighting and dying to stop them are also Muslim.

      The problem is the west can't tell the diffrence between reactionary fundie shitheads, and moderates, and refuses to learn, and lets the fundies rule western Islam instead of helping intergration. Both mainstream "left" and "right" have their heads up their asses they can't see the whole lot of them passed "you people", and let the most extreme saudi-backing-american CIA puppets win.

      ignorance is killing the west.

    68. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Really? All of White Europe is White Anglo Saxon Protestant?

      Go away, stupid American Liberal Anonymous Coward.

    69. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Want me to compare atrocity to atrocity?

      You already did, and failed. You compared the "Christian extremists don't seem to have any more trouble with marching into Christian church services [wikipedia.org] right here in the USA and murdering people they have religious disputes with." with " Islamists kill more Muslims that all their other victims combined. "

      This is simply a false equivocation. But that is okay with you, because you have an agenda.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    70. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 1
      And its mostly muslims who are the victims.

      but you're right, you see mostly European Muslims joining groups like ISIS, and you don't see too many muslims actually from Muslims lands joining ISIS, or at least western muslims are far more likely to join.

      most of the actual boots on the ground resistance to ISIS is done by muslims. Both in the Syrian and Iranian government, and the Kurds, all muslims.

      The problem isn't Islam, its fucking Europe.

    71. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.. then let's use our antiquated bullshit texts to bring it to them. /s
      For gods (no pun) sake, we should be living in the enlightend age, this kind of shit does no longer fly.
      These are radicals, ruthless killers, criminals, they must be caught and brought to justice.
      The mesage shoul be spread, we live in a collective world, these days there's no more ecuse for ignorance, information spreads freely.

      Ah.. what's the use, this message won't even make the thread.

      We're all screwed with nutters like this on the loose.

    72. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Christian-based countries (or Israel), if you perform any of those things that you list you go to jail.

      This fact, makes you full of shit.

    73. Re:In the name of Allah ! by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Tag troll above. I don't think the Quran literally said about killing 'infidels'. Esp. for AC poster as such.

    74. Re:In the name of Allah ! by grumpyman · · Score: 1

      Kudos for speaking out.

    75. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    76. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would recommend you watch "A Noble Lie". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2119373/

    77. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you've highlighted a good many reasons not to read the bible. And while there are a good many passages that extoll coexistence, despite difference, in the bible, I choose not to read it. Why? Because I believe my own free will determines how I am to exist in the world. I do not want, or need, but choose to ignore that book, and most all other religious texts. And in doing so, I strive to be a better person to myself, and to everyone else I come into contact with, simply because I blieve that to be a better way to live.

    78. Re:In the name of Allah ! by acoustix · · Score: 1

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

      This is 100% correct.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    79. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's why they're trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and the rest. If you continue spouting absurd garbage like above, you're effectively supporting the terrorists.

      But he does support the terrorists, because they further his goal to blame all religion everywhere for the problems caused by those specific people, with the end goal being to get rid of everyone who believes differently than he does.

    80. Re:In the name of Allah ! by butchersong · · Score: 1

      The population of Europe as a whole is like 740 million. Perhaps they simply have yet to reach a critical mass and these increasing troubles are a sign of something larger to come. Only about 20% of the population of the British American colonies participated in the American revolution. Muslims are rapidly outbreeding native populations in Europe and account for a large percentage of immigrants. I have friends that follow islam and they are great guys but looking at it objectively Europe in the long term may very well be screwed.

    81. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not swung hard enough, it would seem.

    82. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in most western societies, the mainstream members of a group will undoubtedly loudly denounce the acts of violent extremists. We don't necessarily see that within the Muslim community, or at least not the majority. That may be due to the media focusing on the carnage in order to drum up fear and raise their ratings.

      There were what, over 10,000 Muslims protesting outside the Google UK offices because that Age of Ignorance video? How many will actually take to the streets and protest the carnage that is carried out in the name of their religion? I've seen a fair amount of Twitter posts from Muslims condemning the attacks, but a 140 character condemnation from maybe 1,000 people doesn't really mean much now does it?

    83. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - Quran 9:5

    84. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the ancient Jewish laws were pretty harsh. Good thing Christians aren't bound by those laws, as Jesus and Paul made abundantly clear in the new testament.

    85. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Doesn't understand old and new testament.

    86. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before the Europeans caved in and allowed the Islamists in, the EU was largely a civil place to live. No longer.

      Umm ... Aren't you forgetting something? I will give you a hint ... starts with W O R L D W A R .... they apparently had two of those started in Europe. Killed millions.

    87. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't get much international news. The Chinese have had problems with individuals in their Uyghur population, yet apart from putting the screws to that ethnic group haven't wiped them from the map.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    88. Re:In the name of Allah ! by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      No I am tired of that argument it might have been legit 20 years ago but history in the mean time has proven its horse shit.

      Ahhh, to be young again and think that 20 years ago is "history".

    89. Re:In the name of Allah ! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Even Jews have modified those laws - you don't see Israel doing any of that either!

    90. Re:In the name of Allah ! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      GP already said 'fuck religion', making your rant pretty redundant!

    91. Re:In the name of Allah ! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and that was b'cos of the 'nation-building' projects in Iraq & Afghanistan. Conduct a proper war - as in level the offending countries, be it Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria-Iraq, Qatar, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on, and just leave them, and then you'll see a lot more respect for Western power. DO NOT try to rebuild them after breaking them

    92. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 1

      And how many Americans were killed by AMERICANS last year? How many murders were 100% red-blood Amuricans killing.... other Amuricans!? Terrorists kill so few Americans it is almost impossible to chart. But Americans killing each other? Wait... that means that more CHRISTIANS killed Americans than all other groups combined. It seems to me in America we best be scared of Christian Americans!!

      --
      Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    93. Re:In the name of Allah ! by meglon · · Score: 1

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

      You don't see it because you aren't looking. As for the whole "old testament" thing, I've suggested to some anti-gay bigots that we should be out stoning to death people who touch leather, work on Saturday, eat shellfish and such, and they use that (completely fucking stupid) line "but that's in the old testament, and we don't follow that anymore" only to turn around and use the command in Leviticus to support their anti-gay bigotry.

      THE problem is, there's too many idiots who only listen to what their preacher says, and can't seem to find time to actually read the Bible. That's why their version of "God" seems to hate exactly who they hate. The other problem is, religious people ignoring the plank in their own eye, while thinking their shit don't stink and throwing stones at other people.... which is EXACTLY the problem with a lot of posters in the thread.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    94. Re:In the name of Allah ! by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Actually, China has done there what it did in Tibet - flood that province w/ Han Chinese. That makes it difficult for that province to secede if it were to be democratically determined. But the Uyghars have been closely allied w/ Jihadis next door in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, so hopefully, the day is not far off when China has to launch an all out war against them. If only we could have outsourced the war against Islam to China

    95. Re:In the name of Allah ! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      They don't need to. They've flooded Xinxiang w/ Han Chinese, so if ever there is a situation where circumstances force there to be an election there, the presence of a majority of Han Chinese will ensure that Xinxiang remains a part of China and doesn't merge w/ Kyrgyzstan or Tajikistan.

    96. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "who also happen to be Muslims"

      LOL. Except for some reason they do it in the name of Islam.

      You'd be hard pressed to find as many Christians who do these types of acts in the name of Christianity, even though there are far more Christians (and therefore far more mentally ill Christians) in Western countries.

      Face it: Islam is fucking rubbish.

    97. Re:In the name of Allah ! by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think so. I rather think the purpose was to strike fear in (1) Europeans who might value their freedom of expression to pillory Mohammed, and (2) fellow Muslims who might have some ideas about reforming Islam. The latter really scares the Muslim nutjobs...hell, it scares the Muslim clergy, Muslim rulers, just about anyone who has been using Islam to keep political control. In that sense, Islam has nothing to do with religion, it is merely a wreath of fig leaves to cover the sins of the powerful and those who wish to become powerful. Mohammed was no better and his spawn, Islam, shows just how corrupt the entire endeavor actually is.

    98. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures...

      No they're not. Romans is in the New Testament.

      One of the other responders commented that Christians use the Bible to justify anti-gay bigotry, and usually reference Leviticus when they do. They could as easily reference the New Testament. That passage from Romans maintains the death penalty for gay behaviors, for disobeying parents, for worshiping idols, and for oathbreaking, among other things.

    99. Re:In the name of Allah ! by synth7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Matthew 5:17

      "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

      He's speaking about Jewish Law, not Roman Law, and he's speaking about Jewish prophets. Unless you completely ignore what he's saying, he's explicitly stating that Jewish Law is still in effect, and that his teaching are *in addition* to what his Father has already laid out. Note that The Father/Son thing isn't really accurate, either, because the Trinity is One, so it's really his own law via his other manifestation.

      The *only* piece of Jewish law that he specifically overrides is performing sacrifices, as he states that he is the final ultimate sacrifice from now until Judgement Day.

      So if you're a fundamentalist Christian (for example, a Calvinist) you adhere to the Ten Commandments because that's just as important as the direct word of Jesus, because it's the same god commanding them. This extends to the other lessons of the Bible. Being gay will get your whole town obliterated, so don't do it.

      You cannot claim Christianity and then only use select passages to back your specific interpretation. Either you believe the *whole* book is the inspired message of your deity, or you're just engaging in a self-affirming tautology.

      So you are 100% incorrect, unless you wish to parse words like the pharisees that Jesus so notably denounces.

    100. Re:In the name of Allah ! by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      > Before the Europeans caved in and allowed the Islamists in, the EU was largely a civil place to live. No longer.

      Give or take few million gassings of jews, a few million Romani exterminations, .."

      That is the point isn't it? A non-homogeneous population is far more prone to these atrocities. The examples you give are where and when the population was not homogeneous. I could give many more too in the past (eg Saxons-Britons, Danes-Saxons), and they often started with someone (Tony Blair is a modern example) inviting a foreign people in because they thought they would lend power or money to their own elbow, an idea which then backfired. Such atrocities will occur even more in future with the trouble being stored up now.

    101. Re:In the name of Allah ! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Can't. In Islam, Allah is so other that he never communicates directly with men (women have no souls so good Muslims need not worry about them except as chattel). Of course, you may have noticed that Islam has an escape clause (ain't it always the way), Allah can communicate to an angel who can then go ahead and communicate with men. Typically, this happens in their dreams, it provides a certain amount of deniability should anyone get the instructions wrong. So it wouldn't necessarily be Allah screwing up, it would necessarily be men.

      Oh, and there's no use looking for a modern prophet to shoot in Allah's stead. Mohammed had a galaxy size ego and declared he would be the Last Prophet. If that doesn't smell scam, nothing does.

      Also of curious note, Mohammed used to cadge his nickels by knocking over camel trains. Then in his late 30's, he hears voices and goes off into the mountains to hear them better. Late stage schizophrenia, classic case. Many schizophrenics come over as all religious, Mohammed was no different. Back then, schizophrenia was not recognized as being mentally ill, instead if you heard voices, it clearly must have been some diety or angel. So Mohammed took Judism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, etc., the extant religions of the time, put them in a blender, and comes out with Islam, of which he's the only prophet, the Last Prophet...scam, scam, scam.

    102. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

      (1) We see Christians trying to pull off all kinds of old testament shit all the time.
      (2) Matthew 5:17-18
          17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
          18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

      Unless Jesus explicitly annulled an old testament law, it is still in force. Since Jesus isn't on the record endorsing buttsex, that's still a capital crime.

    103. Re:In the name of Allah ! by gtall · · Score: 1

      So, Muslims are trying to do to Europe what the Chinese are doing to Xinxiang.

    104. Re:In the name of Allah ! by jucer · · Score: 1

      You have issues with the old testament my friend. Most of these texts were directed at Jews, not at others. For the texts that talk about other people, it was mostly because their action were horrible (even by today's standard). Still, You seem to not understand the new testament either. Romans doesn't ask Christian to kill homosexuals. It says that this practice is sinful and that they already got the judgment in their flesh... 2 John 6 has: And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. Even if you need to reprimand someone, you're supposed to do it with love....

    105. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Bible is the word of God... and God is perfect... why is the Bible then such a mess? I would expect the guiding word of a deity to be perfect and not be made up of old stuff you don't need to follow, passages that overrule old passages, etc.

      The problem is you see Christians picking and choosing from Old Testament texts. They claim its in the Bible when it supports their argument, and claim "but those are all Old Testament scriptures" when it hurts their argument. This is selective-bias at work.

    106. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love this!

      Religion needs to know that it can't rule over people! I'm LDS and you might say that we have some extreme people (:D Ya, we got some seriously crazy people), and yet our scriptures specifically teach that, "but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.10?lang=eng#9

      What sort of religion really thinks that because they have full truth (which I do believe in), that it somehow supersedes basic human respect? The worst offender of church crimes can be tried civily if they did illegal things. If they did nothing illegal, no church can claim authority on that person. DUH! Its not so hard, is it? Oh well...

    107. Re:In the name of Allah ! by OutOnARock · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward, you ignorant slut...

      The world has not seen America fight without two hands and one leg tied behind our backs since World War II.

      If you think the entire Muslim Middle East would stand a chance against America unleashed, you are ignorant......

      America tries to fight a "civilized" war, avoid civilian casualties at all costs

      Islam kills innocent civilians because they are infidels......

      When America stops caring about civilian casualities, Islam goes down hard.....

      I only wish today was that day....

    108. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > totals millions of dead people yearly,

      Wow. Your perception of reality is completely out of whack. Like crazy-pants.
      I bet you are one of those guys who takes this list as gospel because the only motive a muslim might have for killing someone is their religion. Otherwise a muslim would never hurt anyone for any reason.

    109. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus reaffirmed the old Jewish law (except sacrifices). You need to read your Bible better and stop cherry picking.

    110. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the New Testament tells you to be nice to people. But it's also pretty clear about women and foreigners not being people.

    111. Re:In the name of Allah ! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is mostly nonsense.

      First of all the "Arabs" did not exist at that time.
      Secondly "no they had not a god for each day of the year" ... but various tribes had different gods.

      How can Allah have been a moon god, when the word "Allah" simply means "God"?

      Before the Europeans caved in and allowed the Islamists in That is a retarded claim. How do you know one is an islamist, so you can keep him out?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    112. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh sure, Christianity is all love and forgiveness... unless you decide not to believe, in which case the punishment is torture throughout eternity.

    113. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the name of "Allah", who will be the next victim ?

      And don't think you (or at least I) are particularly better in this regard by virtue of being Christian. Christian extremists don't seem to have any more trouble with marching into Christian church services right here in the USA and murdering people they have religious disputes with.

      Abortion involves destroying a human fetus. Later term fetuses are even viable in many cases , Now I have no issue with abortion within 5 months as is standard in much of Europe and later when needed for health and I disagree with the core idea that all abortion is murder . However it can be argued that it its murder and as such the action was preventing direct harm to humans, i.e defending others

      The state disagreed as I would have and put Roeder away for life.

        Publishing a magazine does not involve killing anyone and this was an honor killing, something Christians simply do not do. Now if say a group of Destroying Angels were to raid a national guard armory than abduct Matt Stone and Trey Moody and execute them and the staff of the Book of Mormon for insulting the Prophet . That would be something comparable. Does anyone thing this would ever happen? In the West? Hell no.

      Also important, in the case above this was one guy acting out in the name of Christianity as versus a conspiracy of men who were trained and equipped with illegal weapons to kill over a cartoon. They are not even close in scale.

      An equivalent would be say some random Muslim guy shooting a few people with a shotgun while screaming religious slogans. This was simply an act of war against Western values and it won't stop until Muslims are expelled and no are allowed to reside in the West .

    114. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have one word to counter this ridiculous argument: "crusades".

    115. Re:In the name of Allah ! by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 1

      Sometimes. The inclusion of the Old Testament in the Christian canon is curious, if it's true that the teachings of Jesus effectively say "You can forget all that old shit".

      There is certainly hostility and violence brought down on gays and lesbians in Christian countries, with the Old Testament used as justification for these acts. See http://www.gaychristian101.com...

      It's unfair to suggest that all Christians are like this, because it's patently not true. But similarly no Muslims I know are out there advocating violence on the basis of their religious texts (or arguing for slavery or any of the other "old school" tenets that are common to both the Biblical, Talmudic or Islamic texts). Most people of faith, in my experience, seem to be decent and caring folks. It's the dickheads with guns that give all religions a bad name.

    116. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, the Murrah building bombing is a poor example. It was caused as retaliation for the Waco siege and government sponsored violence not a critical cartoon.

      The only person killing caveat one exception (the Radio host Alan Berg in Denver, killed by Neo Nazis in the 80's ) I've seen killing journalists was Bill Clinton ordering attacks in Kosovo. I've never seen any of the US radical right kill members of the press for what they said or published and the press can slander or report till the cows come home in safety

      Radical Muslims OTOH kill artists and cartoonists all the time (c.f the entire Middle east or Pim Fortuyn) and while not all Muslims are like that certainly, we don't need them and as many lie about what they believe (its called taqqiyah, religious dissimulation) we would lose nothing but simply sending as many back to the Middle East as the law allows

      The other option is to lose our cultures to shariah since they won't secularize fast enough to blend.

    117. Re:In the name of Allah ! by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 2

      Hehe.. Or even to be blatantly ignorant of what has actually occurred in the last 20 years. That's bliss.

      It's curious that we forget that the last great act of systematic terrorism and genocide on European soil was by Christian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. Arguably this was an ethnic dispute, not a religious one. But still, it would be easy to use this to paint Christians as blood thirsty murderers, if that was your particular beef.

      History is what you make it, I guess.

    118. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not Europe, it's marxism and communism. ISIS was created by the International Socialist as an attempt to recover control over Irak after George Bush Jr. dismantled their toy during his "war against terror", and only now that ISIS has betrayed them and claimed Irak for themselves has the mega-corrupt western media changed their discourse to justify sending militar troops to the Middle East. Before ISIS's betrayal, the socialist media all wanted UN troops to leave as soon as possible so that it would be easier for them to overthrow democracy and push for another socialist dictatorship like the previous one.

      Just listen to ISIS speeches in their beheading acts, they expose clearly who are the ones behind this "Mafia" game of shorts.

    119. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      GP didn't call for banning all religion ... just Islam.

    120. Re:In the name of Allah ! by acoustix · · Score: 1

      You don't see it because you aren't looking. As for the whole "old testament" thing, I've suggested to some anti-gay bigots that we should be out stoning to death people who touch leather, work on Saturday, eat shellfish and such, and they use that (completely fucking stupid) line "but that's in the old testament, and we don't follow that anymore" only to turn around and use the command in Leviticus to support their anti-gay bigotry.

      THE problem is, there's too many idiots who only listen to what their preacher says, and can't seem to find time to actually read the Bible. That's why their version of "God" seems to hate exactly who they hate. The other problem is, religious people ignoring the plank in their own eye, while thinking their shit don't stink and throwing stones at other people.... which is EXACTLY the problem with a lot of posters in the thread.

      Actually, the new testament speaks out against homosexuality too. But it doesn't advocate violence against homosexuals.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    121. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) I'm not a slut but your American and considered one of the most stupid people on earth by most of the population of the planet.
      b) I'm not ignorant because I am not American and because I am not American I don't revel in being ignorant
      c) you have killed over 250 million innocents in the 10 years alone
      d) never seen the 'home of the brave' actually fight a war were the opposition was even remotely cable of doing significant damage to the home of the brave and the chickshit.
      e) Any war you join is pretty much already decided before you join else you fight it and lose.

      4. Profit

    122. Re:In the name of Allah ! by acoustix · · Score: 1

      No they're not. Romans is in the New Testament.

      One of the other responders commented that Christians use the Bible to justify anti-gay bigotry, and usually reference Leviticus when they do. They could as easily reference the New Testament. That passage from Romans maintains the death penalty for gay behaviors, for disobeying parents, for worshiping idols, and for oathbreaking, among other things.

      The whole message of the Bible is that we're *ALL* subject to the "death penalty" (hell) for our sinful ways. It doesn't matter what the sin. Confession of sins and faith in Jesus it what will redeem you according to Christian beliefs. Stop acting like only homosexuals are singled out. All sin matters. Even my sins, and their are plenty of them - just like everyone else on this planet.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    123. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Christianity has the same problem. If you haven't murdered every single homosexual you've ever encounterd, then you are disobeying the Bible. The crucial difference is that "Christians" have rejected the more barbarian aspects of their sacred and unchanging scripture (making them exactly what, I don't know) and all "Christian" states have rejected the integration of church and state. Islam is still stuck in its own Dark Ages.

    124. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops c) should read at least 250,000 - Though you would no doubt have a go at the later figure if there was any chance of a profit in it for your leaders.

    125. Re:In the name of Allah ! by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should have read the entire chapter.

      He spends the entire rest of chapter clarifying what "the law" is.

      "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.

      "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

      Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

      If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

      "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

      Have you noticed the pattern? It is not about some list of legalize, "this is ok and that is not ok". It is restated many times in the letters of the apostles as well, the measure of a person (that everyone was said to fail except Jesus) was a matter of "heart". Even after claiming to fulfill the law in your quote, Jesus dismisses those who take the law to be a matter of legal technicalities rather than a philosophy:

      For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

    126. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ.


      But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

      Luke 19:27

    127. Re:In the name of Allah ! by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say that violence is the problem. Violence is what threw out the British Empire and freed the US Colonies, and led to the first amendment.

      Violence against tyrants is not a problem, and Islam attempts to make itself a tyranny over the whole world. But violence must come second to reason. An idea is far more powerful than any violence. The American Revolution could only be successful because of the support of enough people sharing the same idea.

      The problem with Islam isn't the violent ones, it is the nonviolent ones. It all of the Muslim world actively engaged in violence rather than passively accepting it, the public idea of the religion would solidify and the religion would be destroyed shortly. But the US is hardly in any position to criticize, given the empire building and foreign slaughter it has been engaged in.

    128. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Being gay will get your whole town obliterated, so don't do it."

      Oh shit. This sucks because I added a new definition of gay. Gay: really really needing a beer. As in: "By the beard of Muhammad I am so fucking gay. Lets go to the bar for a beer."

    129. Re:In the name of Allah ! by pbhj · · Score: 1

      He quotes Romans 1 though ... clearly not reading the context nor understanding in the least the point the Apostle Paul is making ... (see my other reply to the same post).

    130. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old Testament passages aside, a proper reading of Romans 1 should not lead one to assume that they are personally responsible to carry out God's judgment on homosexuals. That chapter states that he allows sinners to continue pursuing their own sinful desires. Romans 1 is presented as God's legal case against the sin of humanity. Romans goes on to explain that it is because of humanity's sin condition that Jesus Christ came into the world - to save sinners. If Romans 1 were telling Christians to kill all sinners, why would the rest of the book have been written?

    131. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to Matthew 5:17 (which you quoted), you should also consider Romans 6:14. "For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace." This should help one understand the intent behind the word 'fulfill.' This is one reason why Christians do not go around killing sinners. There are other reasons too. Israel was created by God to be a Theocracy. The Church (Christians) and Israel are not the same thing. Considering them as such presents many interpretational problems.

      A careful reading of Galatians 3 reveals that the Law (Jewish Law/Old Testament) was given so that mankind would understand its utter dependence upon God for redemption which ultimately came through Jesus Christ (sacrifices performed under the Law were a stop gap measure).

    132. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Ch_Omega · · Score: 2

      I don't want to discount the threat of fundimentalist religious lunatics(of any stripe), nor would I stand in the way of reasonable efforts to put them down, but lets be real here, and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups.

      You a mixing a religion with it's followers. I have see no problem in blaming the religion of islam for what happened today, but I wouldn't dream of blaming the 1.2 billion followers of islam for it, as 1.199999999999999.. of them didn't have anything to do with it. The religion itself, however, have deep traditions of violence toward those who critizise or mock it, starting with the founder of the religion who himself ordered the killings of lots of poets writing critical poems about him, as well as others who dared question his legitimacy as god's prophet or in any ways mocked or disrespected him. As the prophet Muhammad is seen as the most perfect human being who ever lived, incapable of doing wrong, and is seen as an example to follow for all muslims(with his actions forming the basis of the Sharia laws), saying that what todays gunmen has nothing to do with islam is either dishonest, delusional or unfathomably naive.

    133. Re:In the name of Allah ! by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      They never give me mod points when I want them the most.....
      Someone please take care of acoustix for cutting through the noise and making the most important point to be made.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    134. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Want me to compare atrocity to atrocity? Because I can go on all day with RECENT killings, mass murders, homicides, war crimes, etc. You're talking to someone sitting an easy drive from the ruins of the Murrah Building. There's no reason that couldn't happen again tomorrow.

      The real problem here is extremists. Period. When you start to think a dispute with another person is best solved by killing people, you become an instrument of evil, no matter where you sit yourself on Sunday morning.

      Why do people get so obssessed with "evil" and "good".

      Evil is very ill defined, it's not a good word to use in rational debates, because everybody's interpretation of it varies wildly.

      Jihadists would call all their enemies believe "evil", and their enemies would call the Jihadists "evil". It's such a subjective thing as to be useless if more than one person is involved in the discourse.

      No, lets call it for what it is: you become an instrument of social unrest. You become a de-stabilizing element, a threat to humanity's survival. A threat to MY survival.

      I'm OK with putting my own survival above others'. I will erradicate threats to MY survival. If the method involves killing or education/conversion is to be seen, but the objective is erradication in one way or another.

      How best do you erradicate ideas that are poisonous to societies?

      By educating. Educate new people (that is kids) in a way that makes them abhorr violence. It takes a while, but suddenly extremists are abhorred and slowly erradicated.

      How is that best accomplished?

      I don't know if dropping bombs or bullets on civilians is a good way to educate, instill rejection of violence, or not. I'm inclined to think it's not. Usually, you educate by giving an example. If that is the way, modern goverments are educating the wrong way. They shouldn't go after violent groups with full lethality, and physically erradicate them and everyone remotely connected to them. They should give an example in the moral values they want the future population to hold: avoid violence targeting innocents at all costs, even if it means you don't get to punish the guilty ones. Kids pick up the examples, and we're all kids when it comes to mature social behavior.

      "Herd mentality" is often said, I call that "social immaturity".

      So give a social example, and society will learn, as kids do. Might be worth a try, it's quite clear everything else is failing.

      In the meantime, you protect yourself not with retaliation, but with mitigation. A child might go on a rampage when they get cheated at a game and start kicking and hitting the cheater, we don't want to and don't usually encourage that. We encourage them to learn, to thinkfully attack the situation and not the people. To be mindful when they're cheated, to avoid cheaters and to be good losers.

