Slashdot Mirror


In Paris, Terrorists Kill 2 More, Take At Least 7 Hostages

As reported by The Daily Beast, news on the ongoing terror attack (or attacks) in Paris. Chérif and Saïd Kouachi, who are accused of slaughtering 12 in an attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine, have been cornered by hundreds of security officials close to Charles de Gaulle Airport, north of Paris. Officials say they believe the heavily armed brothers are holding one hostage. Twenty miles south, in the east of the city, at least one gunman is believed to have taken six hostages at a Jewish store. Police suspect that the third gunman is the same man who shot and killed a policewoman on Thursday morning before escaping in a bulletproof vest. Update: 01/09 17:44 GMT by T : And now all three of the gunmen involved in today's hostage taking are dead. Watch this space for updates. Update: 01/09 17:15 GMT by T : CNN's story features a stream of updates (and an autoplaying video ad to beware), as does The Telegraph. Latest news is that brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi have been killed by police, but it's unclear whether the same is true of the third hostage-taker.

490 comments

  1. "Old", they are already dead since 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    /. "live" report.

    1. Re:"Old", they are already dead since 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I came in to say that this would be a great story if one had no access to any other media than /.

    2. Re:"Old", they are already dead since 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea. Nice try DICE. "Watch this space for updates."

      Sometimes I wonder how few hours the Slashdot editors really spend on Slashdot anyway...

    3. Re:"Old", they are already dead since 10 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a time (before the Dice takeover) when Slashdot was pretty much the only functioning "news" outlet available - I am speaking of September 11, 2001. BBC was "slashdotted." CNN was "slashdotted." Most of the news aggregator sites I knew of were "slashdotted." Yet Slashdot provided up to the minute (or two) coverage as events unfolded. It's not "live" news, but when the "live" news sites were not available, I was grateful to get news from here with only a modest delay.

  2. The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    More from the religion of peace and tolerance.

    Queue up people bringing up the Holy Crusades and other things that took place a good 300 years ago

    1. Re:The religion of peace by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      another shining example of diversity and multiculturalism.

    2. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More than that, actually closer to a thousand years ago than it is 300 years ago.

    3. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you should check the history of africa, especially the part with the priests and the slaves

    4. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christians are cool with people desecrating their religion and religious figures. Other religions, not so much.

    5. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last crusades were in the 1450s.

    6. Re:The religion of peace by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

      well there was the abortion clining bombing from a few years back. not to mention the naacp bombing from earlier this week. All religion is garbage. They all have their fundamentalists.

    7. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was the deadliest massacre in Europe since the mass shootings in Norway in 2011.

      You know, the ones by a Christian extremist, from the religion of peace and tolerance.

      Queue up people claiming that he was just fucked in the head, not Christian, but don't understand the same argument applies to the fuck-ups in France.

    8. Re:The religion of peace by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, if it's actually funny, we'll laugh along. I live in the Bible Belt, and no one I knows is offended by God telling King Arthur to stop grovelling. "It's like those miserable psalms. They're so depressing. Now knock it off." It's hilarious. Imagine Mohammed saying something like that on Arab TV. People would die, and not the laughing sort.

    9. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, that movie came out in '89.

    10. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Portugese inquisition executed heretics until 1794.

    11. Re:The religion of peace by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Informative

      More from the religion of peace and tolerance.

      Queue up people bringing up the Holy Crusades and other things that took place a good 300 years ago

      You have selective memory, why bring up the crusades when all one has to do is bring up the Bosnian war and the Kosovo wars. There were a whole lot of people involved in the Pogroms against the Bosnian moslems who claimed they were doing it among other things to defend Christianity.

    12. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the crusades weren't mandated by the Christian holy texts; they were actually mandated against.

    13. Re:The religion of peace by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      It's not about religion. The entire middle-east region is still stuck in the middle-ages (kings, feudal-loyalties, torture, little-respect for human life, no freedom of speech, etc). In terms of worldview, they're very backwards, to the point they think it's ok to kill people for disagreeing with you.

      Ghaddafi would have still oppressed his people if he were Christian, Assad would be no less cruel if he were atheist or christian; neither of those is the reason for his cruelty.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue up people bringing up the Holy Crusades and other things that took place a good 300 years ago

      (I shit you not :) captcha: literacy

    15. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, watch out for those fundamentalist Jains. Dipshit.

    16. Re:The religion of peace by GungaDan · · Score: 2

      "Assad would be no less cruel if he were atheist or christian"

      Religion does not factor into Assad's cruelty - he's a DENTIST!

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    17. Re:The religion of peace by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Breivik was Christian. So was David Koresh.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    18. Re:The religion of peace by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Yep, dictators are only interested in Religion if it can be used as a tool in their quest to attain and/or maintain power.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    19. Re:The religion of peace by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Queue" means to line up. You "queue up" people. You cannot "Cue up" people. You can "cue people" though, which means to give a signal. In summary, you are the idiot, not the GP. The metasummary is that it's entertaining to watch two ACs call each other idiots.

    20. Re:The religion of peace by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually a great example of how NOT to deal with immigration. Or cultural differences altogether.

      We're currently seemingly trying our best to ensure that we'll get as many religiously motivated attacks as possible. First, before the whole shit, we ignored them. They were convenient slave laborers, but little more. We let them come into the country and give them the menial jobs that we don't want. We let them toil for pennies and if they as much as complained, we laughed at them, if we not outright ignored them. We used them as the footrest and did our best to ensure they were kept down under the thumb.

      Then they fucking exploded. Quite literally so. They went "boom motherfucker" and blew up our shit. And now suddenly we notice them, and we invite their "religious leaders" to ethic talks and want to know their point of view, we take them seriously and now suddenly we want to understand their point and we seek the dialogue with them.

      Is it me or is that about as wrong a message as we can possibly send? "We ignore you if you want to talk with us, but if you shoot at us, we come groveling for peace".

      Really?