      Society must learn the same. We don't let people as a whole go on a rampage about these extremists, we should encourage them to thinkfully attack the situation: how come there's such hatred? how come they were able to kill all those people without being stopped at some point? how come they can garner followers when their views are so extremely out of tune with the society we all supposedly want?

      Answer those questions, and more lives will be saved than killed, and we'll have better people instead of simply better oppressed people.

    135. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, reading your post here I think now I must submit myself before an Islamic extremist immediately, so that he may grant me my rightful beheading.

      Great way to make enemis and end up like Europe.

      Wait - I thought we were supposed to be more like Europe because their medicine is better than our medicine? Well what the fuck is it?

    136. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distinction: It says "God's death penalty." I interpreted it as saying it is second death in the afterlife. The passage continually says that these people are abandoned by God and left to destroy themselves. It doesn't encourage faithful to kill them, as the Old Testament passages do....

      "They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway."

    137. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He states that all ten of the commandments of the Old Testament can be interpreted as a single commandment, "To love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart." To this he adds a new, second commandment, "To love thy brother as thyself." This commandment supersedes all of the others, and those in conflict with it must be adjusted to be in conformity with it. This is the whole of the law.

    138. Re:In the name of Allah ! by dbreeze · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest everyone take note of C.I. Schofield's "Biblical Overview": http://www.biblestudytools.com...

      "The Bible, incomparably the most widely circulated of books, at once provokes and baffles study. Even the non-believer in its authority rightly feels that it is unintelligent to remain in almost total ignorance of the most famous and ancient of books. And yet most, even of sincere believers, soon retire from any serious effort to master the content of the sacred writings. The reason is not far to seek. It is found in the fact that no particular portion of Scripture is to be intelligently comprehended apart from some conception of its place in the whole. For the Bible story and message is like a picture wrought out in mosaics: each book, chapter, verse, and even word forms a necessary part, and has its own appointed place. It is, therefore, indispensable to any interesting and fruitful study of the Bible that a general knowledge of it be gained.

      First. The Bible is one book. Seven great marks attest this unity.

              From Genesis the Bible bears witness to one God. Wherever he speaks or acts he is consistent with himself, and with the total revelation concerning him.
              The Bible forms one continuous story--the story of humanity in relation to God.
              The Bible hazards the most unlikely predictions concerning the future, and, when the centuries have brought round the appointed time, records their fulfilment.
              The Bible is a progressive unfolding of truth. Nothing is told all at once, and once for all. The law is, "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn." Without the possibility of collusion, often with centuries between, one writer of Scripture takes up an earlier revelation, adds to it, lays down the pen, and in due time another man moved by the Holy Spirit, and another, and another, add new details till the whole is complete.
              From beginning to end the Bible testifies to one redemption.
              From beginning to end the Bible has one great theme--the person and work of the Christ.
              And, finally, these writers, some forty-four in number, writing through twenty centuries, have produced a perfect harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding. This is, to every candid mind, the unanswerable proof of the divine inspiration of the Bible.

      Second. The Bible is a book of books. Sixty-six books make up the one Book. Considered with reference to the unity of the one book the separate books may be regarded as chapters. But that is but one side of the truth, for each of the sixty-six books is complete in itself, and has its own theme and analysis. In the present edition of the Bible these are fully shown in the introductions and divisions. It is therefore of the utmost moment that the books be studied in the light of their distinctive themes. Genesis, for instance, is the book of beginnings--the seed-plot of the whole Bible. Matthew is the book of the King, & etc. Third. The books of the Bible fall into groups. Speaking broadly there are five great divisions in the Scriptures, and these may be con- veniently fixed in the memory by five key-words, Christ being the one theme ( Luke 24:25-27 ). ........"

      I certainly recommend following the link above for the full introduction to any of you who find the Bible truly incomprehensible, and to any of faith who have not seen it before. Simply one of the best overviews of the Bible I've ever encountered.

      --
      When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
    139. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know when Christianity stopped killing people? When we stripped its political influence from the state. The state kept killing people however. It seems to me reliegon is not the cause, but the State, and various types of government that require the extreme use of force to aquire and maintain their rule.

      Tell that to ISIS, you stupid mother fucker.

      ignorance is killing the west.

      No, not really.. politically correct jerkoffs like you are. Fortunately, as in the last elections here in the US, you are losing.

    140. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not 100% incorrect at all. You should probably continue reading Matthew chapter 5. This is the same chapter that gives Christians "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" - in direct conflict with "an eye for an eye", which is directly mentioned.

      Context is everything.

      You should probably read this.

    141. Re:In the name of Allah ! by acoustix · · Score: 1

      It won't happen, but I appreciate it.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    142. Re:In the name of Allah ! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      it's good that you pasted this 2x since i'm sure it took you a long time to type. you do realize however that no one understands your point. christians today don't act on those laws, and the fact that they did 500+ years ago is really irrelevant.

      it's actions that matter, not words. i don't care if a christian thinks homosexuals should be murdered. that's their right. i could care less. i only care if they start either actually murdering homosexuals or otherwise terrorizing them, or even restricting their rights.

    143. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That passage in Romans is a letter from Paul to Christians in Rome telling them that God (*not them!!!*) will be judging the Romans who are persecuting them (those who are being described by Paul in the letter - as the Romans are well known to have been at the time). There is no direct commandment to anyone to commit any acts of murder or revenge against these Romans. You should read the first five chapters in full. Pulling tiny chunks of text from obviously larger chunks of context is *extremely* misleading, and simply fodder for those that would do us harm.

      Please do the community a favor and quit regurgitating crap you find on the internet without vetting it.

      I am happy for you though that you have found some like-minded ignorant louts to mod you up.

    144. Re:In the name of Allah ! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      One of the other responders commented that Christians use the Bible to justify anti-gay bigotry, and usually reference Leviticus when they do.

      and they are wrong aren't they? see, we're done with this one. christians being bad doesn't justify muslims being bad. you know, when you were three, your mom hopefully told you two wrongs don't make a right?

    145. Re:In the name of Allah ! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      A 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely. Opposition to Hamas was the majority opinion in only 4 out of the 16 countries surveyed, as was opposition to Hezbollah.

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

      there's your problem.

    146. Re:In the name of Allah ! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      When polled you actually find quite a lot of support for groups like ISIS and Boko Haram from "western" faithful

      ^^^ this.

      terrorism is tolerated by muslims. not all, and probably not the majority, but a vast, vast number. why don't we hear muslim leaders "excommunicating" these people from the religion? i realize there's no official concept of excommunication in the muslim faith, but maybe they should create one?

    147. Re:In the name of Allah ! by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      I think it's been proven that in the hands of the poor and unfortunate, Islamic text is like poison. If it was any other hate literature we would point to it as part of the contributing problem.

      I'm no Christian, but at least with the bible the message to the poor seems to be a lot different in regards to what you should do... I think we can objectively call one out as a better moral role model for people, if that's possible to say about a religion.

    148. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they do not, not nearly enough of them, especially in leadership positions, and it doesn't get nearly enough media attention.

      Thankfully, we have someone taking a leadership position on this - bloody Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of all people! Maybe his challenge will raise enough eyebrows to get something done.

      Egypt's President calls for a 'religious revolution'

      I'm not a big fan of this guy, but I am a huge fan of what he has done today. I'd even say it's heroic. I wish him good fortune and pray that his pleading does not fall on deaf ears.

    149. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then why do they love the 10 commandments so much?

    150. Re:In the name of Allah ! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Really? That's your theory? That three guys loaded for bear were just homicidal maniacs out to kill for the sake of killing, and by incredible coincidence, they happened to be Muslims shouting Islamic slogans and saying they were avenging the prophet?

      No, I'm saying they're Muslim equivalents of McVeigh or Breivik. Or the IRA, the ETA, or other such assorted scum.

      --

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

    151. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Shompol · · Score: 1
      Kill Nonbelievers

      They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

      I am sorry, this reads like a fairy tale, not a call to arms. Compare to these:

      Quran 2:193

      Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

      and

      Quran 8:39

      And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

    152. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Shompol · · Score: 1

      I remember news that France was in flames multiple times, specifically when mislim youth was burning cars on the streets. Hell, WTC was in flames, had nothing to do with insult of beleifs though.

    153. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      You seem to suggest that there is nothing wrong with inciting others to murder.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    154. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence. Essentially two mainstream religions feature a scripture that preaches violence against its enemies, the Islamic and Jewish faiths. The latter does not have any prevailing interpretations advocating violence outside a small patch of land.

      Holy war is an invention of Christians when they first gained power (albeit Judaism was at some points a precursor to a small degree). Beforehand, everyone was free to worship any gods he wanted, as long as he did not disrespect gods of others. What did Romans do when they prepared to war? They built temples to gods of their enemies, making sacrifices so the gods don't fear losing worship. It's only insulting gods that was forbidden, and in some societies like Rome the perpetrator usually was given a yet another chance, to make a sacrifice as an apology.

      Forcing someone to abandon his gods was unheard of. Even other monotheist religions like Zoroastrians or Mithraists did not go that far. It's so-called Abrahamic religions who brought us this evil.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    155. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ...lets be real here, and not blame an entire reliegon of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups...

      It is far more than a handful of incidents. For example in Syria, wholesale slaughter is a more accurate description. And it is more than fringe groups. Rather, the lunatics on the front lines are supported by far reaching ideolgical and financial networks with roots in mainstream society.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    156. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the term gay was not defined in the bible so you can't redefine it. It says "man laying with a man as he would a woman" so is your lack of beer causing you to fuck guys?

    157. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fucked a 9yo girl too but no one made me a deity....

    158. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The whole message of the Bible is that we're *ALL* subject to the "death penalty" (hell) for our sinful ways.

      That's not the death penalty: that's the after-death penalty. And it's the number one reason I would spit in the face of the Christian god, if there was such an entity to be spat upon. Nearly all of the ranting about the Christian hell is in the New Testament, so it's at least nominally part of the new covenant. And the new covenant consigns little children who haven't been baptised to eternal torture in fire. Eternal. With no hope of redemption or respite. Ever.

      Eternity is a long long long long time, and fuck the god who created such a place as the Christian hell.

    159. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      and they are wrong aren't they? see, we're done with this one. christians being bad doesn't justify muslims being bad.

      I didn't justify anything, on anybody's part. I pointed out a factual error, with a little commentary.

      Settle down, Beavis.

    160. Re:In the name of Allah ! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

      So why haven't you dumped the ridiculous creation myths in Genesis as well?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    161. Re:In the name of Allah ! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      As an atheist I'm all for abolishing the public aspect of religions entirely, but it is sheer hypocrisy for a Christian to say the same about Islam.

      They are both outmoded philosophical systems, which should by now be viewed in the same way as astrology or the gods of Ancient Egypt.

      The fact that there are many sensible Christians, as well as sensible Muslims, just goes to show that religion is acceptable when not taken literally, or seriously.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    162. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Mjlner · · Score: 1

      Not that you made any such claim, but those are all Old Testament scriptures, thus for Christians they have been overridden by the teachings of Jesus Christ. None of those apply to Christianity, which makes sense, as you don't see Christians running around trying to enforce anything of the sort.

      It quite clearly does apply, but most Christians today choose to ignore it.
      "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18

      And Jesus is anything but merciful to non-believers:
      "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Luke 19:27

      --
      Lemon curry???
    163. Re:In the name of Allah ! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      They bombed the London Tube for Allah

      They bombed the Madrid train station for Allah

      They crashed planes into the World Trade Center at NYC and at the Pentagon for Allah

      A film director was murdered in the Netherlands for Allah

      Hostages had been killed in Sydney for Allah

      And now, at least 12 person have been cold-bloodedly slaughtered, in Paris, for Allah

      In the name of "Allah", who will be the next victim ?

      A woman police officer in Paris this morning, Paris time:
      http://www.france24.com/en/201...

      Not directly related but I'd be surprised if this wasn't also done in the name of Allah.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    164. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Tell that to ISIS, you stupid mother fucker.

      ISIS? Ha! You mean the same motherfuckers that less than a year ago where being backed by the US to fight against the syrian regime, which people like you backed because "Assad is a bad man". ISIS isn't attacking westerners, they are attack arabs, kurds, persians, and other middle easterners who are primarily muslims. I could tell you to go read a book, but it seems beneath you.

      No, not really.. politically correct jerkoffs like you are. Fortunately, as in the last elections here in the US, you are losing.

      I hate to break it to you, but your views are no diffrent than a right wing version of "politically correct". As far as you're concerned, people like you don't have the faintest clue on how to win the war, and not the slightest inkling for strategic thought, and that is why we are loosing. The fact you can't the diffrence between strategy,pragmatism and politically correct is telling.

      You also don't have a fucking clue about politics besides catchphrases and strawmen. Thats whats killing the west. Any lack of reasonable thinking skills.

    165. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      link to newrepublic

      are you fooking srs? That is the most hideous abuse of numbers and statistics to cherry pick data you want to see.

    166. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 1
      I think you have it backwards. Groups like ISIS are created to stomp out socialism. The reason we have groups like ISIS today is because their forerunners in the 50s and 60s where empowered and trained by the CIA to contain the soviet union and stomp out all resistance to the US, which was mostly socialist at the time. Just like they trained fascist and other ultra-nationalist groups in europe.

      the term "islamofascism" like most other neo-conservative rhetoric was taken from trotskities

    167. Re:In the name of Allah ! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      at the same time, just about all the resistance to ISIS is done by muslims, to include kurds, iranians, syrians, and Iraqis.

    168. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent comment is merely a reformatted copy of d34thm0nk3y's comment from this story by an Islamic apologist. Link here.

    169. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then Christianity is no different from road signs.

    170. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i hate this moral equivalency. what happened yesterday is horrible, full stop, no equivications. The world will burn because of this.

    171. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so foolish.

      Just look at their prophet, they admire him, obey his commandments and aspire to be like him.

      Now go get a history lesson on who that "prophet" was, what he did, what he advocated and made it a requirement for all followers and believers to imitate.

      The very foundation of islam is despicable.

    172. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well thought out and finely articulated. Most (only) intelligent thing I have read on /. in a long while.

    173. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up and read the rest of the book on the right side... its called the New Testament and subsequently changes things. You make ignorance seem like it should be a sought after characteristic!

    174. Re:In the name of Allah ! by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > If Muslims are integrated into modern Western society,

      this is a BIG if - because many simply don't care to, don't want to or can't integrate, and such processes can take a hundred years or more anyway, even there is a stable trend towards integration. Also, check the demography, like differences of childbirth rates and immigration rates. Do some critical thinking on this.

      > then religious fanatics will have no power over them.

      Citation needed. Unless, of course, you define "being integrated into modern Western society" to mean "religious fanatics will have no power over them" in which case, of course, it just becomes a tautology.

      Well intentioned, PC persons on the West, who try to reason from the perspective of their own value system, are like doctors who continue to believe that tapping blood or whatever ineffective method they are accustomed to is the best approach, despite evidence that it isn't effective. They may well risk the well-being of their own children.

      Intended consequences ("purposes" of the terrorist act) aren't even very relevant (other than to understand root causes), and desirability of outcome shouldn't be evaluated with reference to a terrorist's purpose (if what a terrorist purports to achieve is automatically opposed by their 'enemy', then they could control their 'enemy' by declaring the contrarian purpose - would be stupid, wouldn't it?). Outcomes should be evaluated from the vantage point of what's desirable for the society as a whole, or for Western civilization, or your family. And one of the most easily inferrable outcomes is lessened *freedom of speech* through the immediate and very effective self-censoring mechanisms that are immediately observable even despite the uproar of Western media.

      So on all these points, try to think through the situation and don't automatically assume that your first impulses represent some kind of generally accepted truth or consensus among members of liberal democracies or good people or whatever. Stick to things that can be reasonably well defined, are realistic on a reasonable timescale, or best, that can be observed directly.

    175. Re:In the name of Allah ! by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Yours is the argument that "if we play nice with them, they will play nice with us". But then you attribute values to them which are unsupported and are only reflective of your own values (with hundreds of years of historical evolution behind them that's very different to the hundreds of years of history to others), i.e. not only it is wishful thinking, but it is clueless, and insulting to everyone's intelligence, no matter which value system they follow.

    176. Re:In the name of Allah ! by robi5 · · Score: 1

      You are trying to relativize things.
      Just because you find a data point here and a data point there this does not make the two sample sets similar.
      Muslims killing Christians, or killing Muslims who integrated (e.g. the policeman) isn't lessened by muslims being violent to other muslims more often. Because if you feel comfortable in your Western values (which seems to motivates your naive, overly PC attitude) and want your children and grandchildren to enjoy those values and allowed to live by them, then you'll realize that a handful of terrorist in the name of ideology can do an awful lot of reduction to those civil liberties you exercise, for example, through inducing self-censorship of media, and through increased police state presence and surveillance. It is from this vantage point that your Yemen example is much less relevant, other than of course, helping understand (and trying to address) the root causes. I'm not lessening the importance of the Yemen massacre, but not all horrible inhuman acts are equally relevant offsetting points in all debates involving Islam.

    177. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      christians being bad doesn't justify muslims being bad

      Nope -- but you wouldn't condemn all of Christianity for the actions of just a few "fringe" Christians, would you? Because that is what many people are doing in this thread -- calling for Islam to be outlawed because they believe it is a "corrupt" religion due to the actions of fringe elements.

      The point is that people who believe their religion is somehow superior to another religion are delusional and dangerous -- and that goes for people of any religion.

    178. Re:In the name of Allah ! by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      i read quite a lot of this topic, and i didn't see anyone calling for islam to be outlawed. maybe i missed it. but anyway, i don't feel that way, and i've never spoken to, or read anyone with that opinion.

      the problem is this: not all, not even a majority, but a significant percent of muslims don't condemn terror. they would never participate. they'd never publicly support it. but in their bedrooms at night when it's dark, they sympathize. these people don't pressure their governments about the problem, and the governments then either let them exist or put half-hearted efforts toward stopping terror.

      google for the polls. here's one,
      http://www.thereligionofpeace....

      and another,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    179. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone should follow a deity that changes his mind like this.

    180. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One religion in recent history has been responsible for the vast vast majority of religious inspired violence.

      I would say two.

      Nazism. Communism.

    181. Re:In the name of Allah ! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It depends on the Christians. I observed a really enlightening conversation lately, where people were discussing a question of whether and how the support for torture of presumed terrorists is compatible with their Christian faith.

      It was astonishing just how many people self-identifying as Christians approved of torture, and what mental gymnastics they used to fit it in the presumed bounds of their morals. While the most common argument was the usual "waterboarding is not torture la la la", a number of people have actually specifically said that they're okay with torture in such circumstances because it's "just" or "necessary" etc. Some even claimed Jesus would have done so himself in the same situation! Others said that as they're not as perfect as Christ, they are not bound to the same rules (basically saying that they're Christians in name only).

      Many claimed that their God would condone torture without specific scriptural references, e.g.:
      "A Christian God condones war in defense of your home and people and torture goes along with war".
      "God speaks of war. Jesus speaks of war and if killing during war is okay, how can torture not be."
      "Jesus is all about justice. ... Violent actions men take are not evil in and of themselves, but serve or deny justice according to there full measure. If making a villain uncomfortable will lead to preventing future evil, or lead to perpetrators of evil being brought to justice, then those actions are righteous."

      Many brought up the case of Jesus using violence to scatter the merchants in the Temple as a justification for the use of violence in general.

      Surprisingly many have basically said that they would do it even knowing that it's wrong on the grounds of necessity, and then ask forgiveness afterwards (since Jesus conveniently allows for that); e.g.:
      "I will do whatever I feel is necessary to protect my friends and family while praying thai can be forgiven."
      "I will face my god when its time, Until that point I will ask forgiveness and have done what needed to be done."
      "Jesus wouldn't do it, but I'm married to a Marine, so I'm going to have to ignore what Jesus wants to keep him safe. See that's the beauty of being Christian, he forgives."
      "If torture led to the whereabouts of my child or the safety of our family or country, I would have to pray and ask for forgiveness later."
      "there are times when it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission"
      "Sometimes you do what you think is right to save the ones you love and ask for forgiveness later."
      "Not that anyone asked, but I am re-born (Born Again) into Christianity and yet I believe that we must do what we must do in war to stop greater evil. Then repent for any harm or hurt you have done and ask for forgiveness."

      Quite a few specifically cite the OT as a justification, e.g.:
      "Moses did what was needed at the time, saul, samuel, david, 1 Samuel 15:15, 21). And thus, thereby, not fully obeying the Lord's command, which was to "... utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:3). "

      One found the justification, of all places, in Revelations:
      "in the book of Revelations (New Testament by the way) chapter 9 verses 4-6, Jesus (who is also God as we have already established) commands through the Angel that men should be hurt but not killed. To me that sounds like torture. So in my view, torture would me allowed by God in order to save lives of people that still have a chance at becoming believers in Christ. "

      One took the opposite approach to literalism, and preferred to chalk it all down to allegory:
      "The New Testament teaches us to be forgiving... not naive. In fact, we are instructed to be "wise as serpents". A wise Christian understands what is to be taken as allegory and metaphor in the Bible. And, what is to be taken literally. A wise Christian

    182. Re: In the name of Allah ! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So was Moses, but Jews have found some creative ways to work around that problem.

    183. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      christianity no longer follows this. the new covenant allows this to be changed, though some select a few sections and support them. Islam is, right out of the gate, violent at its core, and no later prophet has rescinded any of this. its really sad, but Islam may have to die and be reborn for the world to live.

    184. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u sir r a genius of humor

    185. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's insane, isn't it.

      Islam .... it's even worse than Christianity - if such a thing is possible.

      The point is, that at this point in human history, 21st Century, just beginning to seriously explore outer space, extremely knowledgeable about our own inner space and of what makes the fabulous thing called Mind work, with the capability to physically destroy ourselves if we were to choose to, but we don't choose to because we have evolved to a high state of being, and are wise ..... the presence among us of primitive medieval throwbacks who are scared of some mythical monster in the shadows which will be cross with us if we fail to throw salt over our shoulders on a Tuesday when the wind is from the North is intolerable and must not be tolerated.

      We cannot afford to wait 500 years while these idiots catch up ... to stall all further progress in human development, to defer evolution to a state wherein we may assume a useful place in the Universe .... such a delay must not be allowed to happen. While I'm basically an old hippie, and just want us to all love one another while lying around in the shade eating nuts and fruit and thinking beautiful thoughts .. I'm afraid we first need to deal with a bunch of people who are effectively sick rabid animals .... the people I mean are those with the primitive irrational religious superstitions - primarily the adherents of Abrahamic religions. You can see how such ideas arose ... but that was thousands of years ago. Most of us have progressed now. They are all dangerous, and sadly we must put aside our better instincts and eradicate them all, Christian extremists and especially Islamist extremists. Yes, sadly I mean kill - or at least sterilise. I can hardly believe I'm saying it either, but they give us no choice.

      If we don't, they're gonna spoil things for all the rest of us, potentially ruining this experiment of human evolution that has taken 2 to 3 billion years to get to this point. We really shouldn't allow that to happen. There may not be enough time for it to start again before the Universe changes such that suitable conditions fade away (e.g. expands such that the stars are so far apart we can't see any - it's a possible future, and it wouldn't half mess with the first steps of a primitive culture in astronomical learning). This may be the only chance the Universe gets to evolve intelligent life. It would be terrible for it to be aborted by a bunch of idiots who are scared of the dark and think an angry bearded monster in the sky wants us to all hop around on one leg with our eyes closed.

      All Muslims, whether "good" or "bad" need to be told that their belief system is absurd and incompatible with membership of the species in the 21st Century. Wasting time each day facing East, crouching down on the ground and mumbling some kind of imprecation in the hope that an imaginary monster won't get cross ... in the 21st Century ? .... come on. They're welcome to stay so long as they abandon their ludicrous ideas (no, Mohammed did not fly to Heaven on the back of a winged horse ...), and devote their energies to becoming educated in rational thought and learning. If they can't hack that, then bye-bye.

      After that, we'll deal with the Christians.

      Then there may be some peace.

      Hey ho - thanks for listening while I dumped - I feel better now :)

    186. Re:In the name of Allah ! by NewYork · · Score: 1

      WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

    187. Re:In the name of Allah ! by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      That's not quite right. Jesus often gave 'tricky' or 'smartarse' answers to questions that were designed to trap him, and this is one of them. Christian theologians often refer to fulfilment as something that has been completed and is no longer needed (for example with Jesus' death as the ultimate sacrifice, doing away with the need for further animal sacrifices). You may disagree with this interpretation but it's been Christian belief since the start (the book of Galations is mostly about how new believers don't need to adhere to practices like circumcision).

      Actually Jesus was pretty apolitical. His message was more about the attitude of the heart than pushing a set of rules for a Christian society. That leaves the actual implementation open to a lot of interpretation, which is probably why Christians pick and choose which OT laws apply as society's attitudes change.

    188. Re:In the name of Allah ! by markass530 · · Score: 1

      The teachings of Jesus christ starts by saying follow the old testament, nice try tho

    189. Re:In the name of Allah ! by markass530 · · Score: 1

      look at the pew numbers for muslim support of suicide bombing and other terrorist activities

    190. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it's worth pointing out that it was the christian west not the islamic states that came to the aid of the bosnians.

    191. Re:In the name of Allah ! by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, people should stop saying ignorant things like "nobody should have the right to practice a religion that tells you to kill infidels in the instruction manual" and calling for Islam to be banned, while ignoring the fact that Christianity has pretty much the exact same problem.

      Religion isn't the problem, the problem is violent religious extremists. Well, you might be able to argue that religion is a problem, but you can't single out just one religion. People have killed in the name of pretty much every religion to ever be created.

    192. Re:In the name of Allah ! by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 0

      And when you are intolerant, you express blanket intolerance. Great way to make enemies and end up like Europe.

      What in the world do you mean? Are you saying the attack was due to european "intolerance"? Way to blame the victim. And are you claiming islamists don't bear a grudge towards America? Riiiight..

      Or it would make them feel oppressed and alienated, leading them to lend an ear to the extremists. Oh wait, this is exactly what is happening. You are your own worst enemy.

      Are you saying the attackers joined al-Qaeda because of all the terrible oppression and discrimination? Research debunks that narrative time and time again, but some people just want to believe it I guess.
      If France is so bad, why have muslims flocked there ever since the doors were opened in '72? And why don't they go back? Also, thousands of N Africans have joined their local al-Qaeda branch, or went to Syria to join IS, many more than the european muslims.
      Do you realize they have waged a low-intensity civil war against French society for decades? Car burnings happen everyday, gang rapes targetting infidel women are common, as is rioting & looting. Just last month, I counted 5 "terrorist" attacks in France: 3 instances of muslims plowing cars into Christmas markets, one of stabbing a police officer, and one attempted strangling of a police officer. This goes on all over NW Europe.
      Muslims cry oppression even in Sweden. To illustrate the sense of entitlement, newly arrived Syrian refugees there protested against their "cold and rural" accomodations:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      They are violent in their own countries as well, despite the repression. A few examples from N Africa:
      Hooliganism (note the knifes, very typical):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Islamism:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Terrorism:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Riots:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      There's plenty more, google "muslim rape gang" some time. Example from India:
      http://vladtepesblog.com/2015/...