      That's how you get your voice heard in our civilized world today? Hey, I can adapt. Occupy Wall Street? Hope that they'll talk if we show them how we don't agree with the shit they dump on us? Forget that petty crap, grab your guns and blow shit up if you want to be taken seriously!

      Not that I condone that in any way. But I do get the impression that this is the message here.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:The religion of peace by Shompol · · Score: 0
      This is not a pissing contest of "which religion is the best". We (as a society) need to look into what caused the massacre and how to prevent similar events in the future. Here's a short list for you:

      Norway in 2011:
      Try to detect certain mental disorders early and restrict their access to firearms. Tighten control over who has access to firearms.

      Paris last Wednesday, Sydney last month, etc.:
      Figure out why perfectly sane and capable muslims have frequent urges to execute random civilians. Find and fix the root of the problem.

      While #1 is difficult to accomplish, many jurisdictions try their best to restrict access to firearms.

      #2 is easy to fix but political pressures tie our hands under "freedom of religion" umbrella. My personal opinion is that we should be keeping zealot followers of Sharia Law in countries where Sharia is the official law of the land, rendering them harmless. I would also like to see the the enablers of the assassins called to justice. I am sure they had lots of help -- moral, financial and operational to carry out this massacre.

    22. Re:The religion of peace by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      How about we queue people of the same religion as those of each at of terrorism who publicly reacted with shock at what was done and compare lines?

    23. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rwandan Catholic priests, Lord's Resistance Army, Breivik, Franco, ...

    24. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually know anything at all, do you?

    25. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even atheists have their violent extremes.

      "A secular institution based on science" is exactly how the Nazi party was famously described by its founder.

    26. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, if it's actually funny, we'll laugh along. I live in the Bible Belt, and no one I knows is offended by God telling King Arthur to stop grovelling. "It's like those miserable psalms. They're so depressing. Now knock it off." It's hilarious. Imagine Mohammed saying something like that on Arab TV. People would die, and not the laughing sort.

      Let's remember this claim of a Christian sense of humor the next time Neil Degrasse Tyson tweets on Christmas.

    27. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queue up people bringing up the Holy Crusades and other things that took place a good 300 years ago

      I'm not gonna take your bait and try to debate the merits of any particular religion over others. You are really not knowledgable about the subject if you think the crusades were in the 1700's (a good 300 years ago). It's more like a good 900 years ago.

    28. Re:The religion of peace by itzly · · Score: 2

      Then they fucking exploded.

      No, the ones that explode are generally 2nd generation kids that never had an honest job in their life.

    29. Re:The religion of peace by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Even atheists have their violent extremes.

      But no martyrs.

    30. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot "Cue up" people.

      Well, I suppose you could if they were bald and didn't mind the chalk...

    31. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well there was the abortion clining bombing from a few years back. not to mention the naacp bombing from earlier this week. All religion is garbage. They all have their fundamentalists.

      ... intolerance doesn't appear to escape atheists either.

    32. Re:The religion of peace by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Exactly correct. It only takes a few nut cases to cause a lot of problems.
      I also have to wonder why Slashdot is even covering this? The weather channel and ESPN are not covering this. I wish Slashdot would stick to tech and geek specific news.
      It is not like every general news site is not covering this story.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    33. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty tough to find a violent Buddhist. Or wiccan (not sure if that counts as a religion yet).

    34. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    35. Re:The religion of peace by Baussian · · Score: 1

      Not that I condone that in any way. But I do get the impression that this is the message here.

      Racism & cultural inequality is unfortunately natural for any multicultural country.

      However I don't see many migrants from other religions who feel disrespected go around killing innocent people and blowing shit up. The problem of reverse cultural integration mainly seems to be an issue with Islam.

      Only Islam seems to advocate violence before peaceful protest. It also has a tendency for inflexibility with breaking religious rules which in a multicultural society will always result in an our team against theirs sentiment.

      France has one of the most elaborate social support systems in the world with free education, healthcare, etc; I see plenty of Asian, Indian, Chinese, Russian, etc, etc immigrants studying hard and taking positive part in Western society.

    36. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was also white. So the fuck what? He made it very clear he was a nationalist. Religion was a convenient tack-on for the media.

    37. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the deadliest massacre in Europe since the mass shootings in Norway in 2011.

      You know, the ones by a Christian extremist, from the religion of peace and tolerance.

      Queue up people claiming that he was just fucked in the head, not Christian, but don't understand the same argument applies to the fuck-ups in France.

      OK, I'll bite. In this wikipedia article it says that Anders Breivik identifies himself as a "cultural Christian" (whatever the hell that means). Breivik states that "myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God." I didn't see any reference to it in that wikipedia article but I seem to recall that he was also some sort of Odin worshipper. (No, I don't claim this makes any sense.) Up until the attack he was also frequently reading and posting to far-right political websites. From my perspective the moniker "right-wing nutjob" seems far more apt than "Christian fundamentalist".

      Honestly, if you are going to paint Christian fundamentalists as dangerous nutjobs willing to kill for any offense to their beliefs, you will have to do a bit better than this. Just sayin'.

    38. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the next time Neil Degrasse Tyson gets murdered by a Christian Fundamentalist for his obnoxious tweets, you can come back and say "told you so."

    39. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have entire nation states cheering them on.

    40. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are either stupid, or a non english-speaker, or American. But I suppose American is just the first two combined.

    41. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as usual, it's the victims' who are to blame. What a quaint sentiment.

    42. Re:The religion of peace by halivar · · Score: 1

      It is NOT pretty tough to find a violent Buddhist. Many places in southeast Asia are a seething cauldron of religious antagonism between Buddhism and Islam, with atrocities on both sides, such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

    43. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This didn't happen in the middle east. 12 people were murdered in cold blood because they offended the muslim prophet, and the attackers shouted something about avenging mohammed.

      This attack had fuck all to do with politics.

    44. Re:The religion of peace by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      More from the religion of peace and tolerance.

      Queue up people bringing up the Holy Crusades and other things that took place a good 300 years ago

      A typical myopic view of the world.
      You may find this enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... ...and that's just the Christians...