      I've lived in several large and medium-sized european cities, the stories I could tell.. I know plenty of people who have been stabbed, pistol whipped, beaten up, groped or raped by muslims, even witnessed a few attacks with my own eyes. Sometimes they film their attacks and put them online, very smart.

    193. Re:In the name of Allah ! by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Religions are 2000 years old;
      Humans are 200,000 years old;
      Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    194. Re:In the name of Allah ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am more concerned about those 1 billion waking up one day with the same thought: This world is ours, everyone else should die.

      For the last century the prevailing theory has been that World War 3 would be fought for energy resources. Now it looks like WW3 will be the Last Crusade. Us or them. Islam vs everyone civil global conflict.

  12. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by alphatel · · Score: 1

    ...or 72 clones of themselves.

    or 72 transsexual clones of Madonna impersonators.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  13. Freedom of expression by dskoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the response of the fascist ideology known as Islam to freedom of expression.

    1. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's a nice idea; print the cartoon billboard sized, and post em up around the city.. I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to crowdfund that sort of response.

    2. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On a scale of 1-to-terrorism, this is probably one and a half drone strikes.

    3. Re:Freedom of expression by x0ra · · Score: 1

      and the next action will be even more fascist ideology with more surveillance, more "security", less private life, and less personal freedom.

    4. Re:Freedom of expression by dskoll · · Score: 1

      ? How do you leap to that conclusion?

    5. Re:Freedom of expression by godrik · · Score: 0

      Please, do not put all muslim in the same bag! Most muslim are moderate and very nice people. Do not let the crazy 1% represent all the muslim!

      I am not a religious person myself. But I find this generalization offensive!

    6. Re:Freedom of expression by x0ra · · Score: 1

      easy: it's not a conclusion, it's fact. The first action of the French Gvt was to increase the level of the Vigipirate Plan, which has continuously been running in France for the past 20 years, if not more. Just go to Paris and you'll see military personnel, including their weapons, patrolling the streets...

    7. Re:Freedom of expression by HiThere · · Score: 1

      To call a pre-industrial and pre-corporate ideology fascist is to misunderstand both. Calling it tyranny would be closer, but still wrong. It's clearly a fanaticism, but that's too broad. I hope that stupidity is, but this clearly depends on their goals and the government's reaction.

      You are correct when you assert that Islam is generally opposed to freedom of expression, but that is not a characteristic unique to Islam, but is rather a characteristic that seems to appear with every ideology that acquires sufficient power in even a small area. (Just consider the reaction of male gamers to some statements by female bloggers that they considered politically inappropriate. If that seems unfair to you, then reverse it and consider the statements of female bloggers to social communication largely between male gamers.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you fucking stand up and DO SOMETHING about that 1%. Don't stand by and let them kill in YOUR NAME.

    9. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hateful publication disguised as satirical, beloved by the hateful left, gets massacred by their even more hateful latest target.

      It's almost like infighting!

      But I fully agree with what you said. It even reminds me of Libya where some there said on TV they finally had Freedom of religion and as a result they could now establish Islam as the state religion for all.

    10. Re:Freedom of expression by dskoll · · Score: 1

      If a country is under threat, an armed response may be appropriate. I know some people don't like that fact, but it's a fact.

      As long as France wants to remain a democratic country, it may sometimes need to resort to extra armed security on the streets.

    11. Re:Freedom of expression by dskoll · · Score: 2

      Most Muslims are very nice people. You didn't read what I wrote. Islam is intrinsically evil. Most Muslims are not evil because their intrinsic human nature leads them to reject the evil aspects of Islam. Unfortunately, it's dangerous to verbalize this because apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. So most Muslims quietly reject the worst aspects of Islam without actually admitting to doing that.

      You say you find my generalization offensive? How offensive do you find the cold-blooded murder of 12 people just because they dared to exercise their democratic right to free expression?

    12. Re:Freedom of expression by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I'm not the only one to call Islam fascist. It was called fascist by the ex-Muslim son of an Imam.

    13. Re:Freedom of expression by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not offended by their murder, I am outraged by it. I used to read Charlie Hebdo when I was living in France. The death of these journalists, artists, policemen sadens me. The people responsible need to be found and jailed for life as is the penalty for first degree murder under french law, after proper judicial process.

      But let's be realistic. Terrorism of pretty much anykind is only a minor nuisance in the western world (not sure about the rest of the world). But we talk a lot about it because it appears random and it appeals to our deepest fear: the collapse of society.

      But we need to make the difference between the terrorist and the group they claim to make their act for. When the IRA was very active in the 90s, I did not blame the Irish people. When the FLNC was active, I did not blame the people of Corsica. When the "army of god" bombed the abortion clinics in the 90's, I did not blame the Christians.

      Fanatics are a problem. They must be stopped. Islam, like all religions, is defined by the belief of those that follow it.

    14. Re:Freedom of expression by godrik · · Score: 1

      Wow! Charlie Hebdo is all but hateful. Did you ever read it?

    15. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you find it equally offensive if the parent was referencing Christianity?

    16. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite seeing the huge effort on that moderate muslim team to help rooting out these extremists.

      Silence is compliance. Always has been.

    17. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is always your fault if you are offended. Always.

    18. Re:Freedom of expression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another idea: put all back issues of Charlie on a set of DVDs and send free copies to every public library, school library, universities, and anyone who will pay the postage and handling.

    19. Re:Freedom of expression by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > But let's be realistic. Terrorism of pretty much anykind is only a minor nuisance in the western world

      I don't consider it a minor nuisance if it results in
      - widespread self-censorship by media outlets and thus loss of freedom of speech
      - hatred, suspicion and distrust toward immigrant communities
      - examples and role models for malleable young minds
      - consequently increased surveiillance and monitoring of all citizens

      There are a couple of common, but false rebuttals to these:

      1. Terrorism is 'a minor nuisance' and we can thank to ourselves that we make a bigger deal out of it than what it is, drawing to ourselves the big negatives above.
      a) it's natural that newspaper editors etc. will self-censor esp. if they have family
      b) it's (unfortunately) natural that people (usually uneducated, misguided but plentyful) will react less favorably or more indifferently toward Muslims as a response
      c) who knows what the level of terrorism would be, had there not been some measures against it (surveiilance, etc.)?

      2. Why are we applying mass surveillance, when ordinary law abiding citizens shouldn't be monitored, only court approved suspects and their social network - or in other words, Western civilisation purposefully chose the evil of monitoring law-abiding citizens so why should we blame terrorists for that?
      A: You either cover networks comprehensively, or you will miss signals, because a lot of things aren't suspicious in and of themselves, however give rise to suspicion if a pattern among them is detected. To detect a pattern that emerges from individually innocent looking events, you have to, well, capture the individually innocent events. You must also retain them otherwise you can't use them to contribute to detection of future events. If you aren't comprehensive in monitoring, your adversary will exploit the gaps.

  14. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Thank You Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've made the world a safer place, where people can express their opinions without fear of persecution.

    1. Re:Thank You Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Your brain still functional?

    2. Re:Thank You Edward Snowden by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the neo-con security policies haven't worked either.

  16. umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 0

    never mind the fact that this has been posted here well after it's already been on every other media outlet.. but why is this on /.?

    1. Re:umm... by Nemyst · · Score: 3

      Obligatory "why is this on /." comment found. Answer is always the same: Stuff That Matters. If you don't think 12 people dying to mad shooters because they made cartoons matters, go check in at your nearest psychological institute.

    2. Re:umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it impacts everything we do and talk about. Our freedoms, our technologies, our needs for privacy and anonynimity.

    3. Re:umm... by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      never mind the fact that this has been posted here well after it's already been on every other media outlet.. but why is this on /.?

      Are freedom-of-speech issues not one of Slashdot's common themes?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      i guess im still relatively new enough to not realize that this comment was cliche, so apologies for that (i guess) but i still fail to see why this is 'stuff that matters'. if you mean 'stuff that matters' in terms of making people 'afraid' of a ghost threat which will be used to further give control to lying government/deep state entities, then i guess you're right. unfortunately, i suspect you believe it 'matters' because you are naive enough to believe what the pretty lady reading off the teleprompter tells you.

    5. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      you mean in terms of things that will likely allow for increased popular support to allow our government to further take away our freedom of speech (by the screaming ninny emotional responses by so many here?) yes. i suppose i stand corrected.

      i steal this quote from another blogger, who i think put it well:
      "Whenever emotional events like this happen many will jump to conclusions as to who, what, when, where and how. Our governments however have shown that they are completely untrustworthy. I will wait until we get more facts and not just the official sources before deciding what happened here. "

    6. Re:umm... by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't then a better example be a submission about the EU trying to limit freedom of speech and assembly as a result of this shooting? And not articles strictly about a massacre on the streets of a city?

    7. Re:umm... by stoploss · · Score: 1

      i guess im still relatively new enough to not realize that this comment was cliche, so apologies for that (i guess) but i still fail to see why this is 'stuff that matters'.

      No need to apologize. This kind of story would have never made it to the site pre-11 Sep 2001. When posting a story about the WTC and Pentagon attacks, CmdrTaco mentioned he would not normally include something like that on the site because it wasn't topical but decided to make an exception.

      However, the thousands of comments made on that story opened their eyes to the possibility of using stories like this as clickbait for ad impressions and to inflate traffic numbers. Thus, they proceeded down the path to the dark side, and the community came up with this "stuff that matters" semantic retcon to justify posting anything at all, even though in the past stories nominally had to satisfy both constraints ("news for nerds AND stuff that matters").

      Looks like Dice is working on retiring slogan altogether. A more honest version currently would be "Tech News or Whatever We Think the 'Audience' Might Flame War Over. Oh, and Your Car Insurance Hopes You'll Never Guess This One Neat Trick That Happened Next..."

    8. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      aaah - that makes heaps of sense. thanks for pointing that out.

    9. Re:umm... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      So people being killed because they dared to publish some satire that mocks living and dead people does not matter in your world? Are you saying that people only care about the free expression of ideas because pretty people informed them about it? What exactly are you trying to say?

      Would you feel the same way if some Amish people went on a rampage and destroyed the offices of FSF for daring to promote the use of modern technology?

      Are you saying we should just live our lives and keep to ourselves and never discuss the goings on around us? Why then did you create an account at a site dedicated to discussing the goings on around us?

    10. Re:umm... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Oh, you are one of those... Yes, please do wait for the more credible sources to inform you that this attack was not actually carried out by Islamic terrorists but was instead carried out by the bush families henchmen for the purpose of drumming up support to Jeb's presidential campaign and that it might also be possible that Obama's henchmen provided transportation (and special effects support from Hollywood) so that he could further clamp down on the political cartoonists here in the US.

      In the meantime, please stay out of the conversation until such time as you have proof of this conspiracy to contribute.

    11. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      if by one of those you mean person with working brain, then yes i am. if by 'conversation' you mean people using half their time ranting and raving about what is told to them by governments (who spend the other half of their time talking about how those same govenments lie all the time), then i will gladly refrain.

      the level of denial and cognitive dissonance is deafening. if you really want proof, it's staring at you in the face. if you really want to know, read on. i refer to 9/11, ONLY because inherent in that is the 1 unmistakable fuckup which exposes the farce. they allowed 7 wtc to be filmed as it came down - in real time.. never mind ANYTHING else about that day. if you believe in the laws of physics , then you will know that only a controlled demolition could have caused it to come down AT free-fall speed. simple. done. all the 'rebuttals' dodge that issue, and talk about how it took damage blah blah blah. simple as that. free-fall of the building is not physically possible outside controlled demolition. once you realize that, and that the official narrative is not true, you begin to question a lot of things, but i'll leave all that alone. i doubt you will have gotten past your deeply ingrained fear of the realizing you don't live in the world you were raised to believe you were. thats ok. if this blows your mind, then good. you asked me for it. if it doesn't, then there is no reaching you at this stage. might as well keep believing jesus rode dinosaurs.

    12. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      dude. you have an active imagination.. that's good. you allow it to warp your perception of reality in the here and now.. that's not so good.

    13. Re:umm... by Teun · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite.

      This matters doubly to /. because many of us make a living in the communication business.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    14. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      thanks, and fair point. i guess it's less the fact that it's listed/mentioned, and more the insanity of much of the dialog that's frustrating.

    15. Re:umm... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      i guess im still relatively new enough to not realize that this comment was cliche, so apologies for that (i guess) but i still fail to see why this is 'stuff that matters'.

      So you have a very narrow view of what matters?

      As long as I've been here, the ability of people to speak their mind without kooks killing them has been an important part of Slashdot. Strong independent streak in many of us.

      And here's the really cool part. You are allowed to think it's irrelevant to our purposes., and we can discuss back with you.

      But you do end up taking a lot of flak when you try to determine for us what we can discuss. Slashdot is not only programmers, and programmers also do more than program. Some times we even come out of our mom's basements.

      Kinda cool in the then. Sit back, relax and have an adult beverage of your choice, and make fun of people. If you want to.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      go through old posts much? who's the troll again?
      not really sure what cool adult beverage you are drinking 'in the then', but i thought 'stuff that matters' should be pertaining to the community... had *hoped*on a slightly differentiated basis. people being allowed to speak their mind without kooks killing them is not 'part of slashdot' so much as it's part of (pretty much everywhere?) in the common-sense world last i checked. sorry if you thought this was some unique home for you.
      and if you think believing what is told to you by the 'news' is indicative of an 'independent streak;, well then, whatever beer you're drinking sure is potent shit.

    17. Re:umm... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      go through old posts much? who's the troll again?

      Don't like the Friendly approach? K.

      Fuck you. I don't give a fuck if you think it's an appropriate story or not. Stories get posted on Slashdot because people go over them, and decide if they are interesting or not.

      I'm interested in the story, and given the number of comments, a lot of other people are too. If you want a website that only has news you deem appropriate, well hosting is cheap these days.

      Life's too short to demand others act as you want them to act That's how this terrorist shit starts

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:umm... by Cardoor · · Score: 1

      well, that veneer was quite thin! actually lol. that's how this terrorist shit starts? priceless dude. thanks for that. made my day

    19. Re:umm... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      dude, the perps in Paris said they were there to avenge the fact that the targeted publishers had been poking fun at Mohammed (a dead man). Did I use a ridiculous analogy? Sure, but is it really any more ridiculous than what really happened?

      Exactly how am I misunderstanding the "here and now" reality of what happened in Paris? Or are you suggesting that I should not have attempted to discuss what happened in Paris because it was in the (very recent) past? How is that any different than you discussing my post that was also in the very recent past?

    20. Re:umm... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      and what does 9/11 have to do with the recent happenings in Paris? Are you actually saying that the shootings didn't happen? Or that the two shooters were really CIA (or similar) agents pretending to be Islamic nutjobs? Please do tell.

      What really blows my mind is that you are more willing to believe that such massive conspiracies involving thousands of people can actually be kept secret.

  17. This should help set the record straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all the asshats who say that paranormal beliefs encourage people to value other people less, eventually leading them down the path to complete inhuman depravity, I hope this rebuttal will show your lack of wisdom. It only through faith (believing seemingly-absurd things in the complete absence of any evidence) that you can learn how to do the right thing, such as for example, realizing that you should walk into an office and murder a bunch of innocent people. Uncreative fools without a voice in their head to provide that guidance, wouldn't have even thought of that.

    Some of you have been saying that Muslims and Christians are all worthless piece of shit who need to come forward from medieval age, but now at least for the Muslims, we stand corrected. Your move again, Christians. Don't fall behind!

  18. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by pigiron · · Score: 1

    Nah, it's just those cut-rate H1B programmers from the Indian subcontinent who suck.

  19. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure I follow why this is a headline on Slashdot. Clickbait? Inviting inflammatory discussion? What are we going to gain from having this here?

    'Stuff that Matters?' Why not discuss it here? I think I'd rather discuss it here than anywhere else on the internet.

  20. NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1.) America protects the most nasty Mohammedanics - the Saudi Wahabists. They also did 9/11

    2.) Here in Germany we have PEGIDA, who publicly protest the corrupt elite who do the appeasement.

    3.) I hear UKIP and FN are actually also against the medivalist friends of America.

    1. Re:NOT by Optali · · Score: 1

      UKIP is against anything that moves. I have been told that they have a RPG dice and that they use it to randomly choose something to be against every week.

      They even launched a campaing against EU expats in the UK, no joking, they did! They wanted all of us Dutch, Germans, French, etc out of the islands because "we stole their jobs"... without even thinking for a second that the Brits are the biggest expat group in any of our countries. So that I wouldn't count whit these guys for anything.

      And at the end of the that they just offer crap mongoloid solutions, Yes, we can send all the "nicht westliche Ausländer" (or as we say here "niet westerse allochtonen") back to the Jungle... but where do we send "back" the NSU guys? And all the future Breiviks?

      As I told already: WE are all very fast in condemning the whole religion of this asshole prophet Muhammed, but when it comes to this other asshole, Jesus, nobody seems willing to raise a single voice, even if one single Christian fanatic in a single day managed to create as much havoc on European as any Islamic terrorists. And more are to come, I am perfectly shure.

      The issue is that these motherfuckers instead of killing each other all target the same: Civilians, be it muslims, christians or atheists, they don't give a fuck.
       

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  21. Go fuck yourself ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am sick and tired of your type of Islamic apologists

    Go fuck yourself, asshole !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Go fuck yourself ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'll say it again, "buddy". If all the Muslims were terrorists, do you think you'd be able to live your comfortable, first-world life, where all you have to do to be scared read about attacks, but don't really suffer a real threat of attack? OR do you think with nearly 1 billion martyrs running around, that perhaps most everyday would be filled with terrorist attacks nearly everywhere.

    2. Re:Go fuck yourself ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the way things are now, with EVERYDAY there being Islamic terrorist attacks EVERYWHERE? Fuck off, apologist cunt.

  22. So many angles... by axlash · · Score: 0

    Is the Slashdotterati going to talk about...

    - Militant Islam striking again?

    - Guns killing people?

    - The growth of citizen video?

    - The fact that this is not 'news for nerds'?

    I can't wait...

    --
    Deal with reality - the world as it is - rather than ideality - the world as you would like it to be.
    1. Re:So many angles... by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      Well, the real question is, do the gunmen use Linux?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:So many angles... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      How about "all of the above, and a few more"? This is one of the virtues of having a wider readership that engages in commentary. Follow the threads that interest you and ignore the others.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:So many angles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The demographics put the likelihood at higher than 90% likelihood... one of them has an android or kindle.

    4. Re:So many angles... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I blame system-d.

      system-d has angered god and we're now all paying for our software sins.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  23. Oh My Dear Mohammedic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you already circumcised ? Also, when do you take the one-way ticket to Saudi-Whabistan ?

  24. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now we can have the obligatory "Islam sucks" conversation, which will lead to the inevitable "all religion sucks" conversation, both of which are infinitely more enjoyable than simply leaving it at "Crazy people suck."

    Actually, France has been dealing with a growing problem; namely, radical Islamists who have been busy turning entire neighborhoods within France into Sharia-run enclaves. No desire to integrate into society, and indeed, they'd prefer France become a caliphate.

    Moderate voices, or efforts by moderate muslims to clamp down on this mess? Nowhere to be found.

    The UK has been seeing a rise of this as well, and Germany has recently seen backlashes by neo-nationalist elements against similar problems found there.

    Long story short, this is a hell of a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and points to a growing problem throughout the EU. The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  25. I hope they will come at you next ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1, Troll

    Only blind fuckers like you will continue to blame others for the crimes committed by the barbaric Islamists !

    Fuck you !!!!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I hope they will come at you next ! by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Murderers are responsible for their murders.

      Philosophers are responsible for their philosophy.

  26. Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Please ban all guns in France. It can only contribute to chaos and violence. Once guns are banned, this can never happen again!

    1. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is a lot of restrictions, so clearly this couldn't have really happend.

    2. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this satire? Honestly, sometimes it's hard to tell.

    3. Re:Let's ban all guns! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      AK-47 are not on the list of easily accessible firearms in France.. Tough, last I check you could get them pretty easily in the south of France...

    4. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Vapula · · Score: 2

      The kind of guns used by these terrorists is ALREADY banned... that didn't prevent them from having such guns.

    5. Re:Let's ban all guns! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Obviously a ban is not the same thing as a well enforced ban.

      Note that the most recent comparable incident in the UK involved two Muslim men hacking a soldier to death with a machete. But there was only one death. It's much easier to kill people, much faster, with guns than with machetes. The UK has been very serious about gun control though, so the lack of guns in the last attack wasn't a huge surprise.

    6. Re:Let's ban all guns! by ganjadude · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Obviously a ban is not the same thing as a well enforced ban.

      A ban is a ban is a ban. and nothing anyone can do will actually stop someone from doing what they want when they want to. bans are not the answer here

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Actually Man here. Actually, whoosh on you. He was being sarcastic, too.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      "Only" is already too much, especially for the victim and his family and friends.

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
    9. Re:Let's ban all guns! by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Gotta love those peace loving muslims...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Let's ban all guns! by zieroh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that in the UK, the ban -- which they take very, very seriously -- actually DOES result in significantly less gun violence.

      You may be personally opposed to a ban, but you can't argue in good faith that a bans can't EVER work when we have very clear examples of bans doing exactly what they set out to do.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    11. Re:Let's ban all guns! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I say the same thingd about those Scotrsman all the time.

      BTW. You might be interested in what happened at Kunming railroad station in march or Osaka school in japan. I'm sure there is more. Knives or blade weapons are not innefective. Especially in close quarters. In fact, withing about 20 feet of distance, you can be killed by a knife faster than you could draw a gun and defend yourself.

    12. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      nothing anyone can do will actually stop someone from doing what they want when they want to.

      Some people will indeed find a way round a ban.

      But many won't.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Let's ban all guns! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Even faster with a bomb. And trying to restrict bomb-making materials is essentially impossible - unless you want to restrict civilization advances from about 900 AD and forward...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when guns were banned, violent crime increased. It is much more lucrative to bludgeon some bloke with a baseball bat when you know that he is unarmed.

    15. Re:Let's ban all guns! by TWX · · Score: 2

      You checked? Like, you went to France and attempted to buy AKs?

      I don't even know how easy it is to buy automatic weapons in my own city, where laws are fairly permissive and gun ownership is not looked upon negatively, on average.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    16. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should just ban "crime". Then there will be no crime.

    17. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Nobody's claiming that guns are the only way of killing people. However, ceremonial functions aside, most armies these days have abandoned swords and spears; I assume they did this for a reason.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Let's ban all guns! by iapetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the fucking word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    19. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has never been a history of gun violence in the UK. Come to think of it, there has never been a history of pretty much anything.

    20. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Except that in the UK, the ban -- which they take very, very seriously -- actually DOES result in significantly less gun violence.

      Handguns were banned in 1997, and the years following the ban saw an increase in violent crime involving handguns. The handgun crime rate now is about the same as before the ban.

      Interestingly, there are some automatic rifles that are technically legal in the UK that are illegal in the US for private citizens. Good luck getting a license for them, though. High powered non-automatic rifles and shotguns are still very much legal in the UK, there are currently over half a million valid shotgun licenses alone in the UK. You can have been in prison for 3 years, and still get a shotgun license.

    21. Re:Let's ban all guns! by gangien · · Score: 2

      actually DOES result in significantly less gun violence.

      That is true.

      But it doens't result in less violent crime. So you're just as likely to be murdered.

      Also didn't impact suicide rates at all.

      So they changed the tools and circumstances around crimes, not the actual crimes. So they lost freedom and gained no security.

    22. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      There were about the same number of deaths in the UK from handguns when they were legal to own 20 years ago. The estimated total number of guns, legal and illegal, held by civilians in the United Kingdom is over four million. That's one for every 15 people or so. The majority of these are legally owned.

    23. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 1

      How bout those IRA pipe bombs those are way better right? You don't need guns to cause mayhem just intent. Pipe bombs, LP Gas Bombs, pressure cooker bombs IEDs etc.... Infringing on peaceful law abiding citizens constitutional rights only screws them and for what purpose? Those that have the intent will still kill. Only now the citizens are unarmed and even less able to protect themselves and have less rights than what they started with. Super great plan. looks like you have it all figured out.

    24. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ban on guns was a further restriction to already strict rules. Its not like anyone carried one around legally before then, but they could keep them if they were licensed at home and transport them (securely) to a range. Now they can't. But the number of hand guns was still very small even then

    25. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      They were restricted prior to the ban, in similar ways that the current guns are restricted now. I personally knew someone who I went airgun shooting with who had his guns in a normal house in a normal suburb.

      You weren't allowed to carry, that was always a difference.

    26. Re:Let's ban all guns! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol..

      That would have a lot to do with being within arms reach of each other and not needing years of skill to be effective more than anything else. Firearms allow more strategy rather than limits due to attrition. But they are not particularly more deadly.

      BTW, two of the bloodiest battles in history, The battle of Leipzig and The Battle of Cannae, where fought primarily with blade weapons. Firearms were present and used in Leipzig but the type and nature of them caused a lot of reliance on blade weapons. The second and third most deadly wars in history measured by total death toll was also fought with blade weapons.

    27. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so clueless it's not worth arguing with you.

    28. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, after we went to the moon, not much happened, anywhere.. People have been walking around for the last 45 years saying, 'Now what?'

    29. Re:Let's ban all guns! by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      Um, show be some data on "Handguns were banned in 1997, and the years following the ban saw an increase in violent crime involving handguns. The handgun crime rate now is about the same as before the ban."

    30. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice concession ... come back with data that you're not going to find.

    31. Re:Let's ban all guns! by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      GP is likely from France.

      Automatic weapons are available for legal ownership in the US with a special permit.

      Last time I checked in the south of America, if quasi-legal acquisition was your goal, you could get them pretty easily if money was no object.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    32. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replacing gun violence with Hooligan violence!

    33. Re: Let's ban all guns! by pev · · Score: 1

      Maybe we have a history of not much over here, but we've got hundreds and hundreds of years more of not much than our american cousins... :-D

    34. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Shompol · · Score: 1
      A few issues with your observation:

      - They don't have handguns so they butchered 1000s of people with a knife, how about you include that in your comparison, not just "deaths from handguns"?

      - Ethnic composition of the two countries is not the same. UK is in Europe while US has peoples from all over the world, and trust me it is not the former Europeans who drive murder statistics here. In fact, looking at charts that consider more than ffffffffffwhole two points of data you can observe that US is clearly an outlier:

      oh look there is a negative correlation between guns and murders

      and US is OUT THERE

    35. Re: Let's ban all guns! by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      We were pretty nifty with bows and arrows, back in the olden days.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    36. Re: Let's ban all guns! by shilly · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you and Charlton are having a lovely time together, but if you could just lift your head up from his lap a moment, and put your hands on the keyboard instead of his nether regions, you could the search for the UK's murder statistics. If you did that, you would learn (I know, you wouldn't really, as learning require openness to data, but bear with my figure of speech anyway) that fewer than 700 UK citizens were murdered last year, which rather gives the lie to your excitable little notion that we are being butchered in our thousands.
      The British population is about 60m, so about a fifth of the U.S. population. But the U.S. has about 14,000 murders annually. Now, maths may not be your strong point, but let me give you a hint: that's slightly more than five times the UK murder number. In fact, would you know it, it's actually more than twenty times the UK murder number.

      Ok, you can carry on fondling now. Enjoy!

    37. Re:Let's ban all guns! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i didnt say i was opposed to bans, simply that just because X is banned, is not going to stop a madman from doing X

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    38. Re:Let's ban all guns! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      the south? hell NYC you can grab a fully auto modified AR for a few hundred bucks. its not that big a deal

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    39. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      This is a good example (warning, pdf). See table 2, which shows that handgun offences were at 2648 in 1997, the year they were banned, and had risen to 5874 by 2001/2.

      There isn't any evidence to show that handgun crime fell or stayed the same after the ban, because it didn't, it more than doubled in 5 years.

    40. Re: Let's ban all guns! by baristabrian · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Eric Holder, et al, provide guns to criminal types?

      --
      -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
    41. Re:Let's ban all guns! by markass530 · · Score: 1

      actually DOES result in significantly less gun violence.

      Well, as long as people are only getting stabbed or bludgeoned, all is well then, right?

    42. Re:Let's ban all guns! by markass530 · · Score: 1

      Yea, Just a metric fuck ton of stabbings, they're now trying to ban kitchen knives,

    43. Re:Let's ban all guns! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I get murdered with a knife or baseball bat. Hurray!

      Can I just get shot please?

    44. Re: Let's ban all guns! by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Would I be correct to assume I'm seeing evidence of yet another conservative American somehow managing to raise himself momentarily up from the fetid swamp of willful ignorance and blind, vacuous stupidity that is his home to excrete more evidence of the decline of a once-proud nation onto the public stage?

      Dude, you should just post a link to a YouTube video of a dog having a dump and save everybody time.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  27. As an atheist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not a fan of any religion. But at least, over the centuries, society has been able to stamp out the worst ones and dilute the craziness out of the remaining (Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc). Now it's Islam's turn, the worst offender of them all.

    It would be hilarious is if wasn't so terrifying that making this emoticon of the Prophet Mohamed would get you killed if it wasn't true. (((:~{>

    1. Re:As an atheist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait - I thought you said society had stamped out the worst ones... but the very worst one remains?

    2. Re:As an atheist... by srobert · · Score: 1

      Whoa! You're a brave man...,Anonymous.

    3. Re:As an atheist... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Which is the worst offender? Sorry, I believe you think that I should conclude that its Islam, but to me it still seems that Christianity has the edge. Islam hasn't yet tried to bring on the end of the world, as some powerful Christian groups have. The tools they have used were political, and they haven't been successful, but they have tried, are still trying, and some are near the centers of power.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  28. BINGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mohammedic Computer is based on wires and beads. Strictly mechanical.

    "electricity" is probably an infidelist concept from the Germanic Barbarians like Heinrich Hertz and Konrad Zuse.

  29. They got away!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    How do you shoot up twelve people in the middle of Paris then get away? Wtf?

    1. Re:They got away!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering that, it seems very fortunate

    2. Re:They got away!? by multi+io · · Score: 1

      How do you shoot up twelve people in the middle of Paris then get away? Wtf?

      What's more, it all happened at place that was supposedly under "police protection"...

    3. Re: They got away!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same way you allow fascism in I suppose.

    4. Re:They got away!? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      Just avoid rush hours.

    5. Re:They got away!? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I haven't read up on it yet but they were probably pretty fast. Police response times are often pretty bad even in 1st world countries. Even if you get a fast response it isn't necessarily going to be enough to stop the attack or apprehend the attackers. In this incident two police officers arrived and were killed by the attackers as they left.

    6. Re:They got away!? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      in a city of several MILLION, pretty fucking easily.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:They got away!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you shoot up twelve people in the middle of Paris then get away? Wtf?

      By surviving getting shot by the police. Two of them have gun wounds.

    8. Re:They got away!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got in and out fast (about 5 minutes). The first police response team (either that or a routine patrol by chance) arrived just as they were going out of the building. They shot those policemen (killing one), then fled on car. They quickly encountered another police car, which they shot once again at (killing another policeman - this is the horrifying video going around on youtube where one of the guys just shoots the wounded policeman point blank in the neck, after the cop was begging him not to).
      Basically: they went very fast, kept shooting at cops as they popped up GTA-style, and changed car at least once. They were very organized and appear to have had at least some military training.

    9. Re:They got away!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      French War on Terror... the French have a reputation for being good at war... not...

  30. Time to Bring Back Everyone Draw Mohammed Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May 20th. Mark your calendars.

  31. No, you really havent avenged anything. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Charlie Hebdo is the name of the office you shot up, and i hardly imagine its going to avenge anything. 4 years ago, you firebombed the offices and razed them to ashes. It didnt work. Charlie Hebdo kept printing, and in the wake of something that would have sent any other newspaper in America scrambling to retreat Hebdo hardly seemed to care. Stephane Charbonnier, the editor in chief, issued a statement that referred to the attempt at censorship not as terrifying or vengeful, but just 'irritating.' You were nothing more than an irritation after property damage, but if history is any indication you've just opened a hundred new offices for Charlie Hebdos of all shapes and sizes. If you didnt want the prophet depicted, if he was in fact sacred, you've now effectively guaranteed Muhammad will be depicted voraceously, callously, and unabated for days to come.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by BZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, Stephane Charbonnier is one of the people who were killed in this latest attack. I really hope you're right that Charlie Hebdo will keep going, but it's a lot easier to recover from physical damage to offices than it is from having the staff that make the magazine what it is killed. :(

    2. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really want to but some Charlie Hebdo publications this week, anyone have a good source online?

    3. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, this time they actually killed some employees, including cartoonists and the editor in chief. Unlike what we in Europe like to think, violence DOES work and DOES intimidate people into silence.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, this is more than an irritation to Charb as he was specifically targeted for assassination (and they succeeded). They took out several other key people as well during the paper's weekly meeting. This will undoubtedly cripple them very severely.

    5. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where we as Europeans (and Americans, if you care about your talk about freedom of speech), need to stand up and show that even killing will not suppress our satire. Fine, kill a few of us. There's 300 million more, and among them, surely some will have the balls to face death over a few cartoons.

      Because it really isn't about the cartoons any longer. It's about people reacting with deadly violence over something that should, nay must be seen as innocuous for our civilisation to function. So our civilisation is no longer allowed to function? Then it's either muslims go home, or we cease to be civilised.

    6. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you're right about American journalists/cartoonists. It's politically incorrect to allow free speech where Islam is concerned, that must be deemed, "hate speech"; of course, any and every other religion or group is fair game every day.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    7. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Obviously the Islamists have never heard of the Streisand Effect.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      refer to historical text and realise, in the words of Mr. Radjak ("Starship Troopers", Heinlein), that naked force has ended more conflicts than any other course in history. If you want to argue against the point, speak to the elders of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You know, the ones whose arguments were ended in nuclear blasts.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    9. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why we should turn to the well known leaders of this "peaceful" religion, and say; "Hey, we know who you are, where you live, who your family is and above all, we know you know which the rotten eggs are. You start sorting them out if you are as peace-loving as you claim. And hurry up, or trains will start rolling. Just sayin'."

    10. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Ideally the people to stand up and shout loudest will be "main stream" muslims - just to make a statement to these murdering fuck-heads that they change nothing.

    11. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Well, it would help if you Europeans would stop talking about the necessity of having laws that protect people from being offended and such. That sort of thing is very much anti-freedom of speech.

    12. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Terrorist are those idiots that belive that by killing a person you kill an idea.

    13. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well duh. But naked force has started more conflicts than any other course in history. All of them, in fact.
      There are many reasons why I don't like Heinlein's works, and his condescending jingoism is one of them. The sad thing about it is that the only reason for his attitude was that he was scared shitless of Russians.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    14. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have killed almost everyone there. Charlie Hebdo may survive in name, but the paper itself is dead; everyone who was involved in its creation is prety much dead.

      Like it or not, the terrorists take this round.

    15. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I agree - but nobody asked ME about those laws!

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    16. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "something that would have sent any other newspaper in America scrambling to retreat "

      Bullshit.

    17. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have made a thousand Charlie Hebdos in hundreds of countries -- wherever free thinkers do not let their mind be subsumed by a violent cult.

    18. Re:No, you really havent avenged anything. by robi5 · · Score: 1

      I think that high political circles and social forces will make Charlie Hebdo continue no matter what, otherwise it looks like successful censorship and loss of face (loss of sovereignty) even in the unlikely case that the remaining staff would refrain from continuing.

      The real damage is through all the other media outlets who will consciously or subconsciously self-censor themselves.

      If an entity or social force (e.g. the Muslim fundamentalism) has the power to introduce censorship in areas that matter to them, then in effect Muslim fundamentalism gained some (additional) level of sovereignty over French (and W. European and Western and World) territory, at the expense of preexisting (French etc.) sovereignties.

      So in some form it is a significant battle in the fight between Islam (as culture and social phenomenon) and Western civilisation.

      It won't stop Charlie Hebdo but it claimed a huge swath of territory. Combine it with the effective censorship of that stupid movie in the US and you (presuming Western values) will WANT a pervasive surveillance state to counteract the encroachment of foreign powers into your own life, as the lesser evil.

  32. Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs or else WW3 will happen soon. The problem with islam today is the mainstream muslim population is unwilling to tell their brothers to stop terrorist activity.

    Are they scared, complacent or secretly in aggreement???

    My trigger finger is on an Israeli Military Industries manufactured .50 cal and it is becoming more twitchy by the day.
    : )

    1. Re:Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with islam today is the mainstream muslim population is unwilling to tell their brothers to stop terrorist activity.

      Or is the mainstream community radicalized too? Arab Spring anyone?

    2. Re:Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The problem with islam today is the mainstream muslim population is unwilling to tell their brothers to stop terrorist activity.

      Last paragraph of TFA, or 7th paragraph of this:

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      This kind of condemnation isn't uncommon, and if you speak with any Muslim they're all disgusted with these assholes. Do they have to set up billboards?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're an infidel your life has no value; "Convert at the point of the sword" means just what it says.

    4. Re:Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are just words. Pretty, but cheap and meaningless.
       
      So do tell me, howcome it's so hard to track these idiots coming back from Syria? They are religious nuts, they must be attending to mosques. Howcome no-one tips the police off about them? Oh right, they aren't THAT outraged.

    5. Re:Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "This kind of condemnation isn't uncommon, and if you speak with any Muslim they're all disgusted with these assholes. Do they have to set up billboards?"

      I think they do. I would.

    6. Re:Islam needs to reign in their junkyard dogs. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Are they attending mosques? From what I understand these nutbags usually get kicked out of mosques at the first sign of being nutbags (such as Dzokhar Tsarnaev.)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. In the words of the editor of Charlie Hebdo by barlevg · · Score: 5, Informative

    After their offices were firebombed in 2011, cartoonist and editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier, who is rumored to be one of the causalities of today's attack, said he did not see the bombing as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called "idiot extremists." Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

    1. Re:In the words of the editor of Charlie Hebdo by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      .. editor-in-chief Stéphane Charbonnier ... said he did not see the bombing as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called "idiot extremists."

      And he was right, for what that's worth. There are few things in this world more dangerous than drawing the attention of lots of idiots.

    2. Re:In the words of the editor of Charlie Hebdo by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Stéphane Charbonnier, who is rumored to be one of the causalities of today's attack

      Not rumored anymore.
      Charb's dead, as well as Cabu, Wolinski, Tignous, Bernard Maris and at least 7 others.
      Cabu was my favorite cartoonist, and the father of my favorite singer, Mano Solo.
      May they all rest in peace.

    3. Re:In the words of the editor of Charlie Hebdo by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      said he did not see the bombing as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called "idiot extremists."

      What he neglected to notice is that there's lots of room to be both.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:In the words of the editor of Charlie Hebdo by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      said he did not see the bombing as the work of French Muslims, but of what he called "idiot extremists."

      What he neglected to notice is that there's lots of room to be both.

      It's politically incorrect to realise that. You need to be medicated and reeducated.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  34. Can be answered in devastating effect tommorow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every media, newspaper, magazine, tv news outlet can provide their answer tommorow morning by posting direct on the front pages the cartoons of Mohammed - and simply state that Violence cannot, and will never win against the Pen.

    However, media companies can also continue to self censorship as they have done now for many years, and leave small numbers of journalists and freedom fighters, to face these evil people on their own. Its a fucking call to arms - Its high time people understood on both sides that any form of respect towards a religion has to be earned and that religion will not be allowed to dictate what equates in terms of liberty and free speech.

    This attack is the spear end of a much larger one on freedom, free speech and liberty by Islam and Muslims - and its been taking place over dacades. Its a serious fight, and should not end on the death of some Charles Hedbo office in France.

    1. Re:Can be answered in devastating effect tommorow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are they taking so long to nuke the entire Middle East?

  35. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you blame that guy MOSES, who apparently invented the idea that Violence For His Little Hateful God, was a good idea.

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

      Yahweh started out as a god of war, back when he was part of a pantheon. Violence has *always* been his thing.

    2. Re:Maybe by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Yahweh in the old testament is pretty much a real son of a bitch, no different than the angry father next door beating his kid for their lack of compliance. Though, somehow, you call the cop on latter, and prey the former.

    3. Re:Maybe by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      Yahweh in the old testament is pretty much a real son of a bitch, no different than the angry father next door beating his kid for their lack of compliance. Though, somehow, you call the cop on latter, and prey the former.

      My history is a little rusty, but isn't yahweh of the old testament and allah the same god?

    4. Re:Maybe by no_go · · Score: 0

      History ?

      How on earth can you call the contents of any religious book history.

      They may be part of history, may shape and frame history (as is happening now) .

      Maybe story ?

    5. Re:Maybe by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      sarcasm. text doesn't carry it.

    6. Re:Maybe by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Yahweh in the old testament is pretty much a real son of a bitch, no different than the angry father next door beating his kid for their lack of compliance. Though, somehow, you call the cop on latter, and prey the former.

      My history is a little rusty, but isn't yahweh of the old testament and allah the same god?

      Pretty much. A large part of the Koran is just a retelling of the old testament. While the Koran says that Christians are the most like the Moslems, both Christianity and Judaism are "People of the Book". It's just that the teachings of earlier prophets who taught those two religions were corrupted.

    7. Re:Maybe by meglon · · Score: 1

      Yahweh, Allah, God.... all the same, different languages. Judaism has lots of prophets, but Jesus ain't the messiah; Christianity ignores most of the prophets (although Catholicism has so, so , so many saints), and Jesus is their messiah; Islam has lots of prophets, Jesus and Mohammed being two of them.

      I've always found it fascinating that Christians in the US, who supposedly are all about Jesus, blindly support Judaism which says point blank: Jesus wasn't the messiah, yet they are so vocally opposed to Islam which says that Jesus was a prophet of God.

      I chalk it down to ignorance, stupidity... or both.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    8. Re:Maybe by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Yes - all three religions come from the similar root, and are considered to be "Abrahamic faiths". The main differences are whom you consider to be a prophet, what books and teachings from those prophets that you include, and whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

      It's like an Open Source project with lots of forks and variances in what libraries its creators and maintainers chose to include, and everyone insisting that their version is the One True Answer.

    9. Re:Maybe by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      I've always found it fascinating that Christians in the US, who supposedly are all about Jesus, blindly support Judaism which says point blank: Jesus wasn't the messiah, yet they are so vocally opposed to Islam which says that Jesus was a prophet of God. I chalk it down to ignorance, stupidity... or both.

      logic has no place in religion.

  36. Every publication in France should take a stand. by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every magazine and newspaper in France should publish the offending cartoons on their front pages. Show these assholes that they wouldn't silenced with violence.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  37. Some cartoons & translation by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some Charlie Hebdo cartoons with translation.
    That would be great if magazines worldwide could support Charlie Hebdo and the free world by publishing some of these cartoons (with a better translation ;-)

    1. "Mahomet is overwhelmed by fundamentalists" Balloon:"It's hard to be loved by jerks"

    2. "Charia Hebdo" Balloon:"100 lashes if you do not LOL [Lit.: die loughing]"

    3. "Coran is crap..." "It's not bullet proof"

    ...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Some cartoons & translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the 3-some having sex with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Anti-Christian, Anti-religion, anti-government. Anything for a Franc.

    2. Re:Some cartoons & translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't the sort of thing I want to read.

      But no Christians or Jews have killed anybody over those cartoons.

      Not all Muslims will commit murder over a cartoon, but some will.

    3. Re:Some cartoons & translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you haven't realized this yet, it's perfectly acceptable to bash and mock Christians.

  38. And their reasoning is? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    The magazine had recently published a cartoon of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and witnesses say the gunmen shouted, "we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad," before leaving.

    If only either The Prophet or his followers had a sense of humor or, in the latter case, intellect. I don't see how a cartoon about al-Baghdadi has anything to do with Muhammad. In any case, according to Wikipedia:

    The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures. [citation needed] ... The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry. [5]

    So, the prohibition against imagery, if it even actually exists, doesn't seem to apply to non-Muslims - who, of course, are in no danger of being subverted by idolatry.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:And their reasoning is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another funny thing. Clearly he is very much already idolized, imagery or not.

    2. Re:And their reasoning is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny part is that Muhammad (pork be upon him) is idolized to a degree that would make a North Korean blush.

      Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of claims to the contrary, Muslims worship their golden calf almost as much as the devil he spoke for.

    3. Re:And their reasoning is? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      The funny part is that Muhammad (pork be upon him) is idolized to a degree that would make a North Korean blush.

      Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of claims to the contrary, Muslims worship their golden calf almost as much as the devil he spoke for.

      IMHO that's one of the saddest things about the whole "no depictions" thing... the fact that the people who are most vocal about it, are the ones who have apparently, entirely failed to understand the intent behind this hadith.

      It's almost like... they're just total psychopaths or something.

      I really hope the "main stream" muslim community can use this as a reason to clarify some of this shit, because it strikes me that there's a fuck of a lot of self-appointed clerics who are really not doing anything useful; just stirring up hatred.

      *FYI - I'm not a muslim! Apologies for any errors.

    4. Re:And their reasoning is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but they are morons.

      First, they love to raise their finger to show "1 god" as if they are the only ones who believe that and that this makes them different.

      Then, they destroy anything like symbols, paintings, statues of every religion (they even want to blow up the pyramids) because they think that people who admire these things, either as symbols or for historical value, worship them as Gods.

      In fact, these terrorists are extremists only because they are stupid.

    5. Re:And their reasoning is? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      If there was really a prohibition against "creating visual depictions of figures" then there would be no TV or photography in use by muslims. Writing certain languages would be right out too, anything with characters based on pictograms of [human] figures.

      But there isn't, it's a very new thing. IMO it's been brought in as an excuse to justify violence that would be otherwise so abhorrent to most people who call themselves muslims that they'd probably risk death in favour of apostasy. If however those who want to control the muslim population feign offense and cry that they're only trying to protect Islam then they can win over "cultural" muslims.

  39. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *<-Mohammeds dickhair, meddling with a 8 year old without pubic hair.

  40. Video by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is uncensored video of the gunfight with a police officer, then the execution of the police officer. I think it's good for the public to see these kinds of things, so they can fully appreciate the reality of the threat posed to our society.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U sicko? This is slashdot not Aljazera.

    2. Re:Video by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The censored version does not do justice to the dead police officer. In fact, it does a grave disservice because it doesn't clearly depict the police officer begging for his life, and the evil of those that killed him, thus "taming" the act, making it seem more respectable.

      I understand that not everyone has the stomach to watch it. But in my opinion, those that don't have the stomach are often the ones who need to watch it the most, because those are the first people who line up with appeasement language. The people expressing appeasement "Islam is a religion of peace" at this point are simply delusional. Let me know when Islamists start turning in the radicals that live among them, en mass.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Video by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The cop should've either played dead or tackled the guy as a final fuck-you, did he think he would be shown mercy by these nutbags?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Video by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your straw man. You do not need to hear the gurgling screams to know that someone is royally fucked up in the head to decapitate someone, or shoot someone begging for their life. I have watched a number of those beheading videos and will probably watch this one (when at home). And every time I hear about how violent Islam is, I find it disingenuous because logical fallacies and abandonment of reason. That is what most of those arguments come down to: fallacious reasoning.

      Islam is a religion of peace just like every other Abrahamic faith is. I.e. they all are not inherently peaceful.

      I don't need to watch a shock video to lose my rational.

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

      This is Islam. Watch repeatedly until you understand what Islam is.

    6. Re:Video by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You obviously aren't the persons I was talking about.

      You're right, that you don't need to hear the screams of those that are dying to know that it is fucked up. You need to hear it if you keep making stupid appeasement statements like ‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam’ - Obama. Which is exactly what these assholes did in Paris today, denied the future to those that slandered the Prophet of Islam.

      This is exactly what Obama actually called for.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Video by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      This just in. Politicians say retarded shit. News at 11.

      If the cartoon was not of Mohammed but of the ISIS leader, How was it slander against Mohammed? It seems to me that this was more of a political message than a religious one.

    8. Re:Video by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      This just in /. user doesn't understand long term history of the those involved. They "slandered" the prophet many many times. It just took a while to organize the assault.

      Attention span issues ...

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Video by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      I fully disagree. I do not need to watch such videos (and I will not) to understand whaht is going on. Or shall we slowly make the whole society numb to deep human suffering and disgusting brutality?

    10. Re:Video by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      FYI: That is what Mumia Abu Jamal did to the wounded Danny Faulkner, but with a less efficient shot.

      For those Mumia fans.

    11. Re:Video by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      This is exactly what Obama actually called for.

      I think that was during his speech in the Philippines.

      "I call on Islamic radicals to enter the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris and kill 12 people with automatic weapons." - Barack Hussein Obama II

      My god, you're right. It's exactly what he actually called for. Good call on that, thankfully you're here to point out things that other people would have missed.

      Thanks, self-proclaimed Archangel!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:Video by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      Oh wait... none of the police were armed.

      WTF?! Police were not armed?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    13. Re:Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mother#$(*%s! Wish I could unload an M60 on these assholes!

    14. Re:Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is uncensored video of the gunfight with a police officer, then the execution of the police officer. I think it's good for the public to see these kinds of things, so they can fully appreciate the reality of the threat posed to our society.

      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

      fucking savages

  41. Yes, yes indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only one approved way there, though: Either convert, or kill, all infidels. Total world domination is the only way.

    Don't believe me? Go look up their scripture. It really is all in there. Therefore, any "moderate" muslim is simply one who doesn't know their scripture very well. Which equates to being an apostate in that very same holy book. And that too carries the death sentence. Again, look it up.

    1. Re:Yes, yes indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing the bible has no such dictates. Judeo-Christians FTW!

  42. Blame somebody else ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep

    That's the modus operandi of your kind of apologists

    Whenever them barbarians killing people in cold blood you guys will come out and blame the Christians, the Jews, and now, Moses !

    Why don't you blame "GOD" instead ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Blame somebody else ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Why don't you blame "GOD" instead ?"

      Don't be stupid, he's not real!

    2. Re:Blame somebody else ... by davydagger · · Score: 2
      the modus operandi for reactiory apologists is to point out other reactionaries they are fighting, and that they are slightly less bad.

      Its not a war of "Islam vs Christinaity", and I agree anyone who brings up other reliegons is dumb. Its a war of modernism vs stark reactionaryism. This breed Islamic Fundimentalists are no diffrent than any other far "right" reactionary group, and has always servred the same purpose of repressing freedom and proggress in the middle easy, often at the beheast of Western intrests.

      There is not a philosphical debate, its purely political.

    3. Re:Blame somebody else ... by no_go · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not.

      It is NOT "God's" fault (after all, how can an imaginary entity be at fault).

      The fault is most certainly on very real people.
      It is on those who exploit religion and manipulate people to their own ends, and those that, by omission or actively, allow or encourage their allies to exploit it.

      The fault lies with the dictators who use it to maintain control, the upstarts that use it to gain control, and also the politicians that close their eyes when someone that is somehow usefull exploits the people this way.

      This has been going on forever (ex.s : Rome's state paganism against christianity, islamic invasions of southern europe, The various crusades, the religious schisms and wars in europe, the european fascist states from the 1920 , the "Troubles" in Ireland, the sorry state of affairs in the Middle East, The Talibans/ Al Qaida/ ISIL, the ongoing attempts at intolerant christian polarization in some western countries , Buddhists oppressing the Royingas in Myanmar, etc...)

      And when anyone tries to reduce this issue to "Us against Them", is either falling prey to these tyrants or has an agenda.

  43. And nothing will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because whereas they'll blame TV, video games, drugs, high interest loans, bankers, gambling, smoking and alcohol for any problem, when it comes to religion, our politicians will just stare at the ground and shuffle their feet.

    You know, because otherwise we'd be regarded as being "intolerant".

  44. Just for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more muslims act in this way, the more people need to act back.

    In the United States after we had a a bunch of threats from muslims over somebody drawing a picture of Mohammed, American's responded by drawing hundreds of thousands or even millions of pictures of Mohammed. There is even a "Everybody draw Mohammed day". It's a new holiday (May 20th)

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

  45. Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is times like this that reminds me how thankful I am that gun control keeps deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous criminals.

    Oh wait ..... nevermind.

    1. Re:Whew! by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      At the gun lobby likes to remind us: guns don't kill people, religions do

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  46. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    or 72 transsexual clones of Madonna impersonators.

    Could be worse. Could be 72 clones of Madonna.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  47. Terrorists by mseeger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Terrorists are people, who feel more threatened by a drawing than by drones,
    Terrorists are people, who fear small girls with books more than death,
    Terrorists are people, who use bullets because their mind cannot work with words,
    they are not scared by torture or surveillance, but truth and freedom.