    45. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have selective memory

      And you have revisionist history. No doubt your "facts" were tailored for you by the US / British media, which spearheaded the military intervention.

      Crimes were committed on both sides during that war, but only one side was held to account. Then again, history is written by the victor.

    46. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy in Norway didn't do it in the name of Jesus. He was not a "Christian extremist", he was a right-wing extremist. So if you want compare groups, compare religious extremists with right-wing extremist and leave Christianity aside.

      BTW, I'm an atheist. It's just that as someone neutral, it's quite clear to me that Islam is by far the worst religion. One thing is for sure, I'd much prefer to be scorn upon by a Christian than by a Muslim.

    47. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I shouldn't laugh about what's happening in Syria, but that joke was extremely funny!

    48. Re:The religion of peace by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This didn't happen in the middle east.

      They were trained in the Middle East. Their worldview is from the Middle East.

      It's become a small world after all, welcome to it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    49. Re:The religion of peace by Livius · · Score: 1

      As soon as it becomes 'we' and 'they', 'they' have won and 'we' have lost.

    50. Re:The religion of peace by Livius · · Score: 1

      Martyrs are easy to manufacture. People die all the time. They just pick one.

    51. Re:The religion of peace by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      There was a recent new article about a foreigner in Thailand who sat in a bus seat reserved for monks. Got beat up for his mistake...

    52. Re:The religion of peace by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 0

      Christians condemned the Norwegian. Can't recall any who supported him. However, although there is some criticism, most of Islam has stayed quiet or supported the massacre.

    53. Re:The religion of peace by porjo · · Score: 2

      Queue up people claiming that he was just f**** in the head, not Christian

      First cab off the rank. Anders Breivik did not identify himself as a Christian in the sense that he was a follower of Christ but merely a 'cultural Christian'. His motivation was to protect 'Christian Europe', not to protect Christianity or Jesus. In fact he was quite scathing of religion in general saying "Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength". [1]

      It's still too early to say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the guys who carried out the recent attacks in France are doing so because they believed it is the 'will of Allah', the prophet 'commands it' etc etc.

      A second important distinction is that Anders Breivik, even if he wanted to, could not justify his actions based on what Jesus or his disciples taught. Islamic extremists can and do quote directly from the words of Mohammad to justified their violent actions.

      [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/anders-...

    54. Re:The religion of peace by porjo · · Score: 1

      And queue up the politicians (such as Pres. Hollande) tripping over themselves to say that the actions of these people are 'nothing to do with Islam' when the perpetrators themselves are a) proclaiming Islam as the motiviating for their actions and b) acting on the urgings of their own (extreme) Islamic leaders.

    55. Re:The religion of peace by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile in Spain...

      Napoleon snuffed out the Spanish Inquisition, only for it to be reinstated by Fernando the 7th - the great-great-great-great-grandfather of the current King Felipe.

      Thus Cayetano Ripoll was excecuted in 1826 in Valencia.

    56. Re:The religion of peace by catmistake · · Score: 1

      ...The problem of reverse cultural integration mainly seems to be an issue with Islam....

      Only Islam seems to advocate violence before peaceful protest.

      You are confusing legitimate Islam with extremism, and making a fallacious argument. After watching David Koresh burn himself, his family, and his followers to death, did you think "all Christians are homicidal nuts!"

      There are mostly ordinary faithful non-extremist Muslims in the world, civilized, rational, and peaceful. They have nothing to do with the absurd extremist fringes of Islam, which could be successfully argued isn't even Islam, and taking all their numbers only counts for a fraction of a percent of the entirety of the population of Islamic followers. Don't do that. Even 500,000 douche bag Muslims does not mean all 1.8Billion Muslims are douche bags.

    57. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Assad would be no less cruel if he were atheist or christian"

      Religion does not factor into Assad's cruelty - he's a DENTIST!

      Anti-dentite!!!

    58. Re:The religion of peace by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      Time for you to send them back to the hellholes they and their parents came from.

    59. Re:The religion of peace by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      You can cue up people by beating them with a pool cue, but I don't think that is what was intended either.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    60. Re:The religion of peace by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      And yet there was plenty of controversy caused by those same people a couple of years later. Sometimes people just don't get the joke, and explaining a joke almost never makes it funnier.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    61. Re:The religion of peace by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, most would agree that it's only some vanishing small percentage of the Muslim population in Europe being responsible for acts like murdering innocent journalists, or people with the temerity to have a contrary opinion of their faith. In a sane world, the majority of Muslims would drop the hammer on the minority that gives the rest of them a bad name.

      But that's not what we see here is it?

      Something like this happens, and the usual damage control brigade and useful idiots come out saying "religion of peace, look at what the Christians did hundreds of years ago!" Or, they'll note the absolute FRINGE of christian fanatics in the west, and try to create a false equivalence between the two.

      The thing is, western nations have absolutely no obligation to kowtow towards the demands of these people. France, and the rest of Europe do NOT need to be friendly towards Islam. Multiculturalism is a mistake, and hopefully they'll wake up before it's too late. Call me when the Saudi's or any other Islamic nation starts making similar concessions towards Jews or Christians.

    62. Re:The religion of peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I seriously doubt that Assad is actually religious.

      Gaddafi, I don't know. The guy was so crazy in so many ways that he could have been a genuine believer.

    63. Re:The religion of peace by catmistake · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you're employing another fallacy. There's lots of crime, you don't seem to be doing anything to stop it. You must endorse crime.

    64. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that abb is an agnostic, even though that was too hard to understand for "journalists".

    65. Re:The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a sane world, the majority of Muslims would drop the hammer on the minority that gives the rest of them a bad name.

      But that's not what we see here is it?

      If that's not what you see you need to open your eyes and pay attention. The most common victims of these kinds of attacks are other Muslims in their own country, and they've been the ones having to fight and defend against radical attacks far more frequently than Westerners do. That was actually part of the US's plan of giving the assorted fighters over there a bunch of weapons, helping them root out terrorists, until ISIS decided to start using those guns to slaughter US interests like the Iraqi police. Have you not seen stories of Pakistani police being slain by the Taliban, either?

      On the topic of the story at hand and your not seeing Muslims doing anything about crazed killers, google the name "Ahmed Merabet". What kind of "hammer dropping" do you expect from Muslims?

    66. Re: The religion of peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try 1000 years ago.

    67. Re:The religion of peace by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, religion is just the near impulse. The problem is a (medieval) mindset that says it's ok to kill people you disagree with. That is something ISIS shares with Assad more than religion.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    68. Re:The religion of peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's quite right, either. Assad is not persecuting people who disagree with him just because he hates disagreeable people, but because they represent a threat to his political power (and, really, only to the extent they do represent such a threat). That isn't really medieval thinking - it was quite common in the West until very recently, too, in pretty much every dictatorship out there, and even some populist democracies.

      ISIS, on the other hand, are genuine believers (well, we don't really know about the leadership... but so far I don't see any particular reason to believe otherwise, all their actions and decisions seem to be in line with that). They'll behead you for insulting Islam or some such not because that insult is a threat to their power, but because they believe that God told them to do that. Now they also will kill people for e.g. calling them ISIS (as opposed to just IS), and there it's not a religious thing but a threat-to-power thing.

    69. Re:The religion of peace by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That isn't really medieval thinking - it was quite common in the West until very recently, too,

      Well yes, that's medieval thinking. Perhaps my limiting it to the middle ages is too narrow, though. It's been that way since the beginning of history.

      Really what we have here is a group that wants to impose its will on the world through violence. (We've seen this before, it was certainly the Soviet goal for a long time, although really the Soviets had a greater chance of success). It can be called a strain of Islam, and it's catching the name Islamism; but it's more clearly seen as just another group of people who want to impose its will on the world through violence.

      I don't think that's a controversial characterization of what's going on. The real question is how to respond to it. And that's a hard question. We can probably ignore it and hope it will go away. The problem with that is, the Islamists seem determined to make themselves felt, and will probably kill people until they are so annoying they provoke a response.

      On the other hand I don't think it would be helpful to go all-out and try to take over a country, like we did with Iraq. That was kind of useless, an caused more problems than it solved.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    70. Re:The religion of peace by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I didn't support the Iraq war originally, but I don't think it was useless. Or rather the taking over was not, but the way it was run afterwards was. The problem is that it takes much more time, money, and yes, lives (of your own soldiers) to build something good there, but the Western taxpayers don't seem to be particularly interested. So we pull out, and in the power vacuum yet another warlord moves in, quite possibly more brutal than the next one.

      I think we either have to bite the bullet and go all in - and by this I mean taking over any country that is affected, and staying there for as long as necessary to set it on the right track, which probably means at least a generation and possibly two (and yes, that would be colonialism in a way). Or else stop fucking around there directly, but allow some of the major regional players, the more civilized ones, run the show. Turkey, perhaps even Iran; definitely not KSA. Really, anyone who thinks that building is more important than waging war. But, again, the current foreign policy is supporting KSA against Iran, so it's against that goal, too. And we have what we have.

    71. Re:The religion of peace by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia does a better job choosing friends than Iran.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    72. Re:The religion of peace by Pav · · Score: 1

      Probably not because of his obnoxious tweets... it's more likely to be because he's black (KKK) or he's accompanying his daughter to an abortion clinic that gets bombed.

    73. Re:The religion of peace by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Look around at the tranquility you live in. Compare that to where many Muslims live. Comparing religion practiced in peaceful, well-off countries to one being practiced in countries being squeezed by war and politics (both internal and external), and you will quickly see that you are comparing apples with oranges. Look what happened in Northern Ireland - lots of pressure put on the Catholic population (reduced representation, arbitrary detention, discrimination in the job & housing market, less social support, etc.) was enough to force Christians to blow each other to shreds & gun each other down. Imagine if on top of that there were air strikes from Britain (or France, for example), and massive external pressures placed on their already weak representation and self-built ad hoc infrastructure by external governments (or corrupt internal governments), and you might see their desperation increase and their tactics become even more bloody. I'm not excusing terrorism - I think all violence is a failure, even if it's logically necessary - I just think if we gloss over the situation and claim it's simply because of "Religion X is not as advanced/caring/peaceful/happy/nice as Religion Y", we'll never get anywhere. Of course that means admitting where societies are failing people, which is not easy and sometimes not pleasant, but it has been demonstrated as being the only successful way to work towards peace.

    74. Re:The religion of peace by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So you polled every single Muslim? What? You didn't? Then you are confusing your opinion with facts, something which will never help you win an argument, and definitely not help you live a meaningful, well-adjusted life. If you'd be bothered to read, you'd see that plenty of Muslims & small and large Islamic groups from the world over have condemned these attacks, ranging from governments to individual mosques, from mullahs to everyday people. You not being bothered to find this out does not make it untrue.

  3. Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The moderate Muslims need to more loudly denouce this shit.

    Or the assumption will be they agree with the acts of barbarity done in the name of their god.

    1. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Yunzil · · Score: 3, Informative

      They denounce it all the time. For some reason it almost never gets reported in the press.

    2. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    3. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They denounce it all the time. For some reason it almost never gets reported in the press.

      BULLSHIT.

      Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam

      Violence and murder in response to insults and slights against Islam is widely and strongly supported by Muslims.

      Period.

    4. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are doing it all the time and there are huge numbers of muslims at all the protests. What more do you want from them?

    5. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OK, here's a recent article about a US lawyer who has friends in ISIS and was negotiating with them for the release of a hostage, the American aid worker Peter Kassig who was ultimately murdered by ISIS. The terms of the proposed hostage release:

      If consummated, the negotiations in which Cohen was involved would have included an agreement by ISIS to halt all kidnappings and beheadings of civilians; in exchange for this, Maqdisi and Abu Qatada, another widely respected jihadist theologian, would have agreed to cease and desist their scathing public denunciations of ISIS.