    1. Re:Terrorists by dskoll · · Score: 3, Informative

      +1. Islam is petrified of people who think, because thinking people will see it for the racist, facist, evil, misogynistic, hateful, backward pile of war-mongering nastiness that it truly is.

      Anyone who doubts the depths of depravity encouraged by Islam should read Cruel and Usual Punishment, written by a former Muslim who suffered at the hands of Islam.

    2. Re:Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1. Islam is petrified of people who think, because thinking people will see it for the racist, facist, evil, misogynistic, hateful, backward pile of war-mongering nastiness that it truly is.

      Anyone who doubts the depths of depravity encouraged by Islam should read Cruel and Usual Punishment, written by a former Muslim who suffered at the hands of Islam.

      The parent post refers to terrorists, and I agree with their statements regardless of the terrorists' cause.

      Also, in my experience, fundamentalist religion regardless of the particular religion opposes independent thought and good reasoning skills among the followers.

    3. Re:Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful !

    4. Re:Terrorists by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that, religion isn't necessary. It's worse than that, fundamentalism isn't necessary.

      Any ideology that becomes sufficiently powerful relative to competitors in an area becomes intolerant of any threat to that power. Religion is one area where that happens. Politics is another. School discipline is another. Etc.

      Please consider carefully the case of schoold discipline. Being intolerant of competiors to power is not inherently bad. The ways in which the intolerance is expressed are equally a consideration. Also the motives for expressing the power. But motives are not supject to objective test.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Terrorists by asylumx · · Score: 0

      Islam is petrified of people who think, because thinking people will see it for the racist, facist, evil, misogynistic, hateful, backward pile of war-mongering nastiness that it truly is.

      When you make it about one religion, you pretend that it is the only religion with nutbag extremists. It's not. You could replace "Islam" with "Christianity" or a handful of other religions and the rest of your sentence would remain true. Just bear in mind that there are plenty of people in each of those religions who are not afraid of people who think, and are fully committed to being peaceful, productive members of a modern society.

      Christians & Muslims get judged a lot by their religion because many people of those religions judge others a lot. Turn-about is fair play.

  48. Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Explain the Crusades

    The Crusades were a series of events where the leaders of a religion (which believes there's an invisible Man up in the sky who makes you an offer you can't refuse) decided that going off to kill innocent people is a great idea and compatible with the faith.

    It should seem very familiar to anyone in the modern age. Crusades then, crusades now. Same attitude, basically the same people.

    Islam, you're the new Christianity. 900 years from now, you'll be known for your more subtle evils and call these days your totally-irrelevant long-reformed-from past, in which only a minority actually actively participated in the barbarism (the cowardly majority simply looking the other way). In 2900 you'll say you're pro-education but be rabidly anti-education. You'll preach words of Love and teach values of Hate. All Muslims should journey to a Colorado Springs megachurch, to preview their future.

    1. Re:Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      900 years from now, you'll be known for your [SNIP]

      The only thing "known" by a future Islamist society will be the Koran, since nothing else will have been taught. I say let them have their Caliphate. In no time their utopian society will return to the stone age, and they won't be a threat to anyone else.

    2. Re:Explain the Crusades by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the Crusades, whatever the religious justification, were about propping up the Byzantine Empire... well, except the 4th Crusade, which ultimately was about a bunch of rich Italians seizing Byzantium, looting it and sending the booty back to Italy.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Explain the Crusades by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Explain the Crusades

      The Crusades were a series of events where the leaders of a religion (which believes there's an invisible Man up in the sky who makes you an offer you can't refuse) decided that going off to kill innocent people is a great idea and compatible with the faith.

      It should seem very familiar to anyone in the modern age. Crusades then, crusades now.

      "Innocent"? Not exactly. Muslims captured Jerusalem and sent their armies out into the world (Moors, mamluks, etc..) The claim that the crusades were nothing more than unprovoked rampaging and looting is muslim apologist bullshit. When one religious group attacks another's holy site and captures it, what do they expect to happen??
      Many horrible things have been done in the name of every religion on Earth, but I tire of seeing the crusades constantly misrepresented as nothing more than a murdering/looting spree, and the false portrayal of muslims as their innocent victims.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    4. Re:Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are making excuses for a bunch of killings? Aren't the retard terrorists doing the same thing? Or are you excuses for murder better?

    5. Re:Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Crusades, whatever the religious justification, were about propping up the Byzantine Empire... well, except the 4th Crusade, which ultimately was about a bunch of rich Italians seizing Byzantium, looting it and sending the booty back to Italy.

      Actually, the crusades, no matter what you think you think you know ... were more than 500 years ago.

    6. Re:Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say let them have their Caliphate. In no time their utopian society will return to the stone age, and they won't be a threat to anyone else.

      The reason why they won't be a threat to anyone else is that there won't be anyone else. At which point they will just turn their swords on each other. Progress. Ain't it grand?

    7. Re:Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Innocent"? Not exactly. Muslims captured Jerusalem and sent their armies out into the world (Moors, mamluks, etc..)...When one religious group attacks another's holy site and captures it, what do they expect to happen?? (...) I tire of seeing the crusades constantly misrepresented as nothing more than a murdering/looting spree, and the false portrayal of muslims as their innocent victims.

      There are about half a millenia between the Arab conquest of Jerusalem and the 1st Crusade. Pilgrimage was still possible during some times.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem#Rashidun.2C_Umayyad_and_Abbasid_Caliphates_period
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_during_the_Middle_Ages#Arab_Caliphates_.28638.E2.80.931300s.29

      The following book from Amin Maalouf (French-speaking Libanese) is great. From the point of view of Arabs of 1099, French invaders were simply cruel barbarians who attacked them by surprise.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crusades_Through_Arab_Eyes

      Perhaps has someone written an uchronia where Muslims and Christians unite and save Baghdad from Mongols. That would have changed the world.

    8. Re:Explain the Crusades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You greatly over-estimate the capabilities of these idiots.

    9. Re:Explain the Crusades by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I'd attribute a good portion of that delay to the disarray and infighting the christian world was in after the fall of the Roman Empire. There was a lot of ebb and flow in the hostilities and peaceful times between the two religions, there was no unbroken 500 year long period of calm between them. Eventually Europe got it's own act together enough to have the wherewithal to do what was seen by the crusaders as a way to recapture lost glory.
      It'll always be controversial, even professional historians are disagreed on motive, but there are likely more than one.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  49. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bonus conversation: All religious people are, by definition, crazy.

  50. Wow ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    I am all about being correct

    REALLY??

    And in this case, Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity is

    Oh wow !

    Yet another try of "being correct" by blaming Christianity for the violence committed by the barbaric Islamists !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Wow ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be a genius at one thing maybe, like computing maybe, but you seem otherwise completely senseless. The point is not to blame Christianity. The point is to realize that Muslims are not the only people who bomb people. All sorts of non-Muslim people have been bombing the hell out of Muslim since the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001. (And if you go back >30 years, people all over the world, for various reasons.) Where is your outrage over that? But you are so completely bat-shit-crazy focused on "Muslim terrorists" that apparently those are the only people who have committed any kind large-scale violence. Ever. It's almost absurd to read your posts in relation to this topic. I don't see ANYONE saying 'yay, pseudo-Muslims struck again.' Somehow though, it seems like you do, since everyone who tries to make you cognizant of the fact that not all Muslims, not even a majority of Muslims, attack people, is in your eyes an "apologist'.

  51. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These psychopaths don't kill in believe of religion or a political ideology, to them, these ideologies are just a license or an excuse to bring their sick desires into the real world to feed their ego. They kill because they wan't to kill and it's always been like this. It's the same with cops they choose this type of profession for power. It will take a lot more centuries for humans to evolve into a non-violent race.

    Imagine if there was a "My Little Pony" religion and which the "My Little Pony" bible contained absolutely zero violence do you really think it would stop their followers from murdering or committing other horrible acts of violence? NO!

    1. Re:hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, it probably would. People are drawn to ideologies that support their inclinations. Someone craving violence would just move on to a more aggressive religion and leave your religion to the bronies. Note that no scientologists have gone on a rampage in some time. That is because that religion draws naive sheep with disposable income and a need to feel wanted... not your typical psychopath.

  52. Topol M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can easily show them the "power" of their Nasty Little God. Or more likely, the Lack Thereof. Hit Mecca, that is the only thing which will make a difference.

    1. Re:Topol M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how smoker's tooth polish has anything to do with this.

  53. Mayhem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is Varg Vickernes when you need him.

  54. #JeSuisCharlie? by Xelios · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe instead of representing solidarity with a silly hashtag it'd better for us all to exercise free speech by posting a picture of Muhammad. Not an overly offensive picture either, a simple stick man would do.

    This craziness isn't going to stop until the media and us people in general start standing up for the things that we're always claiming to hold dear.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    1. Re:#JeSuisCharlie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe instead of representing solidarity with a silly hashtag it'd better for us all to exercise free speech by posting a picture of Muhammad. Not an overly offensive picture either, a simple stick man would do.

      Muhammad's picture is everywhere in the USA. Here is one example.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/STOP_sign.jpg

    2. Re:#JeSuisCharlie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe instead of representing solidarity with a silly hashtag it'd better for us all to exercise free speech by posting a picture of Muhammad. Not an overly offensive picture either, a simple stick man would do.

      This craziness isn't going to stop until the media and us people in general start standing up for the things that we're always claiming to hold dear.

      You forgot the link to your picture. Or am I missing something?

    3. Re:#JeSuisCharlie? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead of representing solidarity with a silly hashtag it'd better for us all to exercise free speech by posting a picture of Muhammad. Not an overly offensive picture either, a simple stick man would do.

      This craziness isn't going to stop until the media and us people in general start standing up for the things that we're always claiming to hold dear.

      This. We're not defending freedom of speech by resharing a silly hashtag or platitudes like "we won't be silenced". Islamists don't give a fuck about that. We must do what they don't like, so they get the message that murdering journalists won't get them respite: we must draw and write more Mohammed cartoons/comics, and reshare them.

      BUT... the problem is that the great majority of people are essentially cowards, and want someone else to stand up for what is right.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  55. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why just France? I think every magazine & newspaper the world over that respects their profession should publish the offending cartoons.

  56. Yep, blame "Yahweh" !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    When the Islamists kill innocent people we shall not blame them

    Instead, we should blame the Christians

    We should blame Moses

    We should also blame Yahweh

    No sirree ! Them Islamic barbarians are blameless !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Yep, blame "Yahweh" !! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Not to say that Muslims are all pure, but Yahweh is a child murderer, rapist, and keen to use violence to get to his mean mean.

    2. Re:Yep, blame "Yahweh" !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're thinking of Mohammed, you dumb, apologist cunt.

  57. Yay! by DougDot · · Score: 0

    Let's hear it for religion. Again.

    1. Re:Yay! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Let's hear it for religion. Again.

      Yeah, Mother Theresa was pretty vile.

    2. Re:Yay! by DougDot · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Ever hear of The Inquisition? How about Catholic pedophile priests? And WTF does the Vatican need with its estimated $45 billion net worth?

      The catholic religion is pretty fucking vile.

    3. Re:Yay! by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 1

      I suspect you meant that a jest, but she was actually fairly vile. One opinion: http://www.stuff.co.nz/aucklan...

    4. Re:Yay! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I have heard of those things. But when you wrote, "Let's hear it for religion. Again." it wasn't clear whether your were saying all religiously inspired activity was bad, or just some.

      I assumed you meant "all", because I don't see why you would have bothered commenting that some people claiming to be in group $X do evil stuff. Most of us assume that's true for just about any value of X.

    5. Re:Yay! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mother Theresa was a closeted atheist:

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, especially the part where she thought that things like pain killers were the devil's work..

    7. Re:Yay! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Mother Theresa was a closeted atheist:

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...

      It seems to me she was more of a closet agnostic.

    8. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agnes Bojaxhiu aka Mother Theresa took money from the Duvaliers in Haiti and S+L scam artist Charles Keating. She primarily spent the money on nunneries with her name, not on the poor. In her Nobel Prize acceptance speech she said, "abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace". That's what the poor of Calcutta need... more babies!

    9. Re:Yay! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      mother theresa WAS a piece of 'work' (and I don't mean that in a good way). she encouraged the poor to suffer.

      how fucked up is THAT? I see no compassion there!

      'my way or the highway' was her attitude.

      fuck that!!!

      she's no saint.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:Yay! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      So Dougie old mate, you just tried to justify everything they have done, the WTC, all of the terrorist acts, the Iran Iraq war ( quickly now, tell us how when they kill each other, it's the catholic's fault) by dissing Christians? So you are saying it's all good.

      Fucking Crusades, Inquisitions, and burning witches are evil and all, and nothing I hate more than pedo Catholic priests. All religion is at the core of a whole lot of death and destruction.

      But flying airplanes into buildings is somehow the equivalent of perverted sex??

      It's the religion of peace, right up to the time they lop your head off. I have no doubt that they will take as much leeway, and kill as many infidels as we allow them to.

      The mistake we made was to get involved in that neck of the woods in the first place. Nothing we will do will ever stop them from killing each other, and now us. It's how they express themselves, and they only hold grudges forever. Better we left them to the practice of their religion and ignore them. Now we are just sucked into their vortex of eternal war, and the tit for tat continuum.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Yay! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Mother Theresa was a closeted atheist:

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...

      Christopher Hitchens certainly hated her.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Yay! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Let's hear it for religion. Again.

      Yeah, Mother Theresa was pretty vile.

      Yes she was. Hitchens said it best:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  58. quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As Christopher Hitchens or Steven Weinberg said, "With or without religion, good people will do good and bad people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."

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

      I would argue that the affiliation with religion gave a false sense of good. Those people were never really good.

  59. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're being overrun by Islamics in the name of political correctness.

  60. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK has been seeing a rise of this as well, and Germany has recently seen backlashes by neo-nationalist elements against similar problems found there.

    Long story short, this is a hell of a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and points to a growing problem throughout the EU. The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.

    If its gotten to the point where neo-nationalist elements are marching in the streets over the issue, I don't think it is as complex as you think it is.

    Just because someone conceals themselves under the name of religion doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to them until the blood starts flowing.

  61. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been a long standing issue in France as they have completely failed to integrate immigrant groups, both culturally and economically while maintaining an open borders policy.

  62. Firepower disparity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three Marines with pistols will be wiped out by a company of Mohammedics with AK47s, bullet vests and RPG7s.

    The situation was a bit different, but you MIGHT get the idea.

  63. Take the "prophet for a walk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am going to buy a jackass, shave the name Prophet Muhammad and walk him around a mosque later today.

  64. intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    as an american, i am confronted with limits other democracies put on free speech sometimes. for example: germany disallows nazi symbolism. as an american i am not as threatened by this symbol, as nazism never overran my country, and so i find myslef at first opposed to the german limitation as a violation of the right to free speech

    but on deeper thought, i understand why germany would want to do this, and i see no conflict with free expression in the end. because the nazi symbol in germany clearly represents the ideology of ending free expression violently

    so there is no logical conflict: all rights have natural, logical limits, they are not endless. in regards to the special case of using freedoms to actively seeking the destruction of freedoms

    for example: you have a right to life, unless you threaten another person's life

    you have the right to a free press, unless you use that right to call for violent limits on the free press

    and, now, my point here: you have a right to free expression, unless you use it to advocate a limit on free expression violently

    i'm not saying someone can't say "you should not say that." i'm saying no one should be able to say "if you say that, i will kill you"

    no one should be allowed to use freedoms granted to them to deny others freedom

    in this way, we have the right to limit hateful violent religious speech that calls for the destruction of the tolerance that allows that hateful violent religious speech to be spoken, and we are not violating our own free speech principles. the logical failure is with using freedoms to deny freedoms, not with the opposition to doing that. just like with nazi symbols in germany: it is not logically inconsistent with free speech to limit that symbol, because the symbol means destroying free speech

    so i believe france should have the right to limit all religious speech that calls for the ending of fundamental rights violently. jail or expel imams and groups that call for violent attacks on free speech. there is no logical conflict with a rights-loving democracy to do that, because the only thing being limited is the cancer that actively seeks to end rights

    there is no slippery slope here: no one should be allowed to oppose a fundamental freedom with violence. you invoke the right to stop someone's speech ONLY if that speech calls for violence to end to free speech

    intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself

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

    Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?". He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".[1] Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you are saying, but you exposed the fact that you have a Shift key on you keyboard when you capitalized "ONLY" near the end.

      At least you use the Enter key appropriately (avoiding the wall of words that classic literature can suffer from), and, when needed punctuation, such as commas, colons, and periods. I did notice the lack of any period at the end of a paragraph, but the line breaks were enough of a cue for me to handle the transitions.

      Anyway, just giving you shit, your points are very valid and appreciated. It just took a little extra effort to read (lowercase "i" for example).

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    2. Re:intolerance, and intolerance of intolerance by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the states we call such speech "inciting to violence" or "inciting riot" and such and it is banned. One problem the Europeans face is that in their unwavering rush to be "tolerant" they started passing laws banning speech that would offend certain groups. All this has done is convince members of those certain groups that they can now take the law into their own hands and shut down such speech by whatever means necessary to preserve their "right to not be offended." And yes, the government of France did play into this with their ministers running around condemning the magazine for publishing stuff.

      Kind of like how certain US officials knowingly tried to explain away one of our Middle East embassies being overrun by terrorists as simple and understandable retaliation for some idiot in Florida burning some books.

  65. Expect More Attacks by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

    Some people get sidetracked by the religious aspect, but that isn't what is really going on. Europe gets bullied easily (Russia for instance) and they encourage it by their behavior and reactions. Muslim extremists sense this weakness and exploit it. Expect more censorship and fear.

    France has had many of these types of events in the last year. There will be more.

    --
    Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    1. Re:Expect More Attacks by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      And at some point expect a serious backlash from the population when they've had enough. The problem is that it will be indiscriminately targeted at all Muslims and will probably shape immigration policies and cause further discrimination. I don't see this turning out well for Islam one way or another, unless the moderates get their shit together and fight back against the fundies tainting them name and religion.

    2. Re:Expect More Attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe gets bullied easily? - as opposed to the land of the free and the home of the brave who never negotiates with terrorists or let them win. Then does secret squalid back door deals with them to get the people back.

    3. Re:Expect More Attacks by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      " I don't see this turning out well for Islam one way or another"

      France is old people and young Muslims. They will be a Caliphate soon enough.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    4. Re:Expect More Attacks by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      Europe gets bullied easily. I didn't draw any comparisons. You can if you like, but it has no bearing on the statement.

      Comparisons don't change that Europeans get bullied easily.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    5. Re:Expect More Attacks by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Europe gets bullied easily and they encourage it by their behavior and reactions. Muslim extremists sense this weakness and exploit it. Expect more censorship and fear.

      I'm not sure what fear you are talking about. My reaction to this crap is anger, not fear, nor is fear a reaction I see in others I know. On the contrary, I want to kick those terrorists' arses. Looking at the Liveleak video I find myself wishing I was down there with a gun myself so I could have a shot at the bastards. I was in the military myself once, and it was not because of fear that I carried a gun at that time.

      For me, the next best thing to kicking their arses myself is seeing someone else doing so, hence I am all for measures that will lead to that end. So let's post those cartoons everywhere now, to get the bastards to come out and show themselves.

  66. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by ranton · · Score: 1

    Now we can have the obligatory "Islam sucks" conversation, which will lead to the inevitable "all religion sucks" conversation, both of which are infinitely more enjoyable than simply leaving it at "Crazy people suck."

    I would hope our society is becoming advanced enough to jump straight to "all religion sucks" instead of having to dwell on criticizing a single religion as if today's terrorism is any different than the crusades. Its only the fact that the western world doesn't pay attention to our religions as much that makes our religions seem more enlightened.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  67. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    Bad idea, I rather than suggest to sentence them to draw Mahomet until death.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  68. Further proof by wiredog · · Score: 0
  69. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 0

    Long story short, this is a hell of a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and points to a growing problem throughout the EU. The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.

    That's because the EU treats their immigrants like shit in comparison to the United States. France goes so far as to tell people what they can and can not wear in public spaces then wonders why they have a backlash from their non-assimilated immigrant populations. I lived in the EU for a time (Finland) and the treatment I saw there of the immigrant population was genuinely shocking. Hell, I encountered some of it myself, as a temporary resident, while being a white person of European descent who shared a common language with the locals. I can only imagine the day to day experiences of someone trying to establish themselves there permanently, with a complete language barrier to overcome and open contempt/hostility directly towards their faith.

    The United States is far from perfect but we do a much better job of integrating immigrants than Europe. You don't see nearly as many disaffected second or even third generation immigrants leaving the United States to join ISIS or similar organizations. The EU needs to confront this reality and deal with it sooner rather than later.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  70. You're expected logic... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ..where you're not going to find any. Either in their book of fairy tales, sorry, "holy koran" or in their dimwitted brains. Religion - particularly islam - abhors logic and rationality since enables people to see it for the bunch of lies, fantasies and half truths that it really is.

  71. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by x0ra · · Score: 1

    The stance should be global, ie. a cartoon of Mohammad, Jesus and other religious symbol all having a (pansexual) orgy together.

  72. Centralk African Christian take bloody revenge by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Actually more than you would think. Still no justification for moslem to do the same or christian or anybody. I view both extremist as both equally sociopathic assholes.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Centralk African Christian take bloody revenge by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Honestly curious: would you point me towards some of these examples? I've seen a few folks say that it's still going on, and where there's smoke there's typically fire, but I have yet to be shown any concrete examples.

    2. Re:Centralk African Christian take bloody revenge by Xest · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps one of the more obvious ones is the Srebrenica massacre where 10,000 muslims were killed by Serb Christian Orthodox in the 90s.

      More recently, according to this link since 2008 until 2012 alone the LRA has killed 2,600 people:

      http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/0...

  73. Avenge the Spaghetti Monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I suppose, now the French police will have to avenge the Spaghetti Monster, catch and execute these Islamists, and so the cycle of ignorance will continue.

  74. Hmm.. an interesting equivalence.. by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

    Nobody seems to be doing any real analysis.. but from the summary, I find it interesting that these perpetrators believe that insulting the head of ISIS is equivalent of insulting Mohammed. After all, Islam was not at all harmed here, the satire was directed at the head of ISIS. Yet, that was enough to trigger an attack. This isn't really a religious based attack, but more of a revenge and a show of force. This is true terrorism as they are demonstrating that ISIS can reach anywhere. It also makes France looking quite weak.

    If anything this attack will cause France to make some kind of mistake that would further cause extremism in their muslim population and possibly creating more recruits for ISIS. The attack will also demonstrate to extremist elements in the muslim population that ISIS has power.

    If I was France, I would be looking at both social/economic reforms for these folks, and also restrict further immigration from Arabic countries until they can figure out how to resolve this crisis.

    1. Re:Hmm.. an interesting equivalence.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake.

    2. Re:Hmm.. an interesting equivalence.. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The paper in question did do cartoons of Mohammed, the founder of Islam himself, and the head of ISIS was only a recent target. The threats to this paper have been several years old, even though it's only now that they could/chose to act on it. But you are right about one thing - Muslim immigration does need to be ended if France wants to find its way out of this problem

  75. Muslim scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking muhammad up the arse.

  76. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    AKA Dearbornistan.
    My worry is, though the moderate majority may indeed intend no harm nor foul to non-muslims, if the time comes when their hand is forced to pick a side when things get more heated, I'm betting more than half will fall on the side of their islamic brethren.

    I'm also sick of hearing people, including Obama, state that IS is "not Islamic". I've never heard a more prime example of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  77. Islamic State is the modern embodiment of Mohammed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the Muslims on earth, IS behaves most closely to the way in which Mohammed and his followers "converted" the conquered. The overwhelming majority of conversion was done at sword point with death as the punishment for apostasy.

  78. The Religion of Peace strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need any more be said?

  79. in the name of X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the name of "Allah", who will be the next victim ?

    Per Fred Reed:

    Critics of religion say, correctly, that horrible crimes are committed in the name of religion. So are they in the name of communism, anti-communism, Manifest Destiny, Zionism, nationalism, and national security. Horrible crimes are what people do. They are not the heart of the thing.

  80. They really 'avenged' the wrong person by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    Isn't this a picture of the Muhammad that they 'avenged' the same guy who admitted to have 'married' a 9-year-old girl?

    Doesn't that mean his picture would have to be published on the child sex offender website as a statutory rapist?

    I also read that this is the same guy who admitted to being possessed by the spirit of Satan as a way of explaining his mistakes.
    It's seems odd to 'avenge' him... After all, these admissions were specifically included in the book about him so that everyone would remember he wasn't an 'avenge me' worthy kind of guy.

    Maybe someone will find a way to avenge that little girl. Perhaps the leaders could at least offer an apology to her descendants?

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:They really 'avenged' the wrong person by Megol · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a picture of the Muhammad that they 'avenged' the same guy who admitted to have 'married' a 9-year-old girl?

      No a 6 year old. He just didn't fuck her before the age of 9.

      Doesn't that mean his picture would have to be published on the child sex offender website as a statutory rapist?

      No as he lived in another country with another set of laws and practices. Practices that wasn't too uncommon and still aren't in some parts of the world.
      Besides the fact that he has been dead for a long time.

      OTOH You (and I) could be sentenced to death today for insulting the prophet and Islam.

  81. Question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we make a promise to only report the facts of shooting from now on? This is great, I was expecting to see ISLAMIC TERROR AT French Magazine HQ! But I was pleasantly surprised. If we can do the responsible thing and only report the incidents, we'll give terrorism less power. Imagine a bunch of people, shooting up a magazine HQ, and nobody gives a shit why, you think that might deterr the next people with a similar idea?

  82. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1
    Can you give us two of such enclaves (two is the minimum, as you use plural). They must respect the conditions that you gives:
    • 1) be/becoming a Sharia-run enclave
    • 2) Absolutely no moderate* muslim said anything or did anything about it

    * From what I understand when you use "moderate" in front of muslim, I would probably call them just "muslim" or "normal muslim", but I have kept your word.

  83. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

    The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.

    The US sees quite a bit of this issue, just not with Muslims.

  84. arab immigration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these countries that want to allow immigration of all peoples, no matter how twisted their beliefs are, are now feeling the wrath. You reap what you sow. This is what happens when you allow islamic people into your borders. The best thing for France to do is to round up all the arabs, put them on buses, bring them to the airport, and ship them the hell out of the country. They have no place to be there in the first place. Their value system is 360 degrees different than western civilized society. They no place in a civilized world. Send them all back to the third world middle east regions they came from and never look back. This would have never happened if they had not let these uncivilized criminals into the country. Blame it on the politicians, the blood is on their hands.