      Citation:

      http://forward.com/articles/211631/stanley-cohens-radical-detour-on-the-way-to-prison/?p=all

      So yeah, there are some influential Muslims who speak out, but you know, they can get murdered also for doing so. How many non-Muslim people do you know who will open themselves up to terrorist attack to speak out against injustice?

      Courage is in short supply in this world no matter the religious affiliation, ethnic group, skin color, etc.

    6. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Disingenuous.

      Muslims are the people immigrating to Western first-world countries and failing to assimilate. They had better goddamned well apologize; the entire justice machine is intact for keeping 'our own' (e.g. Anders Breivik) in line, and indeed we take care of business.. but the opacity of the Muslim enclaves that refuse to assimilate is astounding, in addition with providing little help in heading off these sorts of things.

      Why live in the first world if you're going to pretend it's the fourteenth century? Oh yeah, standard of living. Pity their own countries have nothing to offer, so now they get to try to fuck ours up. If it gets out of hand, their day will come.

    7. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      (Not that Abu Muhammad al Maqdisi and Abu Qatada are "moderates" though. They favor al Zawahiri of al Queda.)

      http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/02/pro-al_qaeda_saudi_c.php

    8. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's usually half-assed. Like here's our local muslim leader

      The chairman of the Muslim community in Trondheim deplore terrorism in Paris, but calls while stricter rules for what the media can publish.
      (...)
      Chilwan believes it is asking for trouble when the media continues to publish images that Charlie Hebdo does.
      - This has happened before in Denmark. We know that the consequences are dramatic. Why you should always pour fuel on the fire, ask Chilwan.
      Chilwan calls therefore stricter rules in the media for what can be published.
      - To adopt a law for this is too strong. But I think the ethical rules of the press must be defined in a better manner, where one agrees some ethical and moral values so that no one feels offended. It would be better for society, says Chilwan.

      Lots of victim-blaming for provoking muslims, clear references that terror should be expected, calls for self-censorship and so on. Fuck him. Fuck all muslims that think like him. And they're not extremists and outcasts in the muslim comunity, they're leaders of mainstream organizations. Journalists and most of society just refuses to acknowledge that the "moderate" muslims are actually fringe radicals that don't have much popular support.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be because of the Muslim hating Western media.

      How is Al Jazeera covering the denunciation of this violence by moderate Muslims? A token nod? Oh well, good effort guys.

    10. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 5, Informative
    12. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Norway's Christians didn't have to apologise for Anders Breivik, and it's the same for Muslims now.

      That's comparing apples and oranges, Breivik for the most part killed Norwegian Christians belonging to a political youth party that he felt was "selling out" the country. Of the list of his 77 victims there's 11 with names I'd generally consider foreign leaving 66 that probably were ethnically Norwegian, from statistics around 80% would be nominally Christians. I say nominally because many belong to the state church without being very religious at all, but they wouldn't have any other religious affiliation. His action was more like the Muslim-on-Muslim slaughter in Pakistan, killing our own "fallen" over ideology.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All he (and other xtian morons) want is to blame all muslims for the actions of some, but with the option of NOT blaming all christians for the actions of some.

      Hence the "Why don't they speak up?" meme.

      How many xtians do you hear decrying WBC? None. How about the killings of gay men in Africa by christians? Silent on that too.

      Thing is, if you ASK them, they'll decry it, but they don't (And should not) feel the need to keep banging on about how they don't like that. They DO expect (and should not) Muslims to do so, though.

    14. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      WTF is a "Majorities"?!? 51% + 51% = 102% is a "majorities". Do you even math, bro?

    15. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      http://www.mediamatters.org/re...

      For some reason after a Christian zealot beheaded his roommate in Stillwater, I never heard my pastor denouce that kind of violence perpeuated in Christianity's name.

      For some reason every time a Christian kills someone, not only do we not hear christians denouncing it, but we also never hear bigots like demanding that do so.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    16. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Journalists and most of society just refuses to acknowledge that the "moderate" muslims are actually fringe radicals that don't have much popular support.

      From my point of view this applies to most of the American Republican party and the entire Tea Party movement (except almost all of the latter are way beyond the fringe already).

    17. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norways Xians didn't need to apologise, because their priests didn't come out and say "we don't condone what he did, but those people really did deserve it".
      Unlike every muslim priest or whatever they are called.

    18. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by ADRA · · Score: 1

      There are crazy fanatics in all groups. Its easy to villify those that aren't in your tribe or faith, but they are human beings just like you. Though his words may be self-serving in cooling the often undiscriminating hate against his religion, you can't say that terrorism and media exposure aren't in any way linked. To say the opposite is to invite more terror, if you like it or not. The rest of your rant are so bile spewed its not worth addressing. I live in a country largely isolated from terrorism (domestic and international), so I'm thankful for that, but I've personally known dozens of perfectly well adjusted muslim's who live quite normal lives surrounded by Christians, Agnostics, and everyone else most notably. I personally have more issues from dirty bible thumpers talking about all of us going to hell than I've ever been threatened by a Muslim.

      --
      Bye!
    19. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      At least one Lefty disagrees.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    20. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by khallow · · Score: 1

      From my point of view this applies to most of the American Republican party and the entire Tea Party movement (except almost all of the latter are way beyond the fringe already).

      The difference from your point of view and reality being that the "beyond the fringe" groups are getting people elected and the Republicans are one of the two dominant political parties in the US. That makes them not fringe in reality.

    21. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      - To adopt a law for this is too strong. But I think the ethical rules of the press must be defined in a better manner, where one agrees some ethical and moral values so that no one feels offended. It would be better for society, says Chilwan.

      He's asking the press to do what the New York Times decided to do itself. They didn't print any offensive cartoons either. What's the problem with that?

    22. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see the same thing in the U.S. regarding desecrating the flag. The people proposed, supported or voted for the flag desecration amendment in the U.S. are spiritually in league with the Islamic terrorists. They all want the same thing: to silence dissent. Those that say they are against the Islamic terrorists yet supported that amendment are simply hypocrites.