  85. idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    recruit the hells angels, sicilian mafia, yakuza, etc and pay them to exterminate all these islamic extremists scum

  86. the christian abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is more subtle, more deceitful. islam, even radical islam, is generally truthful, at least. xtians kill with lies, mostly.

  87. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    I can easily agree with your points, and you're right - immigrants are treated like shit in the EU (though more out of fear of what happens to the local culture/economy/etc than out of any generic racism or hatred). Compounding this is the fact that most of the EU member nations do not guarantee many of the basic protections that we enjoy here (well they do, but such protections are not as inviolable and enshrined-from-the-start as they are here - e.g. freedom of speech, religion, etc.)

    Compounding things further, there is still the issue of non-integration. To be fair, each EU nation has a specific culture, which is generally held in higher regard than the desires of newly-minted citizens (unlike the US, where we generally don't have a 'culture' per se, let alone give it primacy.) Thing is, if you want to *stay* in France, Germany, the UK, etc, one would think that integration would be a top priority, if only for success and stature within your local society.

    To be fair again, the US has a bit of a problem with integration, specifically with Latino populations. But again, a Latino enclave doesn't use religion as a basis to set their own laws or to kill anyone who mocks them in the public arena... France on the other hand...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  88. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not being allowed to cover your face completely is not the same as telling people what they can and cannot wear any more than not being allowed to be completely nude in public places. Would you allow people to be nude in public spaces (apart from designated places such as nude beaches)?

    Based on your post, I draw certain conclusions about you as a person and I think your treatment had more to do with your attitude than the fact that you were a foreigner. Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume that the common language you refer to is English, which people in Scandinavia + Finland, usually speak very well. However, it doesn't change the fact that it is a foreign language to them and since it's your native language, they're already making an effort to accommodate you and if you didn't show that you appreciate it, it's hardly surprising that you got hostility in return.

    Finally, I have to remind you that European welfare states immediately give immigrants better economic benefits than anti-socialist USA although I agree with you that the US is more of a melting pot than any other country.

  89. if anything the slander of islam should increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    if anything, directly because of this incident, the slander of not only islam, its followers, the "prophet" "muhammad" -- who is far from it -- should not only continue, but they should increase. These people are animals, they are monkeys, they should all be slaughters. Anyone who believes in the subjugation of women, the slaughter of children, the removal of education, all these primitive animals, they have no place in civilized society. Islam is bullshit. You want to pull out a gun and start shooting and shouting god is great, fuck you, and you should be sent back to the third world you came from. The belief system is flawed, its wrong, its bullshit, anyone who thinks in that way should be removed and deported.

  90. We need Voltaire by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Never has this quote from Voltaire been more true:

    Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    1. Re:We need Voltaire by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  91. Crazy? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    There is crazy, and then there is Crazy. This is one of the things I dislike about the "i'm insane" defense in judicial systems. Just because you do something so abhorrent, by default it is "Crazy" to normal people.

    "Crazy" would be if a carrot told these people to attack cartoonists with spoons and forks. Clearly mentally disturbed crazy.

    Here you have multiple people that are motivated by dogma and ideology, identify with a group of radical violent people, who identify themselves with a particular religion. They are not crazy, they react with intent and planning, determination and commitment. They are dangerous criminals and terrorists.

    The question isn't about all of those who practice Islam falling into this category, it is about why so many people seem to become radicalized. Is it culturally about where much of Islam is located, or does it have more to do fundamentally with the religion itself?

    It seems these events are pretty common, the perpetrators condemned by the peaceful Islamic community, but then find out they attended the same mosques as the peaceful condemners. That is when this "crazy" terminology starts getting thrown around to diminish the relevance of it all. It isn't like these people are attending some secret evil underground mosques... Though some do seem to go travelling for "training" abroad, you have to be pretty much already committed to do that however.

    1. Re:Crazy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crazy indeed. It's crazy that, in 2015, billions of people all over the world cling to religions. What's really crazy is that a lot of these people really believe what they priest tells them and take as true the myths written down in their chosen (or inflicted) holy book.

      I repeat, it's 2015. Why do we bow to religions and the religious? Why do we let them have power over us?

      On the Origin of Species came out in 1859. All the evidence collected and examined since confirms that we are a natural product of natural laws. We were not "created."

      Get over it!

  92. no more habibs by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    in light of this, i suspect the French have every reason to ban Arab-style head garments and perhaps even some support for requiring all Muslims in their country to register, and wear little green triangles on their coats so they're easier to see in a crowd of Frenchmen.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  93. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    I want to open a BBQ place here in America, where the spokespig is named Mohammed.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  94. don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I refuse to believe this. Islam is the religion of peace. This was done by Christion terrorist we hear so much about. Probably nuns.

  95. This is all Microsoft's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know exactly how, but it's definitely M$'s doing, probably with the help of some binary blobs.

  96. Nope by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This can't be true. France has some pretty strict gun control laws. Terrorists and criminals should not e a ble to get hold of such weaponry. These reports must be wrong.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This can't be true. France has some pretty strict gun control laws. Terrorists and criminals should not e a ble to get hold of such weaponry. These reports must be wrong.

      I sure hope this has been modded wrong and is actually a joke, because it's the stupidest +3 Insightful I've read in a while.

    2. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we have guns here in the US so this never happens. People never shoot up movie theaters, schools, their workplaces, or military bases. You can thanks guns for this.

    3. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France has approximately 1/3rd the rate of gun ownership per capita at the USA, and yet has 1/10th of the gun related homicide per capita rate as the USA. So it appears the gun control laws may be pretty reasonable.

    4. Re:Nope by peppepz · · Score: 1

      The place was subject to armed surveillance but the terrorists managed to slaughter the cops, too. Your sarcasm is therefore out of place, and anyway, choosing such an occasion for an attempt at gun propaganda shows bad taste and lack of compassion. You're not doing a good service in your cause, IMHO.

    5. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can't be true. France has some pretty strict gun control laws. Terrorists and criminals should not e a ble to get hold of such weaponry. These reports must be wrong.

      I love your logic. Because something isn't 100% effective in all cases in situations, it should be mocked and thrown out! Is there any room in your brain for thoughts such as "perhaps an isolated incident is not representative of the situation"? Or maybe deep research that shows just how much lower France's gun-death homicide rate is compared to other, more "free" countries like the USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    6. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/3rd the rate of gun ownership per capita at the USA,

      As well as 1/3 the citizens with concealed carry permits?

    7. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People never shoot up movie theaters, schools, their workplaces, or military bases.

      Pretty much all 'gun free' zones. Either by law or workplace/management policy.

    8. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be an idiot. If they had similar gun laws to the US, they would have the same amount of gun-related crimes which they don't.

  97. Let's nuke all Muzzies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, our governments are not killing and radicalizing enough muzzies. Our government incinerates the brown towel heads, and their little shit spwan by the thousands from Afghanistan to Iraq to Lebanon to Occupied Palestine, but damn like roaches they just keep popping up and taking our own. You think these fuggers are ISIS? Almost a century ago our forefathers, Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot drew the map for these uncivilized barbarians and told them to live in the boundaries like they are supposed to. Our forefathers knew how to keep these barbarians in check, not like they mealy mouthed bastards crying 'human rights!'. They're not human, which is why they are so easy to kill. Israel has it (partially) right, herd and kill those bastards. But now those assholes ISIS are just ripping OUR maps to pieces and drawing it the way they want to. WE told them where the maps are and they need to be taught a lesson. When we invaded Iraq in 03, we told the sunny muzzy bastards they cannot be part of the political process and the brown tards turn around and spit on our decree like rebellious teenagers and form ISIS. We should have nuked Iraq into glass ages ago. I mean they're living like dogs there now anyway so we would do them a favor. It seems the more of these brownies we kill, marginalize and exclude from the political process, the worse they get--so there is a case for nukes. Also, you have so many of these immigrant bastards running to our free society because they can't hack it in their war torn shithole. Again, if we just nuked them all, there would be no where for them to run to. So they killed our cartoonist for a joke, but the joke is on them because we incinerated hundreds of thousands of them over a joke! WMDs! These shitheads are so busy killing each other, half a million on each side over in Iraq/Iran during the 80's that they could not make a WMD if they wanted to! But that's only Iraq, I mean over in Iran our president told that fugging Shah to do what he had to do to put the people in check. All the Shah did was cook his citizens in torture chambers and use live rounds on protesters who wanted to elect their own government. But damn, they went off and put an Eye - a - tollah as their leader in '79 while holding our people hostage. That's why we gave chemical weapons to Iraq to use against the Iranians. That's why I laugh when our buddy Colin Powell said WMD's! I mean, we sold them the damn things! So we put the Iran and Iraq in a constant state of war and martial law so their "societies" could not go through a reform process. They couldn't make any WMD's even if they wanted to! As for the Palestinians, didn't Israel learn anything? You can't wall up a people and kick them like the dogs they are and not expect them to get bitten, not matter how weak and destitute the dog is. They should have used the final solution. That's the only way, really. I mean, Warsaw Ghetto! Hellooo! Notwithstanding the walking dead, dead people can't do an uprising. And Afghanistan, well...she-yit...As far as the 1800's our forefathers went in their to tame those bastards...but they are just too wild. The russkies went in there in the 70's to have a go, and we had fun using the turds as cannon fodder back then to take down the reds. I mean, better dead than red, right? We gave them all sorts of our goodies to take down the reds, trained 'em too. Reagan even declared a 'national afghanistan day', can you believe it? He said those brown 'tards reminded him of the American founding forefathers. Well first, the're not even white so I'm not so sure what ol granpa's been smoking when he said that. But he was a holee-wood actor...So these wild dogs are busy killing each other after the reds leave, which is cool, and then they start aiming at us. So forget history, we have to get in there now and tame those wild dogs. But the fact is, they are STILL too damn wild and they don't want us there. I mean, yeah, it looks like Barrack HUSSEIN Obama (ohhh, don't get me started...) watched the terminator too many times and offed a few Afghani

  98. It"s so unreal. by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

    Virtually everybody knew these guys.

    Among them, Cabu was particularly well known by French and Belgian people of my generation (1975).
    He was, among other things, a caricaturist on a widely watched children/teenagers show that started in 1978, with the kind of lasting impression you can imagine on our young minds.

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

    --
    Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  99. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My sister has encountered this in Dublin - where she lives there's a [relatively] large muslim population. Unlike the generation of immigrants from the 70s, these ones want nothing to do with Irish life. Over there it's pretty common to nod or say hello to people on the street, and especially so if you're in the country side. She's had a few times where she started chatting to a [obvious] muslim couple when hiking and they've been pretty uncomfortable - the men doesn't like talking to strange women and the women don't appear to like talking to strangers. Her solution now is to be more cheerful and chatty the more rude and distant they are. There's no way I could ever describe her as right-wing, but she's got a point - if you're going to live here, you better learn to deal with our social customs.

    AC - for identification purposes.

  100. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dearborn, MI is not under Sharia law. although they do have a large Arab population

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/dearborn-michigan-sharia-law-satire_n_4179045.html

  101. Muhammad protected the murderer of a pregnant woma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because she used to laught at Muhammad, according to an authentic (sahih) hadith. These "terrorists" did the exact same thing.
    http://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/11

  102. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by rmayes100 · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is that radical Muslims are expanding their territories by creating settlements within other countries...I wonder where they got an idea like that?

  103. Jihad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world should openly declare jihad against all jihadists. Terrorists should have only one right.. the right to be shot immediately by firing squad.

  104. France, Netherlands, and UK have the same problem by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    Colonial-era laws that were designed to allow home-country colonials carte blanche to move into colonized countries like India, Algeria and Indonesia. As a cynical gesture of fairness, colonials were given the same right to migrate freely to the home country without going through regular immigration channels. When the law was written, no Indonesian peasant could save enough in a lifetime to buy passage to Amsterdam. Today, they can do so easily, and the Islamists among them now form a huge radical rabble infesting the old colonial powers.

    Although Germany has a milder version of the same problem, caused by freely taking in "refugees" rather than colonialism, Islamic takeovers in cities like Dresden are causing a significant backlash among Germans, including regular immigrants. Watch for this effect magnified in France.

  105. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    To be fair again, the US has a bit of a problem with integration, specifically with Latino populations.

    I'm not sure I'd agree with that; all of the second or later generation Latinos I know are at least as "American" as I am, if not more so. It's hard to define what "American" means exactly but in this context I'm referring to assimilation; they've thoroughly assimilated by the time of the second generation. Even the first generation immigrations I know are fairly well assimilated after a few years here; whatever barriers remain there are typically more related to age than culture, for example, the Grandparents of my Mexican friends would find a lot in common with my own Grandparents with regards to cultural conservatism.

    Thing is, if you want to *stay* in France, Germany, the UK, etc, one would think that integration would be a top priority, if only for success and stature within your local society.

    Culture changes over time even without immigration. Those who cling to past romanticized ideals of their own culture are doomed to disappointment and resentment.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  106. Egyptian President by weiserfireman · · Score: 4, Informative

    A couple days ago, I learned about the New Year's Day Speech by the Egyptian President. ..http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/01/egypts-president-sisi-calls-for-islamic-religious-revolution/

    He called for a deep revolution in thought about the tenets of Islam. He believes that Muslims are destroying themselves and their credibility with the world with the violence being done in the name of Islam.

    After I heard about the events in Paris, I really wanted to hear what he has to say. I think he would be dismayed, and point to it as an example of what he was saying.

    1. Re:Egyptian President by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      Sounds good, but we are talking here about a regime in a country which is sentencing political enemies to death by the hundreds... I could never shake hands with that man - I'd be left with stains of blood on mine.

    2. Re:Egyptian President by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      See also the recent massive protests in Germany over the "Islamization of Europe", by a group called Pegida. Turnouts way higher than any of the US police protests recently. If you're not familiar, most European countries are seeing a huge influx of Muslim immigrants, legal and illegal (understandably, I'd want to leave too.)

      Of course the anti-Pegida protests had just as big a turnout, but I see that as caused by German guilt about Nazism, wanting to distance themselves from anything that might be construed as intolerant. As the percentage of Muslims in Europe grows, they may feel more emboldened in their attempts to bring Europe under Sharia law. Notice how this latest attack was not a suicide attack, the gunman fled and were loose for a day or so. Perhaps they feel safer when the majority of people in their neighborhood are Muslim.

  107. Thanks for nothing NSA, GCHQ/MI6, DST etc. by Stoned_Immaculate · · Score: 2

    All that internet and telephone snooping really payed off, didn't it..

  108. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by DRMShill · · Score: 1

    I'll see that and raise you that every entity in the world that profits from the freedom of speech should have pick one day out of the year to post the most insane inflammatory depictions of Muhammad they can think up.

  109. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Not being allowed to cover your face completely is not the same as telling people what they can and cannot wear

    Yes, actually it is. Justify it however you want; it's a manifestation of France's hostility towards religion and if you had bothered to follow both links you would have noted that they target such policies at Jews as well as Muslims. In any event, it's not my place to tell the French how to run their country, but if they're going to bellyache about resentment amongst immigrant populations you should take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself where such resentment is coming from.

    I don't live in a part of the United States with a large Muslim community (Upstate New York) but even I occasionally see people wearing face coverings in public. Guess what? It doesn't hurt me or mine one damned bit. Why the French feel the need to legislate this is beyond me. Send the immigrants to the United States if you don't like them so much; we'll take them in and make them our own. Meanwhile France's (actually the EU as a whole) demographic problem will continue to get worse and worse. The EU has a binary choice at the end of the day: Have more babies or welcome immigrants.

    However, it doesn't change the fact that it is a foreign language to them and since it's your native language, they're already making an effort to accommodate you and if you didn't show that you appreciate it, it's hardly surprising that you got hostility in return.

    I didn't say I got "hostility"; I said I saw treatment of immigrant communities that was shocking to my North American sensibilities. The Canadians I knew made the same observation so it wasn't some uniquely American perspective that I had which was offended. On balance I had positive experiences; I'd go back there in a New York Minute. All I'm saying is I can see how easily it is for immigrant communities in the EU to feel marginalized, and Finland is one of the best EU countries with regards to the integration of new arrivals.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  110. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    She's had a few times where she started chatting to a [obvious] muslim couple when hiking and they've been pretty uncomfortable

    Finnish people behave in a similar manner when confronted with pointless small talk; is it okay to deliberately annoy the shit out of them too?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  111. Vive la France! by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My hat's off to the murder victims. They had the guts and the courage of conviction to take on Islam. Let us honor these brave Frenchmen and their country.

    My fellow Americans like to joke about French surrender and Googling French military victories ('no results found"). But that seems absurd to me because it's the French doing all the brave things while Americans cower in fear.

    I do not see CNN or Fox News or Huffington Post or any other American paper taking on Islam. Politically correct cowardice is rampant in America, home of the chickens. American activists bravely take on Silicon Valley tech firms and Xbox gamers for misogyny while completely ignoring the Islamic treatment of women. That's like attacking a kid for playing with water balloons while ignoring the mafia guy next to him planting C4 car bombs. But I guess even cowards have to make themselves feel good by doing something... as long as there's no danger to themselves. Safety is important!

    1. Re:Vive la France! by acoustix · · Score: 2

      Being an American I have to say that I agree with everything you said. PC has run amok in the US to the point where nobody will stand up for anything. It is sad.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    2. Re:Vive la France! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from cartoons, what are "all the brave things" being done by the French?

      It's primarily the US military operating against them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has been for far longer than any of us would like. But Europeans will shake their heads at Americans for being warmongers. Now you're saying Americans don't do anything at all?

      Make up your fucking mind, because it certainly seems like a no-win for them.

    3. Re:Vive la France! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      These brave Frenchmen were the exception, rather than the rule. Otherwise, most French are pretty pro-Muslim and anti-Israel

    4. Re:Vive la France! by jerome · · Score: 1

      I think you are extremely mistaken.
      There's no 'pro-muslim' feeling around here, most people don't really matter as long as religion stays a private matter, and there are very strong concerns about extremist muslim military powers in africa and middle east.
      With respect to Israel, there's no anti-Israel feeling either. Most people probably don't even have the slightest idea of the roots of the conflict over there. Some of us (I do) think Israel is making itself a disservice in not trying to reach peace with the Palestinians. But we certainly do not condone the Hamas or attacks against the israeli population.

    5. Re:Vive la France! by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Watching a Christianist American whine about violence committed by a few Muslims is like watching Jack the Ripper whine about how Chris Brown treats women.

      Might wanna check that racist mass murdering beam in your eye before throwing stones at someone's mote.

    6. Re:Vive la France! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be honest: IS would not exist if the U.S. had not attacked Iraq and Al-Qaida would not have performed a single attack if they had not been supported by U.S. agencies and dictatorships supported by the U.S.

    7. Re:Vive la France! by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 0

      You took the words out of my mouth. I'm surprised that the Slashdot editors didn't jump on the opportunity to continue the witchhunt and pin this on gamers. Or at least shift the blame to the dreaded mysoginistic White Man, who, of course, is the root of all evil. If all else fails, we could always blame the jews, or has that been declared sooooo 2014 by the Tumblerists?

      Anyway, concerning the US media, have they reported at all on the 5 muslim attacks in France last month?
      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      Concerning French victories, they kicked some very nasty people out of Mali recently.

  112. You Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...vote for UKIP (or whatever equivalent you have in Ireland), as the corrupt US-UK-EU elite will dump even more of these nice folks onto your island. "Chatting up" does not help against the aggressive poltico-religious thing of Mad Mohammed.

  113. Quosque tandem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quosque tandem abutere Islam patienta nostra? When are we going to draw a line in the sand to let Islam, in no uncertain terms, that it has got as far as we will let it get? When are we going to acknowledge that Islam is THE enemy of civilization as we conceive it? When are we going to realize that the XXI century is likely to be the scenario in which an internecine war between Islam and the rest of the world is going to unfold? When are we going to understand that, with every passing day, we are losing the advantage that currently enjoy? When are we going to comprehend that, if we do not start doing something, and soon, Islam might win, and therefore sink the world into depths of bigotry, ignorance, superstition and repression without paragon in history?

  114. Doctor George Tiller by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    But that was how many years ago? 500+? The Catholic church and it's beliefs have greatly changed since. The way I see it, Islam (or some members/sections of it) today is where the Christian/Catholic religion was many centuries ago was.

    Dr. George Tiller was murdered (ironically in the doorway of his church) by a Christian zealot for daring to assist women in controlling their own freaking bodies.

    But this does point out the one common bedrock of all organized religions: the control and subjugation of women, up to and including rape and murder.

    Fuck religion (all of them).

  115. Owners of Slashdot are racist zionists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the owners of Slashdot are vile racist zionist filth who spent a month solid pleasuring themselves over pictures of kiddies butchered in Gaza by the 'master race' of Israel.

    There is NO 'freedom of speech' in France. Every day people are arrested and prosecuted for expressing criticism of Jews, Israel and zionism. It is OFFICIAL French government policy to recognise Jews as a special, superior, 'protected' class of citizen.

    Meanwhile the very opposite situation exists for Muslims in France. Muslim children are banned from all French schools if they wear any sign of their faith. These racist laws were passed with the full support of all major Jewish groups in France.

    French zionist outlets publish the most unthinkably obscene hate-speech attacks against ordinary Muslims every week. Such words and pictures would lead to immediate arrest and prosecution in the UK- but in France hate speech against Muslims is protected by the French government.

    The owners of Slashdot ensure that the TOKEN technical stories are used as bait to sell hardcore zionist propaganda to the 'nerds' who visit here. Murdering THREE MILLION Humans in Iraq, for the 'crime' of being 'Muslim' is not enough for the owners of Slashdot. Neither are endless Israeli Holocausts in Gaza, or the utter destruction of Africa's most successful state, Libya. Wherever Muslims are to be found, Slashdot wants death and destruction.

    France has a long and vile history of rape, torture, slavery and mass murder in its Muslim colonies- continuing to the present day (where France is now sending death squads into increasing numbers of supposedly 'liberated' ex-colonies). The French involvement in the 20th (yes- 20th) Century Arab slave trade is one of the great untold Human atrocities, and sits alongside the Belgium Holocaust in Congo as a supreme crime against Humanity.

    The 'terrorist' event in France vanishes into insignificance when compared to multiple terror events that have happened today in Muslim nations destroyed by the DIRECT actions of the USA, UK, France and other West powers. But Muslim deaths don't count (even though the VAST majority are innocent civilians, and NOT specifically targeted individuals, as in France). Indeed, when Obama OFFICIALLY bombs writers or cartoonists in a Muslim nation, because he doesn't like what they say, Obama allows himself the MURDER of ten innocent civilians for every cartoonist he targets. And YES, it is official US policy to MURDER writers and cartoonists if their propaganda attacks US interests.

    But Slashdot will NEVER promote stories of mass murder of Muslim writers by US airstrikes or special force death squads, because 'freedom of speech' vanishes when the speaker is Muslim, as far as Slashdot is concerned.

    The Jews of Israel BOAST that they will MURDER any non-violent Palestinian who says something they do not like. The Jews of Israel bomb mosques every year, butchering everyone inside, just to silence specific voices. Not once do these atrocities get coverage on Slashdot.

    The owners of Slashdot hope and prey events in France will lead to the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims across the planet- the age old evil of race-based hate never ends. The only question is whether you, the 'nerd' visiting Slashdot, is fooled by such blatant race hate disguised as 'news for nerds'.

  116. LOL by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Khomeini was a clever bastard who tricked the Iranian reformists who wished to replace the Shah with a democracy. He promised before he got on a plane in France to be merely a figurehead. In short order he had co-opted the revolution (which was, by and large to that point, secular in nature).

    History repeats. The intellectuals that started the Russian Revolution got bum-rushed (and ice-axed) by their own thugs (Stalin and Beria).

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

      You mean Georgians?

    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are indeed a lot of thugs in Georgia, but I do believe he is referring to the cracka ass bible thumpers next door in Alabama.

  117. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by Kergan · · Score: 2

    There's a call to rename every French paper "Charlie Hebdo" tomorrow in protest.

    http://www.lalibre.be/actu/int... (in French)

  118. Abortion bombings and killings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we are not worried about what happened centuries ago

      How many people were killed in the name of Christianity in the past 100 years? last 50? Last 10???

    How many people were murdered by Christian Pro-Lifers who bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors and nurses?

    All for the irrational belief in God and Jesus and complete ignorance of reproductive biology.

    Religion is evil and for stupid people.

    1. Re:Abortion bombings and killings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How many people were murdered by Christian Pro-Lifers who bombed abortion clinics and shot doctors and nurses?

      Fewer than today at Charlie.
      Fewer than the other 38 killed today in Yemen.

      > Religion is evil and for stupid people.

      Agreed. So, is blind atheism.

  119. BULL-$HIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are against Mohammedanism, you are not a "Nazi". Rather, you oppose a violent, deadly absolutist cult+political doctrine. It is deadly and violent both in theory and application.

    The fact that AMERICA SUPPORTS WAHABISM*, does not invalidate this. It just means you Americans chose very strange bedfellows. To be polite.

    Many people here like the hard-working Chinese and Vietnamese people who run their restaurants and work even harder than most Germans. They dont carry this "world domination" bullcrap in their minds and holy books. Neither do they distribute it via their religious centers.

    If things continue like this, your granddaugher will apply for asylm in China or Viet Nam, because the west will be overrun by the fast-multiplying mohammedics. Or she can don the Burqua any time !

    I also like to see what kind of treatment they have in stock for Israel, as soon as the Saudis will consider themselves to be In Power. How corrupt are you USraelians ???

    * Fighters, panzers, warships, legal protection for the 9/11 thing,...

  120. Allah sited in person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone can now see Allah in person with a few easy steps...

    1) Drop drawers or raise dress/tunic
    2) bend over
    3) look at your backside in a mirror...

  121. Precog by ihtoit · · Score: 0

    When they do the press conferences with the photos of the victims spanning the wall behind them, look out for the photo of six year old Noah, who died at Sandy Hook two years ago, then died again in Pakistan last month. I bullshit you not, his picture was the one they used to remind everyone what an awful, awful thing happened where those two undercover Feds who were at the Boston marathon bombing just happened to be(!), then it was HELD IN THE LEFT HAND OF A BEREAVED PARENT OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL IN PAKISTAN DURING A PRESS CONFERENCE WHICH WAS ATTENDED BY THE BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

    Sonething fishy is going on.

    And I don't think actual nutters with guns have anything to do with it.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  122. Marxism == Religion by gDLL · · Score: 1

    Marxism IS religion masked as policy. islam is politic masqed as religion.

  123. Gold also requires faith by melted · · Score: 1

    Gold is not very useful unless you believe it is valuable.

    1. Re:Gold also requires faith by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Gold is not very useful unless you believe it is valuable.

      The value of fiat currencies requires faith that people in power will continue to be responsible and far-sighted.
      The value of gold requires faith that people will continue to be greedy and selfish.

    2. Re:Gold also requires faith by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      It does not require faith to understand that an objects value is not determined solely by its utility. Some people like shiny, rare metals.

    3. Re:Gold also requires faith by melted · · Score: 1

      Except of course gold is in no way "rare". There are hundreds of thousands of tons of it all over the world, with tons mined daily.

    4. Re: Gold also requires faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, there is less silver available than gold available. Remember when diesel fuel cost less than gasoline? Markets and the price of commodities change over time.

  124. Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms to by melted · · Score: 1

    Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms to defend themselves? The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

  125. Nuke them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of the movie The Untouchables. When Malone tells Ness how to deal with Capone, along the lines of "they hurt one of ours, we send 10 of theirs to the hospital. They kill one, we kill 100." Which was what the Nazis did in territories they occupied: first time the resistance killed a soldier, they'd line up 20 townspeope and shoot them. Next time around, 100. Do it again, they would raze the town. Brutal, but with braindamaged fundamentalists like these, it is the only thing they understand.

  126. Quotes from Qiran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    I am taking these directly from quran.com: 2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. 8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip." 8:39 And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

    ...

    • - Meaning of "fitnah" is debatable, but based from this and other contexts it obviously stands for "non-Muslim"
    • - Not only do these have distinct paragraphs, containing a completed thought each, but the exact same passage is repeated in 2:193 and 8:39 -- different context, same passage.
    • - The other passages read like a nazi war manual as well.
  127. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Actually, France has been dealing with a growing problem; namely, radical Islamists who have been busy turning entire neighborhoods within France into Sharia-run enclaves. No desire to integrate into society, and indeed, they'd prefer France become a caliphate.

    Maybe it has something to do with continuing racism and lack of employment opportunities for French-born muslims. If employment opportunities (or the ability for these folks to be able to profitably self-employ) existed, the interest in extremist fundamentalism would probably be greatly dampened.

    African Americans in the USA have the same problems that Muslims do in France - they were brought over for cheap/slave labor and were not repatriated (how do you do such a thing) after the work was no longer needed (or had been automated). However in France, the religion is different as well - and one that's been in violent conflict with Christianity for millennia.

    I'm surprised there hasn't been more such incidents.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  128. Response from moderate Muslims. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moderate Muslims, who would never do something like this because they think it is wrong. Are there groups of them demonstrating to this effect in public? Do they publicly condemn these actions, publicly apologize to the French on the extremist's behalf, publicly pray for forgiveness and that Allah will help encourage a spirit of peace in the hearts of the extremists?

    Or do they just look the other way?

    1. Re:Response from moderate Muslims. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moderate Muslims, who would never do something like this because they think it is wrong. Are there groups of them demonstrating to this effect in public? Do they publicly condemn these actions, publicly apologize to the French on the extremist's behalf, publicly pray for forgiveness and that Allah will help encourage a spirit of peace in the hearts of the extremists?

      Or do they just look the other way?

      What do you think? The attack has been condemned by muslims leaders everywhere.

    2. Re:Response from moderate Muslims. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What else do you think they'd do? The ones that ain't as stupid as ISIS! The OIC had previously condemned Denmark for allowing the Danish cartoons, and it's inconceivable that they're not happy at this. They however know that it would be suicidal to openly express joy at this, so they issue the standard template condemnation

  129. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we can have the obligatory "Islam sucks" conversation, which will lead to the inevitable "all religion sucks" conversation, both of which are infinitely more enjoyable than simply leaving it at "Crazy people suck."

    You've just jumped from "cancer sucks" to "cancer patients suck". Not cool.

    Focus on the illness, not the afflicted. Otherwise, we'll never cure society of these contagious mental diseases. Replace "Allah" with "aliens", and we're suddenly sympathetic to the shooter, wondering how a brain can become so damaged. The fact that billions of people are lightly touched doesn't negate how crippling a serious religious infection can be.

    Please inoculate your children. Expose them to as many religions as you can find, in moderation, while they are young and susceptible. Let them grow natural immunities. We grew up in a world unravaged by smallpox and polio. Let's give our children the gift of a world free from religion.

  130. 'Invisible hand' is an emergent property by kristianbrigman · · Score: 1

    The invisible hand is really just trying to say that the overall economics of the system are an emergent property of what goes on at lower levels... i.e. the price of wheat is a direct result of many individual buy and sell transactions. they just didn't have the concepts to describe it back then.

  131. Re:islam - Ferguson by turning+in+circles · · Score: 1

    The answer is to hunt down, arrest, and prosecute the people who perform terrorist acts, whether they are doing it for the glory of Islam or because they hate all police officers, or because they think all black youth are criminals, or because they think Israel the state should not exist, or because they were following terrorist orders from superiors. Sometimes terrorists do have a point, but nobody including would-be terrorists has the right to use terrorism to make their point.

    --
    Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.
  132. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Religion is a gateway psychosis." - Dave Foley

  133. Stop with your silliness by tacokill · · Score: 1

    How about finding some modern examples that have some relevance instead of going back 200+ years to find your "evidence"? Islam is currently trying to destroy civilizations. Not 100 years ago. Not just in one country. They are doing it across the world and across many different cultures.

    That you see them as equivalents is laughable to all but the most gullible.

    1. Re:Stop with your silliness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam is not, some muslims are.

  134. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    And yet those on the left in the US are constantly yammering on about how we should not be expecting any kind of integration, especially culturally, here in the US either. I used to view myself as enjoying a multi-cultural outlook because I like different ethnic foods and I find some of the different ethnic holiday traditions and such quite entertaining and then I realized that the true definition of multi-culturalism is that immigrant communities should isolate themselves and practice only the traditions from their "homeland" and never dilute that with anything remotely considered American.

  135. Alien invaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is still trying to decide if it's Terrorism or Work Place Violence.

    NOW maybe France and the French people will start sending these muslim wankers back whence they came after a nice large Ricin injection to each of the .

    It is time the world woke the fuck up and fixed this problem once and for all time and if that means we lob a few mega tons of nuke at them so be it ...

  136. The problem is fanaticism by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, the real problem is fanaticism. During the Enlightenment, the words "enthusiasm" and "fanaticism" both had very negative connotations. To be an "enthusiast" meant that you were someone who passionately believed in an idea without a rational reason. If you were a "fanatic", you were willing to kill for your "enthusiasms". In relation to this, the French philosopher Voltaire once wrote: "Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities." To believe that drawing a cartoon of any particular person merits a death penalty is clearly absurd.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  137. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Uh yes, France decided to tell people that they cannot completely veil themselves in public spaces because terrorists were talking about doing exactly that. Heaven forbid that a schoolgirl should actually show her face to her teachers and fellow students so that everyone can interact properly in the classroom.

  138. Rightly Dividing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some guidelines for reading any instructions, and they apply double to the Bible:
    Who is speaking?
    To whom is he speaking?
    On whose authority?
    During what time period/dispensation?

    What is being missed in the above quotations is that God is speaking to the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel would not subject those punishments on a foreigner.

    http://www.bibletruths.org/tips-on-rightly-dividing/

  139. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure I follow why this is a headline on Slashdot.

    Editorial criticism from someone that hadn't bothered to post with an actual account prior to three whole weeks ago.

  140. Team Up With Russia, China, India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because they know how to handle the Mohammedics.

    I really dont get it why you dumb Americans (really sorry, but only the truth will be sufficient here) work against Russia and China. And Assad. And Saddam Hussein

    Compare THOSE folks with the ISIS and Wahabist bastards and you will see *something* like our culture (e.g. women having actual rights) on one side and on the other side you will see some of the most brutal bastards. "ISIS" is just the latest installment.

    Saddam Hussein was more Germanic* (read: more freedom-loving) than any of your Wahabist-sponsored bastards from AQ to ISIS to the Chechen bastards. And so was Assad. Too bad Israel wanted both guys to be taken out (because they posed an organised military threat - in theory), so they engineered that.

    Assad's wife has more freedom than the Wahabist-inspired Erdogan's. Just look at the pictures.

    * as in "Magna-Charta-freedom"

    1. Re:Team Up With Russia, China, India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But ISIS and AQ where created in an attempt for the International Socialist to have another puppet socialist dictatorship in Irak like Saddam Hussein was. It's just that the plan backfired because these muslims have betrayed the conspirators behind the lines and claimed the land for themselves.

      Or are you going to believe that suddenly China feels the need to send planes to bomb ISIS because they want to fight for a good cause, even though you literally never see them anywhere else?

  141. Every publication in France should take a stand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every magazine and newspaper in France should publish the offending cartoons on their front pages. Show these assholes that they wouldn't silenced with violence.

    Why not everyone on twitter?
    May I suggest the hashtag #allahuakbar?

  142. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I misunderstood you regarding your treatment in Finland but clearly we disagree on how far the EU should go in respecting the religions of immigrants. Personally, I consider all religions nonsense but certainly support the right of people to be able to have whatever stupid beliefs they have. However, there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere when people don't just hold their own thoughts but interact with each other - i.e. how much immigrants need to adapt and how far the EU accommodates to their preferences. I don't assume that you think the EU should accept sharia law to accommodate but how about polygamy? Accommodating too much to religion causes resentment among agnostics and atheists and that's what the vast majority of young people in Europe are. I recall a study predicting that Switzerland, Finland and a few others would be completely non-religious in a hundred years time. I don't fully believe it although I would be glad to see it happen.

    i know that France has banned other religious symbols as well from schools and so on. in addition to banning concealing your face. But I repeat, concealing your face is just as obscene to some as full nudity to others. Should both be allowed?

  143. Mod parent down by Prune · · Score: 1

    The New Testament supersedes the Old, so the post is invalid. This applies to most branches of Christianity. The parent poster is either trolling or ignorant of that which he is criticizing (my guess: copy-pasting random collection from teh intrawebs). The various interpretations are all aligned with this. Catholics, for example, interpret the Law of Moses (the Old Law) as a preparation for the Gospel, and as such no longer binding; the New Law (the Law of Gospel) is a perfection of it, delivered through faith in JC. Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic atheist (as in, no god with 85% confidence).

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  144. Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When 12 people are killed in Paris the whole world notices. When 10 kids in a US school are killed... not so much. I wonder why that is? School shootings in the US have become almost... mundane. (A terrible thing to say, but there it is.)

    1. Re:Um by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Newton was in the news for weeks. It's spawned major legislation in some states. Rodeo Clown was pretty exercised about it.

      This attack will forgotten in the U.S. by Friday.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  145. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US sees quite a bit of this issue, just not with Muslims.

    No kidding! If you're going to cite a city in Michigan that exemplifies malcontent hate mongering in the US, Dearborn is not the best example.

  146. Time For French To Step Up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for the French to step up to the plate and join the battle against terrorism. Their waffling and lack of strength against ISIL (pronounced Silly) is their weakness.

  147. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... can you point me to an objective study on "Sharia-run enclaves in France"? I live in one of the neigbourhoods that are generally considered a no-go zone by the French media ("ghetto's", ...). I can tell you that my family and I are doing fine, thank you.

    Also, several people have commented on Europe as if we're overrun by Islamists, on the brink of chaos. I don't know where they got that impression. If it's from the media, think twice, please. If I'd let the media think for me, I'd conclude that the US is a nation of racists where any policeman can shoot any black person at will without being indicted.

    The media wants to sell your eyeballs to advertisers. If you do sell them, at least, keep your brain.

  148. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Integration is on the immigrant. Full stop. When in Rome...

  149. RE: Kill Everyone by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    All this "put to death" stuff helped open the door to the genius of Christianity (as opposed to Old Testament Judaism):

    Here comes a dude who tells people that "death" really means "no heaven" and gives you a simple out on pretty much everything on the list just by confessing your sins and rededicating yourself to God. Now which religion do you prefer?

  150. Political Correctness Run Amok. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, it is already Workplace Violence in France - it is out-and-out illegal under the 1990 Gayssot Act to impune Islam with the observation that they might be connected with islamic terrorism. That is "racist/religious hate speech." http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4999/censorship-mental-illness-overrun-france

  151. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by unixisc · · Score: 1

    As Debbie Schlussel says, I think it's 72 Helen Thomases.

  152. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by meglon · · Score: 1

    Actually, those on the left keep saying that government shouldn't be used to FORCE integration if the individuals don't want to integrate... you know, that whole PERSONAL FREEDOM thing.... while the conservatives on the right are all about using government to abuse the rights of individuals, especially of anyone different than them.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  153. France will stand for freedom of speech! by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    President Holland declared that France will stand for freedom of speech with more than 100000 people marching out to support it.

    Meanwhile in Lithuania just today two Russian TV channels were banned because of their 'one-sided views' on lots of problems.

    1. Re:France will stand for freedom of speech! by Shompol · · Score: 1

      Russian TV is a giant propaganda machine. They make Fox News look good. Russia takes 3rd place in the world in journalist murder rate, while the first two places are taken by countries torn by ongoing war. Calling Russian TV "free speech" is a good joke. They will like you in Kremlin.

    2. Re:France will stand for freedom of speech! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Should that matter? Freedom of speech should mean even the freedom of speech that you don't like. Even if you think its propaganda or pure nonsense.

      There are double standards in play in Europe.

    3. Re:France will stand for freedom of speech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look what has happened in Ukraine where the Russian media has been indoctrinating the Russian-language minority of that country. Lithuania made a wise decision in order to avoid unstabilities caused by disinformation.

    4. Re:France will stand for freedom of speech! by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      So let me get it straight, freedom of press is OK only when it's of no consequence? Do you tell me that North Korea and the USSR had been making the right decision to block and jam the Western radio?

  154. That's the part that gets me by phorm · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that the reason for *not* showing the prophet, was because he wasn't supposed to become an idol and detract from the worship of God/Allah. Now, if somebody portrays the prophet, it's a blasphemous depiction because he's some sacred figure... except isn't that exactly what he WASN'T supposed to be?

  155. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Personally, I consider all religions nonsense but certainly support the right of people to be able to have whatever stupid beliefs they have.

    I think we've identified the source of your complete lack of sympathy. I suspected as much of course but thanks for confirming it.

    However, there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere when people don't just hold their own thoughts but interact with each other - i.e. how much immigrants need to adapt and how far the EU accommodates to their preferences

    Dictating the manner in which someone can dress in public serves no legitimate reason other than to marginalize them. Personally I find it incredibly fucking irritating when youth wear baggy pants that expose their undergarments but legislation against such behavior in the United States is rightfully struck down on freedom of expression laws. My style of dress does not cause you harm and you have no right to try and control it.

    Accommodating too much to religion causes resentment among agnostics and atheists and that's what the vast majority of young people in Europe are.

    You're not accommodating anything by allowing people to dress as they choose, unless of course you offend so easily that merely seeing a religious person is enough to make you run to your MP. Just call it what it is: thinly veiled bigotry, against a people and faith that you can't be bothered to understand. And if you're going to legislate such bigotry into law do both yourselves and them a favor and stop letting them into your countries in the first place. My country would be happy to take them in and we'll emerge stronger and better for it.

    People who brave enough to flee their country of birth are exactly the sort that the West needs to remain viable in the 21st century. It's a pity that you can't see that or what's going to happen to the EU if you don't address your demographics problem. Have fun paying for that social safety net you're so proud of when you have no young people to pay into the system.

    But I repeat, concealing your face is just as obscene to some as full nudity to others. Should both be allowed?

    Public breastfeeding offends some people but I'm fairly certain such behavior is protected and even encouraged in the EU. Again, you're just choosing to use secularism as a cloak for bigotry. I'm not buying it and neither are your un-assimilated immigrants. To answer your stupid question though, yes, both should be allowed. Seeing a naked person does not harm me. Neither does seeing someone totally covered. Of course private property owners should be free to set whatever standards they wish for admittance onto their property.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  156. Bomb these savages back into the dark ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be an appropriate approach, if the weren't actually still in the dark ages

    1. Re:Bomb these savages back into the dark ages by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Bombing them would actually advance them to somewhere near the modern age

  157. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Every time I see the crusades brought up as Christians being bad...I just weep for the education system in the country you live in.

    The crusades were a reaction to the invasion of modern day Israel by Muslims, who then would prevent all other religions from visiting ancient holy sites. There was good reason for the crusades happening, as the Muslim conquerors acted much the same as ISIS currently acts. The Christians that participated in the crusades did some terrible things, but is that any different than any other war of the time?
     

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  158. Christianity doesn't follow many old testament ... by drnb · · Score: 1, Informative

    Those are Old Testament rules, not Christian rules. Jesus and the New Testament changed the rules. Jesus actively interfered with enforcing such rules, ex. "cast the first stone".

    When was the last time you heard of such rules being enforced? Modern "honor killings" come time mind, and those practicing honor killings don't seem to be misguided heretics of the Christian variety.

  159. streisand effect... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this guarantee that seven billion people see the cartoons in question?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  160. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    Don't be ridiculous. There are lots and LOTS of things that can stop a bad guy with a gun that aren't a gun at all. At least some of them are available in almost every office. I bet getting stabbed in both eyes by a pen would stop pretty much any bad guy with a gun.

    You don't even have to get that brutal, though brutal always works. One bad guy with a gun at the bottom of a pile of 20 guys is pretty well stopped, and not one of them has to have a gun to do it.

  161. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two of them did have firearms to defend themselves. The problem seems to be that it did not help as your action-hero fantasy dictates it should help.

  162. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by jerome · · Score: 1

    You've probably never read Charlie Hebdo, but I'm pretty sure none of those guys would have carried a gun.
    Police officers protecting the newspaper's office were armed and died anyway.
    What kind of gun do you carry with you which can be effective against an assault rifle ?
    What training do you have which makes you think you could stop military trained attackers (as it seems this was the case in this assault) ?

  163. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your definition I am a bigot then because I think all religion is stupid - that includes me thinking that a number of my relatives are idiots. However, I'm more than happy to see people of mixed races and cultural backgrounds mix. But it doesn't change the fact that I think everyone would be happier if they stopped believing stupid nonsense.

    You might be interested in knowing that in Sweden (one of the four European countries I've lived in) many muslims were in favour of what in practice was a ban on the burqa*. The discussion at the moment revolves around a ban on the burqa - not in public but at all workplaces where you are expected to interact with customers. Several muslim women wearing hijabs and headscarves on TV said that they couldn't imagine sending their kids to a kindergarten where one of the teachers wears a burqa.

    I don't see a banning burqas as anything more than another rational and natural step in the process of evolving into a more and more secular society from a superstitious one. Just like e.g. justice systems and schools (in Europe) have evolved away from having anything to do with the church. I also think that a ban on burqas empowers immigrant muslim women since burqas are one of the means their husbands and fathers exercise control over them by preventing them from normal interaction with other people.

    *) The legalese did of course not explicitly refer to burkhas but I'm using the word for practical purposes here. If anything, my use of it here works in favour of your argument that I'm a bigot.

  164. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, the problem is the dark pleasure of hatred. Many Germans, French, British and americans hated Jews. Blacks were hated, as well as Natives, Chinese, East Indians, etc, etc. Now it's the turn of Muslims... There are and have been all along lots of moderate Muslim voices condemning the violence... Hatred is as delicious for adults as chocolate is for children.

  165. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by mayko · · Score: 1

    (white) Dearborn, MI resident here.

    While the east side is predominantly Arabic, I haven't seen too much of the extremism I hear about in Europe these days. I know the population in Dearborn is typically Lebanese (and now increasingly Iraqi due to the wars) so perhaps it is a completely different sect of the religion. Headscarves are common place and the occasional burka is seen, but overall everyone seems very liberal and laid back. To me it is no different than any other large city with it's various ethnic "towns" within.

  166. "Gunmen" by shihonage · · Score: 1

    Oh dear.

  167. Leaders in the west should make it clear that by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Leaders in the west should make it clear that those who want Sharia law should go elsewhere. There are plenty of countries with Islamic law, where those who hate freedom of speech, equality, and rights of others can live. True we cannot force them to leave but this would set their expectations for living in secular democracies

    1. Re:Leaders in the west should make it clear that by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what the (muslim) mayor of Rotterdam said yesterday: "if you don't like it here, if you don't like Western values, then pack your bags. Just fuck off".

      I appreciate the sentiment, but it's not going to happen. Muslims didn't come to Europe for the culture, they came for the money. The 2nd generation still hold passports to the homeland of their parents, but they're not going back. They stay for the money, and also for the freedom - they'd never get away with their shit in their "host countries". Going to a different muslim country is no option either, since they don't grant citizenship to foreigners. This is one of the reasons that some find the Islamic State attractive, it doesn't care about passports and nationality.

  168. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by airdweller · · Score: 1

    "turning entire neighborhoods within France into Sharia-run enclaves"

    BS. Examples, please.

  169. No YOU should take a stand by WoOS · · Score: 1

    Why leave it to the papers? Why leave it to the (cowardly according to American opinion) French?

    EVERYONE should put one of Charlie Hebdo's caricature onto one's homepage.

    This one seems to be fitting especially if you are a Jew (Texts reads in my miserable translation "You shall not critizise us").

    Another nice one reads again miserably translated "Darling, I 'm just downstairs for 5 Minutes to search for that Journal" (not sure that actually is from Charlie Hebdo but it came up on google).

    If you want others, especially if you are a Muslim and consider the above not annoying enough, there are more examples although lacking translation.

  170. Re:islam -Malaysia is not tolerant of converts by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    Malaysia is a pretty large exception and most people who convert away from Islam are not allowed to

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Malaysia#Conversion_from_Islam

    Conversion from Islam

    Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a controversial question. The legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally.[22]

    In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.

    The issue of Muslim apostasy is very sensitive. In 1998 after a controversial incident of attempted conversion, the Government stated that apostates (i.e., Muslims who wish to leave or have left Islam for another religion) would not face government punishment so long as they did not defame Islam after their conversion. However, whether the very act of conversion was an "insult to Islam" was not clarified at the time. The Government opposes what it considers deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the "deviant" groups' extreme views endanger national security. In 2005 international media attention focused on the Sky Kingdom sect whose founder Ayah Pin claimed to be God, and whose members &ndash; mostly Malays &ndash; were accordingly charged with religious "deviancy" and "humiliating Islam."[23]

    article has a lot of other details about the relative lack of religious mobility and intolerance towards non Muslims -particularly Hindus

    -I'm just sayin'

  171. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    By your definition I am a bigot then because I think all religion is stupid

    But it doesn't change the fact that I think everyone would be happier if they stopped believing stupid nonsense.

    bigot
    noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
    a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

    Seems to fit to me. I can see now that you're a true believer. True believers frighten me very much, be they theists or atheists; anyone who is convinced that he has all the answers and those who disagree clearly aren't as enlightened as he is. You have closed your mind to the viewpoint of those who could add much needed perspective and diversity of opinion to your worldview. It would be laughable if the consequences weren't so often deadly.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  172. Moderates used to stop these extremists by drnb · · Score: 1

    But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened.

    The mass graves of the Saddam regime indicate that deaths were already occurring.

    Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?

    When Beck picks up a gun or bomb rather than a microphone I'll gladly condemn him. To fail to do so because he is an American or a Christian would make me part of his crime by tolerating him by remaining silent.

    The historical fact is that extremist ideologies occur periodically in the region. However the moderates have, over and over, stamped it out themselves. The radical interpretation of Islam proposed by these extremists were (are) considered heretical by the majority. Moderates used to preach against these heresies. Moderates used to stop these extremists. They need to do so again.

    1. Re:Moderates used to stop these extremists by quantaman · · Score: 1

      But the fact remains that without the US invasion the unrest and deaths would very likely not have happened.

      The mass graves of the Saddam regime indicate that deaths were already occurring.

      At anywhere near the same level? Highly doubtful.

      Why do moderate muslims always have to appologize for and/or condemn extremists. Are you an American? If so can I ask you to condemn Glenn Beck whenever he says something crazy?

      When Beck picks up a gun or bomb rather than a microphone I'll gladly condemn him. To fail to do so because he is an American or a Christian would make me part of his crime by tolerating him by remaining silent.

      The historical fact is that extremist ideologies occur periodically in the region. However the moderates have, over and over, stamped it out themselves. The radical interpretation of Islam proposed by these extremists were (are) considered heretical by the majority. Moderates used to preach against these heresies. Moderates used to stop these extremists. They need to do so again.

      The way moderates find extremists in their communities is by reaching out to them (or at least those around them) and convincing them that peace is better.

      Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process. They're percieved as siding with us instead of siding with their own culture. So when they then go back to fringe elements they're percieved as outsiders and lose their power to pursuade.

      Moreover by constantly asking them we signal that we don't trust them, that we think they're extremists too. This will alientate them and drive them towards extremism.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Moderates used to stop these extremists by drnb · · Score: 1

      The way moderates find extremists in their communities is by reaching out to them (or at least those around them) and convincing them that peace is better.

      Historically moderates have triumphed and stopped extremist movements by showing that the extremist teaching are counter to Islam. They may fall short of using the word "heretical" to be polite but that is essentially what they are saying even if they avoid the word.

      Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process.

      You got it wrong. We are not expecting them to apologize to us for the others. We are expecting them to act as their grandfathers and other ancestors once did and clean their own house, stop their local heresies. To do as their ancestors did, ancestors who did so for no other reason than that the extremists were wrong. The problem in the west is that we don't see much evidence of this INTERNAL debate. Some isolated voices but largely silence.

    3. Re:Moderates used to stop these extremists by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Insisting that moderates address us to condemn the extremists disrupts this process.

      You got it wrong. We are not expecting them to apologize to us for the others. We are expecting them to act as their grandfathers and other ancestors once did and clean their own house, stop their local heresies. To do as their ancestors did, ancestors who did so for no other reason than that the extremists were wrong. The problem in the west is that we don't see much evidence of this INTERNAL debate. Some isolated voices but largely silence.

      What evidence do you expect? Do you expect CNN to carry stories about how Imam X in Jordan criticized Imam Y in Lebanon for his hyperbolic language on the attire of Israeli women?

      One thing we do know is the North American Islamic community is very proactive about outing extremists to law enforcement. The typical profile of a Western raised terrorist isn't some Arab taught to hate by his parents and local Mosque, eventually getting recruited by Imam and strapping on a suicide vest. It's a lone wolf who either converted to Islam or wasn't very religious before-hand and they get their religion and radicalization from extremist sites on the Internet.