    23. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      Its easy to villify those that aren't in your tribe or faith, but they are human beings just like you.

      No, people who hold the coats for their more activist brothers as they burn teachers alive for teaching girls to reads are not human beings just like me. That you feel they are just like you is nauseating, though. Please go away.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    24. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Click the link fucktard:

      The correct figures, based on the 2013 Pew Research Center report, are 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

      Yeah those moderates sure are speaking out against the barbarism. *rolls eyes*

    25. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems Islam is mostly crazy fanatics.

      The correct figures, based on the 2013 Pew Research Center report, are 88% of Muslims in Egypt and 62% of Muslims in Pakistan favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      But remember that it's a "religion of peace"!!!

    26. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many non-Muslim people do you know who will open themselves up to terrorist attack to speak out against injustice?

      I can point to twelve pretty quickly.

    27. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that you have no right not to be offended. It's even more absurd since many of the same Muslims who decry the cartoons of their pedophilic prophet are more than willing to insult Jews and others.

    28. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      BULLSHIT.

      I know the Internet is hard, let me help you:

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=muslims+d...

    29. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, its ok for them to kill us, but its not ok for us to kill them.

    30. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breivik was a time traveller from the future who travelled back in time to kill Hitler and save humanity. Killing is bad except when it prevents millions of deaths further down the road.

    31. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by dywolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh look.
      Another racist spouting lies got modded insightful.

      http://www.mediamatters.org/re...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    32. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atleast they recognize that their girls are prettier than their adult women.
      Shows reasoning ability. A silver lining on a dark cloud.

    33. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim is a race now?

    34. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by zioncat · · Score: 1

      For some reason after a Christian zealot beheaded his roommate in Stillwater, I never heard my pastor denouce that kind of violence perpeuated in Christianity's name.

      I'm guessing your pastor will denounce that kind of violence if he learns significant amount of his congregation thought killing a man for practicing witchcraft was acceptable.

    35. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an area for improvement. Look again and see that most european Muslims are significantly more moderate than those in other nations. Why in Indonesia, the largest capita Muslim county in the world do only 18% believe in capital punishment, whereas 62% in neighboring and much less majority Malaysia? Sample bias, or simply local pockets of highly conservative muslim sects, I couldn't say.

      --
      Bye!
    36. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      It is the same non-existant deity that Jews and Christians believe in.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    37. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      Well, there's speculation that at least one of the twelve was himself Muslim (based on his name, "Ahmed Merabet"):

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/08/ahmed-merabet-mourned-charlie-hebdo-paris-attack

      My point remains: courage is to be found throughout humankind, as is tyranny unfortunately.

    38. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    39. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Maher is a douchebag

    40. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he speaks for legions of other douchebags

    41. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      \the little bit of condemnation is nothing next the the majority cheering and also making donations in the street markets to extremists. You are a shill for a religion of savages

    42. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's comparing apples and oranges

      That's what every bigot says when [member of religious/ethnic group bigot doesn't hate] is shown to have done similar to what [member of religious/ethnic group bigot hates] has done. You find some nitpick and claim that makes the events totally different so that the ones you hate are still the only ones that matter.

      In both cases, people were killed for not sharing the views of the murderers. Whether the victims practiced a less-extreme version of the same religion, or a different religion, or no religion at all, is irrelevant to the point that any and every group has murderous wackos, and that doesn't necessary speak the evil of the group.

    43. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Breivik was also arrested and prosecuted by Norwegian Christians, and anyone who would express sympathy or support for him would be denounced and shunned.

      Of course there are crazies in the western world as well. Christians who bomb abortion clinics. But these people are a much, much smaller percentage of the populace, and the vast, vast majority of the populace not only condemns their actions, but would speak out against anybody advocating for such violence, and would report to the authorities anyone they suspected of planning violence. And then western (amongst them Christian) authorities would arrest and prosecute them and western (amongst them Christian) juries would convict them.

      Islamic terrorism must be stopped. But we in the west can't do it. We're not in the mosques in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and wherever else the terrorists are indoctrinated and radicalized. We're not the terrorists' neighbors and family members. But the muslims who say "we don't support this!" are. It's going on in your mosques, it's going on in your families and your neighborhoods. It's not enough to say "we don't support it." You have to have a collective political will to ferret it out and put a stop to it.

      If somebody at my church were inciting people to violence, ya know what I'd do? I'd report it. And the media would shine a big light on the crazy things coming out of that church and people would talk about how awful what they were saying is, and if you were a member of that church people would think you were crazy and push you out of their lives. And if I thought somebody in my community was planning violence, you know what I'd do? I'd call the cops. They'd investigate and arrest the guy for attempted whatever. And we'd splash him on the news and everybody would say how great it was that I turned him in and what a great job the cops did stopping this guy. Because that's our culture.

      It isn't enough for the peaceful muslims to say "we don't support this." They need to work to change their culture to actively stop it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    44. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by fnj · · Score: 1

      Being against violent religious zealotry is not racism. I believe on reflection you would rather agree with that than be a fool. Religion is not race[*]. The most you can go for is labeling it xenophobia, but as we see below, there is excellent genuine foundation for being highly suspicious of whether huge numbers of Muslims are civilized at all.

      And I see you have absolutely nothing to say about the substance of GP's post, which is that a study found that majorities of Muslims who favor sharia law also favor murdering "apostates" who "abandon Islam", in Malaysia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and "Palestine". I'll make it easy for you. Just turn to page 55 in the highly detailed 2013 Pew study.

      Sure, one has to be careful that their brush does not colour too universally. For example (page 46), only 17% of Muslim Turks who favor sharia believe apostates should be murdered, and only 12% of Turks favor making sharia the law of the land (as opposed, for example, to 91% of Iraqis and a whopping 99% of Afghanis.

      [*] In fact, there is anthropologically only one human "race" in existence in the modern world.

    45. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      This charge of pedophilia is pure ignorance, an unwarranted slur. Pedophilia is, first off, sex with prepubescent children - not sexually mature teenagers. While the Prophet married Aisha when she was nine, it was not consummated until she was sexually mature. This is still a not uncommon practice in some societies, and was quite acceptable almost everywhere in the seventh century. Even today in the US, girls as young as 13 are allowed to marry. I realize we are in the midst of a media-driven pedophilia and "sex crime" panic, and that pedophilia is being redefined to include people who are sexually mature, and only one or two years apart in age, but you're not obligated to join in.

      You discredit any legitimate argument you might have when you toss in bullshit and insults. There is plenty of "real" stuff to complain about, don't you think?
      Besides, all religions are pretty awful.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    46. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look.
      Another apologist deflecting criticism of his religion using the race card where it doesn't apply.

      ("muslim" isn't a race any more than "christian" is, you fucktard. Unless you think arab and muslim are the same thing, which is likely. Who's the racist?)

    47. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by radtea · · Score: 1

      Violence and murder in response to insults and slights against Islam is widely and strongly supported by Muslims.

      This is uncontroversially true (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/) but worded as "support of Sharia law", which technically means that while they support violence they don't support "murder" because murder is unlawful killing, and under some variants of Sharia law it would be lawful to kill people for blasphemy (there are 17 people on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy right now.)

      However, what you are saying is irrelevant to the point that many Muslim organizations do condemn these sorts of freelance, unlawful, killings of blasphemers. That they do this is not all that much comfort, unfortunately, because support for Sharia law is only incrementally less horrible, anti-Enlightenment and anti-democratic than support for murder.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    48. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim countries arrest and prosecute their terrorists when they get their hands on them. There are plenty of muslim and christian terrorists that haven't been prosecuted simply because they haven't been caught yet.

    49. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This charge of pedophilia is pure ignorance, an unwarranted slur.

      No, it's a warranted slur. Muhammad was a kid raping pedophile.

      You discredit any legitimate argument you might have when you toss in bullshit and insults.

      You seem to think I care what you think. I don't.

    50. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0

      Do you understand the "kitman" deception? Please let m explain:

      When a Muslim leader condemns "terrorism" against "innocents" we lap it up, right? We praise them for not wanting to kill us - because we know about 50% of Muslims agree with parts of the Sharia (Islamic law) - at least according to a 2012 Pew Survey. What most don't understand (even Slashdotters) is that the definition of "terrorism" and "innocence" comes from Sharia (Islamic Law).

      In Sharia "terrorism" is "unlawful warfare". Jihad is lawful warfare and combating jihad is unlawful warfare. Condemning "terrorism" means condemning the countrer-terror forces of the West, who are trying to save our lives. They understand how you will misinterpret this, and this is permitted for them to deceive because it advances the cause of Islam (after all, the Koran states many times that "Allah is the Greatest of Deceivers").

      In Sharia "innocents" are Muslims. All Muslims are always innocent and all kafir (non-Muslims) cannot ever be innocent. Our act of disbelief is a crime under Sharia. Our act of existence is an affront to their Allah (who, if you do the research cannot be YHWH the God of Abraham as they claim, but must be the Nabatean God Dushara based on Koran 53:19-20 - of course none of these ghosts in the sky exist, but it is worth knowing the details so you can defeat their superstition).

      So, lets put that back together. A Muslim cleric condemning "terrorism" and the harming of "innocents" is actually saying, "I condemn Western counter-terror forces who are harming Muslims".

      Islam is very specific in is wording (it is a totalitarian, theocratic poltiical system with some badly plagiarised superstition on top - it is NOT a personal faith as we understand religion to be).

      The only acceptable phrase a Muslim can use is:
      "I condemn jihad and the murder of any civilians"

      but they NEVER do this. Ever. They are relying on a deception to advance their agenda - which is your submission to Islam and you living under Sharia.

      More details about kitman and the other *obligatory* forms of lying in Islam:
      http://www.islam-watch.org/aut... (currently offline as it is under DDoS by pro-Sharia groups)

      The political ideology called "Islam" is truly evil and deceptive and verifyably false (based on historical evidence). Slashdotters need to educate themselves about it so we can fight for Liberty by discrediting it. Are YOU prepared to fight for Liberty? we have to attack and discredit that ideology, and we can only do that if you understand the enemy.

      Pro-Sharia folks always mod be down when I point things like this up. They mistake telling the truth about Islam for some form of "racism". This is crazy. Stop censoring those to tell the truth about Islamic ideology (and who are not condemning the slaves trapped in the evil system, called "Muslims"). Please mod me up so my karma recovers and I can share more and more about the ideology of Islam and its deceptions - there is a whole lot more to tell you guys so you are armed for the ideological battle against Islam (which is an existential struggle between 21st Century Enlightenment Civilization and 7th Century Sharia barbarism).

    51. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      he is correct in noting that the center of mass in muslim ideology shrugs it's shoulders at things like charlie hebdo. you could go to cairo, kartachi, riyadh, etc., and easily find people who blame the cartoonists, if not an outright majority

      that matters

      yeah, there's liberal muslims who understand free speech, that speech offensive to you doesn't justify murder. but there is simply far too little of them in this world. partly because any liberal muslim who does speak out in muslim lands in favor of progress towards tolerance, simply gets murdered

      people in the west have to come to grips with the fact that there are simply a lot of muslims who are comfortable with what happened at charlie hebdo. and that's a real and huge problem

      this doesn't mean we treat muslims badly in the west, as some pea brained western assholes want. that's actually what people in al qaeda and ISIS want: if the west responds violently, it further radicalizes more muslims to their fold. al qaeda and ISIS want to antagonize western morons to respond with violence. that helps them recruit

      but what it does mean is that certain cotton headed western liberals, and i consider myself a western liberal (but not a cotton headed one) need to shut fuck up and stop saying "it's because they're poor," "it's because they are excluded," "it's because we hurt their feelings so it's our fault"

      apologists are disgusting. no one mass murders because they feel slighted by you, and it's YOUR fault they did that?