      It's like asking us to talk some sense into Russians because we're both white and from Christian cultures.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Moderates used to stop these extremists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the US perhaps, but that's not how it is in europe. We has massive Islamic immigrant populations in some countries. I'm thinking of the UK (Pakistani/Bangladeshi) and France (North African). These communities have not tried to integrate in the mainstream cultures and continue to maintain the "old ways". Indeed many hate the culture of their adopted countries. It's been made worse (at least in the UK) by the immediate labeling, by those on the left primarily, of anyone who points this out as racist and the dismissal of any and all warnings. Now there is honest to god racist problems in parts of the country, but we've seen many examples where warnings of the behaviour of Muslims have been ignored by the authorities.
      I can cite two prime examples here. Sex trafficing of young girls in Rochdale by muslim men and attempts to take over school governance to promote a radical muslim agenda.
      There is very little the authorities can do to tackle the attitudes of the muslim communities, it has to come from within. We keep hearing about those who carry out these acts of barbarism as not representing the mainstream muslim belief, yet those who claim to do so are very quick to add caveats to their "condemnation" (usually blaiming the victims in a round-a-bout kind of way).

    5. Re:Moderates used to stop these extremists by drnb · · Score: 1

      The local newspapers, the local imams preaching in the local mosques, the talk in the shops, etc used to be that the extremists are wrong. In particular wrong in their beliefs regarding islam, that they were heretics. The dried up the pool volunteers to a sufficient degree. And the region that this occurred in was historic Arabia, Syria and Mesopotamia. At least from some historical sources that I had read from over 100 years ago that was discussing the periodic rise of extremists. Individuals who acted on such extremist beliefs were often shunned by their family and tribe. A extremely serious repercussion in those days.

      In contrast, today, in some communities, we get heroic posters of suicide bombers.

  173. A pair of gunmen? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Aside from the fact that they were 3, since when do we count gunmen in pairs?

  174. "Allah" is just Arabic for "God". by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    They bombed the London Tube for Allah...

    "Allah" is just Arabic for "God". (Literally "The God" i.e. the one, the only, monotheist deity.) Christians who speak Arabic use the same word for the Christian deity - which Muslims recognize as the same entity. The word has the same root as Yahweh, Jehova, JHVH.

    Interestingly, Muslims explicitly recognize Christians and Jews as "People of The Book", and the Torah and the Bible as explicitly their people's version of a heavenly-mandated collection of the genuine revealed word of God - though allegedly corrupted by time and translations. They claim there are many such books, but these two they explicitly recognize as valid instances.

    They also explicitly recognize Jesus ("Issa") as a prophet (their second highest ranking one, if I have this right), Mary as their only known female prophet, and include the Second Coming in their end-times predictions. ("Prophet" is defined as someone who receives messages from God, directly or via heavenly messenger.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:"Allah" is just Arabic for "God". by robi5 · · Score: 1

      > > They bombed the London Tube for Allah...

      > "Allah" is just Arabic for "God".

      It's alright then?

      Or did you think the GP was in any significant way (other than nitpicking) ambiguous and maybe some fraction of the readers didn't connect the word Allah with Islam?

      Btw. interesting titbit.

  175. Re:Christianity. by pbhj · · Score: 1

    The New Living Translation at Romans 1:32 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A24-32&version=NIV;NASB;MSG;NLT) says "They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." which is quite different to your quote. The NLT is a non-direct translation, one of the looser ones, written in more modern language. You should always use several translations if you're not going to study in depth the original texts.

    You also break at 1:32, in the original there was no break there the following point is key, Paul writes that we shouldn't be so quick to judge those we perceive as offending God as we too are really amongst that number - nonetheless God will judge all mercifully and according to the good they have done. See Romans 2, https://www.biblegateway.com/p....

    However you do get to the heart of Jesus message here - his message is that whilst we all have sinned, we all have done things that offend God's order and all are worthy to die and so cease to be INSTEAD Jesus has sacrificed himself and paid the price that we all can turn from sin and be saved through him, restoring our relationship with God, and ultimately being with God for eternity in heaven.

    Presumably your intention was to show that Christianity allows killing, yet none of your citations relate bar one and that one goes quite contrary to your apparent position.

  176. Send them home and wall them up - and make trade w by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for the civilized world to just send the Arabs back to Arabia. Build mined walls on any shared borders and punish further attacks with bombs on Arabia including nuclear weapons. Enough is enough. Best for everyone to wipe them out now while it's still possible or else we can plan on another Pearl Harbor or worse.

  177. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by melted · · Score: 1

    I dunno. I would, even if I was a hippie treehugger creative type. There was a fatwa on their head. That means a dude with a Kalashnikov would eventually come. So instead of filming from their cell phone, the person who filmed how the policeman was executed in cold blood could open fire. This was in broad daylight, and buildings were full of people. I would totally fuck them up if I had my gun on me in that situation.

  178. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by melted · · Score: 1

    Actually no, they did not: http://hotair.com/archives/201...

  179. Try taking it in context by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

    Your snippet is too short to give context. Romans 1:18-32 should be followed by Romans 2 for context. It was a letter, and meant to be read in its entirety.

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
    Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
    Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

    Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers
    Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
    Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
    Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    Romans 2:

    Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
    But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
    And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
    Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
    But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
    Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
    To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
    But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
    Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
    But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
    For there is no respect of persons with God.
    For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
    (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
    For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
    Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean

    --
    The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
  180. I am Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Je suis Charlie

  181. Islam vs Muslims by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I used to believe in this attempted dichotomy of Islam & Muslims at one time. Not any more. It's important to recognize that one is a thread b'cos of the other.

    After all, what is Islam? It's the beliefs as laid out by their texts - the qur'an, hadiths, siras and so on. But how dangerous is it? It would have depended on how many follow it. After all, how dangerous were the Branch Davidians? Not very, since there were something like close to 100 people ultimately killed. Their doctrines were as vile as Islam.

    Now, why do we bother, or worry about Islam at all? Would we have done so if it was only followed by a few 100 people in Mecca and Medina? Not likely. The reason we worry about it is that Islam is the kernel of terror campaigns throughout the Islamic empire - from Senegal to Brunei, as well as Jihadi campaigns against countries on its frontiers - Philippines, Thailand, India, Israel, South Sudan, Europe, Australia, Canada and US. Reason for that capability? It has a rich recruiting ground from 1.5 billion Muzzies worldwide. Spanning across races, continents and linguistic groups.

    So if Jihadis need white guys to pull off their terror campaigns, in addition to willing dupes in the West like Richard Reid or Jose Padilla, they can easily draw recruits from Chechens, Bosnaiks, Albanians and Tatars. If they need to pull off something in India, they can send in Urdu or Bengali speaking Jihadis from Pakistan or Bangladesh. If they want to pull off something in Israel, Arabs have enough ethnic similarities. Similarly in Philippines or Thailand. Bottom line - when there are 1.5B Muzzies, any percentage of them being Jihadis is enough of a legitimate cause for worry.

    If most Muslims did not follow Islam, there would be nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, most do. Just pick out the Indian subcontinent and the East Indies for starters, and you have it. Then watch those numbers get reinforced by Arabs and Turks, and you have a real problem on your hands.

  182. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by unixisc · · Score: 1

    I'm not opposed to insults of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism et al, but in this instance, I see no reason for any religion other than Islam to be insulted. Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist fanatics didn't murder the Charlie Hebdo staff: Muslims did! So why should other religions 'pay the price'?

  183. Reincarnation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad,

    In other words, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is reincarnated Prophet Muhammad. They might want to check again the actual religion they say they are following.

  184. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    and what gives christians the 'right' to ignore the first word of god (many think that both bibles are the word of god. I certainly don't, but lets assume you do).

    I never understood how you can rationalize a god who is perfect, makes up laws and rules for us to live by and then, some guy comes along much much later, says 'its all changed' and we are supposed to accept that?

    an infallable god that needed a v2.0 update? REALLY?

    even staying with the OT, god once was angry at mankind, flooded us and then 'promised not to fuck us up again like that'. real insightful and wise god, you guys got there.

    and then, we have a god who makes man, certainly should KNOW what man is capable of, and then gets all pissed off when eve uses her humanity and questions shit and wants to learn stuff.

    yeah, real smart god you guys have.

    I never understood how a logical mind can accept this BS.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  185. My Leige! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This new learning amazes me, Sir Orestesx. Explain again how Doritos may be employed to prevent Slashdotters from getting laid.

  186. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Spot on. We're seeing this in Sweden as well. It's too bad that only Sveriges Demokraterna (the Sweden Democrats, right-wingers) seem willing to talk about it. Most of the other parties are in complete denial about the time bomb they've got ticking away here, which is why the SD scored well enough in the last elections to turn things upside down in the Riksdag.

    It's not so bad here in Stockholm, but many smaller cities have enclaves that are turning into ghettoes.

    See the photo in this story? That's in Eskilstuna, a factory town about 100 km west of here. The mosque is on the ground floor of this building.

    I spent a good part of October and November staying in a flat in this building, immediately above the mosque. Several big-city blocks of flats filled about 90% with East Asians and Pakistanis, out in the middle of Nordic small-town Nowhere. It's bizodd.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  187. Snowden likely deserves some blame by WindBourne · · Score: 0

    The 2 brothers were KNOWN to western intel. They had been being tracked earlier and disappeared off the grid, once snowden told HOW America spied on AQ, other nations, etc.
    Basically, Snowden, along with those that have helped him, deserve some credit for helping AQ to avoid detection.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  188. the same Egyptian President.... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    .....that just ordered the mass execution of a couple hundred protestors? The one propped up by the USG? The same USG that overthrew Gaddafi and is trying to overthrow Assad for "killing their own people"?

    He called for a deep revolution in thought about the tenets of Islam.

    Is that before or after Christianist Americans have a revolution in thought conducting world wide kidnapping and torture programs, continuing to hold prisoners in gulags that have been cleared for release? It takes a few supertankers of willful dumfuckery to throw stones from that glass house.

  189. the threat posed by home furniture? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    I think it's good for the public to see these kinds of things, so they can fully appreciate the reality of the threat posed to our society.

    Your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist, bedwetter. Your threat assessment is about as good as a biker who insists on riding without a helmet but refuses to fly on a plane "because it might crash."

    1. Re:the threat posed by home furniture? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not afraid of terrorism. I am afraid of Sharia law gaining a foothold in my country.

      That's the threat, not the specific attacks that precede it and quell dissent to its introduction.

  190. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they left theird ID's in the escape car.

    Whaaa. Have you ever heard such a foolish gossip. I can't believe anyone on the planet digs that shit. But sure, they are parroting it nicely.

  191. You're losing, Mike! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if you don't have one. I read your posts daily and every one of them is some conservative drivel that you push into everyone's face. Also, if you are going to claim millions of muslims are killed each year, then I think you're going to need to drop a citation. You have no idea the amount of firepower required to kill that many people in one year. Suicide bombers you read about might take a hundred a day out. One a day for a year is only 36500. You claim "millions" a year so that means more than one million. The next million after that is 2, so to kill 2 million people in one year, you'd need to kill 5479.45 people PER DAY! That is a higher kill rate than anything seen in a long while. I don't think we even killed that many during WW1 which had a gruesome death toll. The mods agree with my assessment. TED has his comments all +5'd and you sit at 2. You're losing badly, not like you care.

  192. Like a douche! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well what a dick! Compassion my ass. That's just one more thing to add to the list of "If God is real, he's a bastard and doesn't deserve my worship"

  193. OH! I know this one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you get Sixteen Million gun-wielding terrorists

     
    who are all another day older and deeper in debt. Hopefully St Peter doesn't call them cause they can't go....

  194. Re:Islam - the religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe it says "virgins", not "like a virgins"

  195. Example by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I thoought the title of the previous post would lead people to google it. Nonetheless here is an example among others :

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  196. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to be clear: I don't identify as an atheist or agnostic. Non-religious is more appropriate since I really don't give a shit about religion or whether cosmic sky daddies exist.

    Will you now go on to say that I'm a true don't-give-a-shitter?

  197. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then, earlier immigrants to the U.S. did not do any effort to integrate either, instead opting to kill most of the indigenous population.

  198. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You idiot. The problem is not a few radicals, the problem is a shitty little magazine that for years have done nothing but mock, provoke, taunt and insult an entire group of people and their religion, knowing very well it is a sensitive matter to them. Is that what free speech means to you, to be able to insult and instigate at free will, as opposed to debate with sense?

    You can in no way rationalize the behavior of this little magazine, just like you can't rationalize the response of the people who attacked them.

  199. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a better idea: oppose all insults of matters that are sensitive to people. That way we can have a more sensible and courteous debate, without all the fighting and incidents like this. Keep in mind that islam isn't the cause of this tragic, the cause is a small group of people who have for years systematically insulted, mocked, taunted and provoked this response.

  200. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by Xest · · Score: 1

    "When was the last time you heard of such rules being enforced?"

    Pretty much every week if you bother to read anything other than Western oriented news. What do you think Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army are all about exactly? What do you think the Lord bit in their name is referring to specifically? When they butcher entire villages what do you believe their reasoning to be?

    Do you use double standards and assume they're just a violent bunch of people and dismiss their claimed cause and not treat ISIS the same way? or were you simply unaware that there are groups as bad as ISIS out there that claim Christianity as their cause exactly as ISIS does?

    As for honour killings, I suggest you take a long hard look at many of the drug cartels in Mexico who purport to follow Christianity and claim that as their reason for doing some of the horrific things they do.

    It's easy to forget there's a world outside the middle east when that and people who or whose families originate from there are all your media talking about, but in Burma even the famed for peace Buddhists have been carrying out brutal violent massacres - ironically against Rohingya muslims.

    Finding examples of violence amongst a specific group is typical as easy as pinpointing the places that group inhabits, and then subsequently looking at all the places within those areas where there is extreme poverty.

  201. We are all Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whenever someone tries to kill freedom of expression and freedom of thought he is trying to kill all of us.

  202. Re:France, Netherlands, and UK have the same probl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islamic takeovers in cities like Dresden are causing a significant backlash among Germans

    Less than one percent of the population of Dresden is Islamic. There is no takeover.

  203. Since WHEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is being a Mohammedist a "race". You can shed this wicked Evil mindset any time.

    Mohammedanism calls for mass murder of all non-Mohammedics. BURN IN HELL !

  204. The correct response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If, according to these people, the correct response to a few insulting cartoons is to kill 12 people, then what is the correct response to the killing of 12 people?

    Remember, the "respond with massively greater force" thing is THEIR idea, not ours, but maybe we should be willing to play by their rules.

    So let's give them what they are asking for.

    France has the nukes. They are not really needed any more for deterring the Russians, so maybe lob them at Mecca and be done with it.

    At least then, France gets to test some new nukes without having to sink another Rainbow Warrior!

  205. Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The peace from religions...

  206. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    I don't identify as an atheist or agnostic. Non-religious is more appropriate since I really don't give a shit about religion or whether cosmic sky daddies exist.

    I don't care how you identify. Your smug sense of superiority tells me all that I need to know.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  207. Re:Every publication in France should take a stand by unixisc · · Score: 1

    This is such an inane response that I don't know where to start. Islam is very much the cause of this. Islamic laws dictate that their founder should not be depicted by anyone. It also authorizes murder to enforce such rules. Everyone else in the world recognizes that non-adherents aren't bound by the same restrictions that they are. Muslims are the exceptions. They require everybody to follow Islamic law. That's why you have incidents in MN of Muslims refusing to ring up pork in grocery stores, cabdrivers refusing to allow dogs into their cabs, even for aiding blind people, and so on. And here, you have a bunch of Muslims cold bloodedly murdering 12 people, and you suggest that their sensibilities should be respected? Cowards like you are the reason that Muzzies have advanced as far as they have.

  208. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by drnb · · Score: 1

    Warlord and drug cartel behavior is hardly equivalent to the actions of a somewhat "normal" father or brother who commits an "honor killing". You comparison utterly fails.

  209. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    You're discounting range. A pen might be mightier than a sword, but its range sucks compared to a gun.

    Now if a few people had flung chairs, books, hot coffee, etc. (basically anything heavy enough to do a little damage/distraction) they could undoubtedly have then rushed the gunmen with fewer losses than occurred from sitting there waiting for their name to be called.

  210. I'm not the one being silly and ignorant by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

    Religious violence is a widespread problem, and it's ethnocentric bigotry to suggest that Islam is somehow guilty of some moral corruption that is unique to that religion.

    Since you are content to base your beliefs on blind prejudice and assumptions based on what you hear in the news, rather than doing some actual research, I've taken the liberty of spoon-feeding you some summaries of recent terrorist actions by Christians.

    Here's some stuff, from the link I already provided:

    Hindus in India
    The Baptist Church of Tripura is alleged to have supplied the NLFT with arms and financial support and to have encouraged the murder of Hindus, particularly infants, as a means to depopulate the region of all Hindus.[28] In 2009, the Assam Times reported that about fifteen armed Hmar militants, members of Manmasi National Christian Army, tried to force Hindu residents of Bhuvan Pahar, Assam to convert to Christianity.[29] A few Christian evangelists in India have been accused of forced conversion of Hindus, and some of them have been for allegedly converting others by force.[30][31]

    North America
    The government paid religious societies to provide education to Native American children on reservations. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) founded additional American Indian boarding schools based on the assimilation model of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School.

    Children were usually immersed in European-American culture through appearance changes with haircuts, were forbidden to speak their native languages, and traditional names were replaced by new European-American names. The experience of the schools was often harsh, especially for the younger children who were separated from their families. In numerous ways, they were encouraged or forced to abandon their Native American identities and cultures.[17] The number of Native American children in the boarding schools reached a peak in the 1970s, with an estimated enrollment of 60,000 in 1973. Especially through investigations of the later twentieth century, there have been many documented cases of sexual, physical and mental abuse occurring at such schools.[18][19] Since those years, tribal nations have increasingly insisted on community-based schools and have also founded numerous tribally controlled colleges. Community schools have also been supported by the federal government through the BIA and legislation. The largest boarding schools have closed. In some cases, reservations or tribes were too small or poor to support independent schools and still wanted an alternative for their children, especially for high school. By 2007, the number of Native American children in boarding schools had declined to 9,500.

    Here's some stuff from another article on a related topic:

    Sabra and Shatila massacre

    Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[44] A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians."[45] After the end of the civil war, Christian militias refused to disband, concentrating in the Israeli-occupied south of the country, where they terrorized Muslim and Druze villages and forcefully recruited men and boys from those communities into their groups.[46]

    Utøya Island killings

    In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island that killed 77 people. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500-page manifesto detailing his beliefs that immigrants were unde

  211. Are you sure? by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

    People do commit violence and terrorist acts in the name of Jesus Christ. The KKK is a notable example of this.

    Here are just a few recent examples of terrorist acts committed by Christians for religious reasons that I was able to find with very little research:

    Sabra and Shatila massacre

    Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[44] A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians."[45] After the end of the civil war, Christian militias refused to disband, concentrating in the Israeli-occupied south of the country, where they terrorized Muslim and Druze villages and forcefully recruited men and boys from those communities into their groups.[46]

    Utøya Island killings

    In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island that killed 77 people. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500-page manifesto detailing his beliefs that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader" while describing himself as not very religious.[73][74] Although initial news reports described him as a Christian fundamentalist,[75][76] subsequent analyses of his motivations have noted that he did not only display Christian terrorist inclinations, but also had non-religious, right-wing beliefs.[77][78] Mark Juergensmeyer and John Mark Reynolds have stated that the events were Christian terrorism,[79][80] whereas Brad Hirschfield has rejected the Christian terrorist label.[81]

    Lord's Resistance Army

    The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult and guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[82] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[83][84] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[85][85][86][87] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[83][88][89][90][91][92]

    Christian Identity and anti-abortion killings

    After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[93][94][95] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[96] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[97][98]

    The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[99][100] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.[101] Eric Robert Rud

  212. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    The politically correct crowd don't get it. They refuse to see it as they seem to believe in this brotherhood of man/kumbahyah bullshit. The Muslims in Sydney and Melbourne also have their sharia patrols which are illegal but does anyone stop them?

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  213. Weapon of Mass Squick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I would propose as a proper retribution for these cowardly murders: Cover Mecca and Medina and other important Islamic landmarks from corner to corner with pigfat

    Too bad Evergreen and its 747 tanker don't exist anymore, that would've been *perfect* to paint the town in pigfat.

    I truly think pigfat applied to Islamic towns will have a much more destructive impact on their morale: We hate you SO much that we didn't bomb you -- we chose to insult you as badly as we can instead.

    Je Suis Charlie!

    (posted as AC so as to not undo mods i've done on this thread)

  214. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Early Christians, including prominent Church Fathers, disagreed. For example, here's St John Chrysostom (ironically, a patron saint of preachers), 4th century:

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

    I think I'll trust these guys on the meaning of OT vs NT more so than the current flock. At least they were much closer to the purported source.

  215. Re:Don't you wish some of those slain had firearms by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Well, there is a cellphone video that records over 40 seconds of terrorists running around, and gunning down at least one person in the process. If the person holding that cellphone was holding a gun instead - any gun! - they could have made at least one well-aimed and hopefully effective shot in those 40 seconds without exposing themselves.

    A gun is obviously not a magic thing that preserve you from any violence, but it's just as silly to pretend that it cannot be helpful at all in a situation like that.

  216. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    As the events in Paris have demonstrated, the cost of a free speech (and a free society in general) is eternal vigilance. There is a war, and you are a combatant whether you want it or not, simply on account of having expressed an opinion some find disagreeable. There's nothing the society as a whole can do about this without compromising its core freedoms, but the individuals constituting that society can and should be aware of the fact, and make the necessary arrangements.

  217. "Diverse society will fail" --Putnam; by NewYork · · Score: 1
  218. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by Xest · · Score: 1

    Anyone who murders their child is not "normal". There is evidence of Patricide in every walk of life.

  219. Oh, the hypocrisy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BUT... the problem is that the great majority of people are essentially cowards, and want someone else to stand up for what is right.

    Like I asked of the parent - where is your picture? Or are you one of those cowards that you mention?

  220. Re:Really? On Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All because of Israel.

  221. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    The OT poses a problem only if you insist that a father that educated a toddler shouting NO! should keep educating a grownup by doing exactly the same. Or if you insist that books written about the hypothetical WHO beyond creation should spend time detailing HOW things got formed, possibly matching the way scientists describe the universe from the inside of it (which currently can't explain 95% of stuff without introducing dark matter/energy, multiverse, bubbles where anomalies are occurring...)

    For some of believers, these are not problems, the books describe a relationship man/hypothetical God. Maybe you wanted the Sutra instead?

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  222. re-post the cartoon. Time for chicken sunglasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of me thinks that the best way to respond to this.. when every thing turns red, nothing is red. This is in line with the chicken sunglass theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_eyeglasses

  223. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by drnb · · Score: 1

    Opinions of early church fathers do not have the standing of the teachings of Christ. Again, Christ actively interfered with a "lawful" stoning.

    That said, an early church father advocating punching someone in the mouth is very far from stoning someone to death.

  224. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Seeing how Christ is not around in person and we cannot ask him what he thinks, all we have are opinions of various people on what his teachings actually are. I don't see why I should take, say, yours to be more authoritative than someone who was widely considered to be one of the model Christians of his time, and who is 1700 years closer to Christ than we are.

    This particular case was just an example, of course. There are many others. Saint Theodosia of Constantinople, for example was canonized specifically for the act of killing a soldier who was desecrating an icon, so clearly the Church (at least, Orthodox and Catholic ones) approves of answering blasphemy with lethal violence. This is from the 8th century. For another example, Thomas Aquinas, held in very high regard by Catholics to this day, had eloquently argued that death penalty is a just and necessary punishment for heresy.

  225. Bible inerrancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either you believe the *whole* book is the inspired message of your deity, or you're just engaging in a self-affirming tautology.

    Fascinating argument here - you must believe the *whole* book is the direct message of a deity because the book says so.

  226. Biblical inerrerancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bible has some messed up stuff in it, but crucially it is a collection of stories written by different people and acknowledged to be so.

    Not down here in the Bible belt where it is the divinely-dictated literal Word of God.

  227. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by drnb · · Score: 1

    Christ is not here but many of his teaching are with us. And as I said his actively interfering with a "lawful" stoning is among those lessons. The lesson was clear. Killing for old testament law violations is wrong.

    Now please continue making us laugh by arguing that Christ's teachings and examples don't constitute christian beliefs.

  228. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Who said anything about OT violations? Neither Chrysostom nor Aquinas justified their support for corporal and capital punishment for religious crimes based on OT.

  229. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by drnb · · Score: 1

    Who said anything about OT violations? Neither Chrysostom nor Aquinas justified their support for corporal and capital punishment for religious crimes based on OT.

    See older posts. OT violations leading to death and other severe penalties are the topic.

  230. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Well, apparently, you don't need to invoke OT to come up with the idea of death penalties in such within the framework of Christianity. So it would seem that the exclusive focus on OT is unwarranted.

  231. Re:Christianity doesn't follow many old testament by drnb · · Score: 1

    Well, apparently, you don't need to invoke OT to come up with the idea of death penalties in such within the framework of Christianity. So it would seem that the exclusive focus on OT is unwarranted.

    The post I responded to listed various OT laws with death and other extreme punishments as evidence of Christian capital crimes.

    Other than self defense and "just wars" Christianity does not permit killing. There are no approved death penalties for any crimes. Now had their been murderous crimes committed in the past, yes, by those with heretical beliefs seeking/maintaining the power of the state, not by those practicing the teaching of Christ.

  232. Religion was born when first conman met first fool by NewYork · · Score: 1

    If I were to call Hindus in this manner:

    - those in whose religion old men marry little girls (and many of them: polygamy was common in Hinduism â" and is practiced even today)

    - those in whose religion Dalits are not just shunned but regularly killed

    - those in whose religion women are BURNT ALIVE along with their husbands

    - those in whose religion widows are treated with UTMOST CRUELTY (have you seen Water?)

    - those in whose religion marriage to another caste will lead to death by stoning in a village assembly

    - those in whose religion the village 'boss' sleeps with the wife of EVERY newly married person (this STILL happens in many UP villages) [Proof]

    then would that help?

    http://www.sabhlokcity.com/201...

  233. Religion was born when first conman met first fool by NewYork · · Score: 1
  234. Re:Religion was born when first conman met first f by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    ...because WW1 and WW2 was really all about enforcing christianity.
    _SO_ NOT.

  235. Re:Religion was born when first conman met first f by NewYork · · Score: 1
  236. Re:Religion was born when first conman met first f by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I'm ignoring you from now on because you're completely clueless at least about EU history.

    WW1 was actually caused by stress about the balance of political power between the "Great Power" countries (i.e. the majority) in Europe.

    WW2 was directly caused by Germany invading Poland, a result of the rise of the Nazi party (who were elected by a majority coalition).

  237. Re:Religion was born when first conman met first f by NewYork · · Score: 1

    I'm ignoring you from now on because you're living in a world devoid of reality.