      so what to do we do? we crack down on imams and any loudmouths who preach hate. there is nothing about the concept of free speech that says those who want to violently destroy free speech deserve free speech protections

      intolerance of intolerance is not the same 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]

      just like banning nazi ideology in germany does not violate free speech principals because nazism symbolizes the end of free speech principals, the west must get comfortable shutting down, shutting up, jailing and deporting imams and assorted douchebags who preach hate and jihad

      this does not violate principals of western liberty. you don't get the protections of liberty at the same time you preach for the violent destruction of liberty. it's not logical coherent. so western apologists who think their violence is our fault need to shut the fuck up: you're wrong. this is larger than a simple grievance about not getting a fucking job. this is an organized ideology of hate, as potent and dangerous as nazism

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    52. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by radtea · · Score: 1

      The difference between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists is that the majority of Christians worldwide do not support imposing a system of Christian law on their society. Some do, certainly (these guys: http://www.allaboutworldview.o...) but nothing like the fraction of Muslims in most Muslim-majority nations: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0...

      In the US, proponents of Biblical Law are powerful (http://www.theocracywatch.org/biblical_law2.htm) but have relatively little influence in the face of American secularism. But if Christian terrorists in the US started killing gays, say, I would damned well expect proponents of Biblical Law to stand up and make clear that even though they are in favour of lawfully killing gays (as per Deuteronomy) that they are opposed to unlawfully killing gays.

      In the same way, since a very large number of Muslims support Sharia law, and since Sharia law in at least some of its variants imposes a death penalty for blasphemy, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask supporters of Sharia law (that is, a sizable fraction of ordinary Muslims) to stand up and say, "By the way, even though we support laws that would put blasphemers to death, we don't support people who do it freelance like this, in part because they killed people who weren't blasphemers but just bystanders. If we just had Sharia law we could kill the blasphemers cleanly and with much less collateral damage, and we would totally support that, but not this messy ad hoc stuff."

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    53. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is most of the time they denounce it, but with a "but". Like "I'm against violence, but those cartoons should not have been published".

      They denounce it, but they justify immediately after.

    54. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      According to most (credible) sources, Aisha was married when she was 6 or 7. And she was 9 when Muhammad raped her.

    55. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      I personally have more issues from dirty bible thumpers talking about all of us going to hell than I've ever been threatened by a Muslim.

      Yep.

    56. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by iwasacoward · · Score: 0

      Well said. If any post deserves a 5, it's this one.

    57. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, proponents of Biblical Law are powerful (http://www.theocracywatch.org/biblical_law2.htm) but have relatively little influence in the face of American secularism. But if Christian terrorists in the US started killing gays, say, I would damned well expect proponents of Biblical Law to stand up and make clear that even though they are in favour of lawfully killing gays (as per Deuteronomy) that they are opposed to unlawfully killing gays.

      ????

      What the hell is "Biblical Law"? Perhaps you mean Levitical Law? And, FYI, I'm a Christian and I would object to any killing of gays, lawful or otherwise. Are you seriously suggesting that you would be OK with killing of gays just so long as it is done according to Deuteronomy? Would you really be OK with anyone advocating for killing of gays, just so long as they were killed "lawfully"? What the hell is wrong with you? Perhaps you should shut up until such time as you have got a clue.

    58. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THTR

    59. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Or they might even be able to integrate if the western countries would stop being racist and xenophobic.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    60. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mediamatters is nothing but Obama's propaganda machine. You don't see ABCNEWS or CBSNEWS reporting this, I watch the latter. NBC employs Al "race-bating" Sharpton any link to them is bullshit.

    61. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWWHHHHAAAAAAATTTTTTT??????
      I am a practicing christian and I condemn the WBC bombings and the killings of gay men in Africa.
      All the hundreds of christians I know do the same. Christianity is a religion of love and self sacrifice, that's the central teaching of Jesus. Which doesn't mean there aren't Christians and others that claim to be Christians, behaving very badly. Christians are humans. I also behave badly sometimes but being a Christian and striving to get my inspiration from the teachings of Christ, then I am working on myself and doing whatever I can to have love towards my enemies. And don't confuse "love" and "tolerance". Tolerance has sometimes the appearance of love but is often just "if you don't agree with them then just ignore them, let them live" - there is some merit to that but it's far from sufficient and has also bad sides. Love is much more than that, Christ DIED for his enemies and told his disciples to do the same.

    62. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and before some moron tries to steal my words to corrupt their meanings, dying amongst one's enemies with explosives around the chest is not dying for its enemies. At the cross, with nails in his hands and feet and after many harsh treatments, his body weight applying painful force in the nail holes going through his body, Christ said "Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing". Text translated from French as I'm a native French speaker, so sorry if it doesn't correspond word-for-word to an official English Bible translation.

      Jesus spent his time fighting the religious zealots who opposed love with religion, like when he healed people during the Shabat and was confronted by religious leaders "you can't heal during the Shabat" (because it was sacred holiday, rested for God). Check how he replied, saying how the religious leaders misinterpreted the intent of the religious laws (which was love) and forbade the people to enter in God's covenant by using the religious law as an instrument of power, denaturing it. Christ message was about love, love, and love. And, love. And love again.

      The above example shows how christianity teaches to not misinterpret text by reminding that the background context, the driving force of the text, is love and no commandment, law and other part of the text shall be abused to derive power, sadism or any other vicious thing from it. Do all Christians live true to this? No, none, because we are all humans with our natural tendency for greed etc. But true Christians TEND to become like Christ because they have their sights set on the goal, and march towards it. I repeat: I am a practicing Christian and yet sometimes, too often, I have greedy, hateful, angry etc actions or reactions. This is not because of being Christian!!! This is because of being human, and being Christian is what fuels my desire and progress towards becoming a less selfish, more loving being. I don't claim that Christians hold the monopoly of the good acts, behavior, love etc. There are good men amongst Atheists, Muslims, , but I claim that Christianity is a religion of love.

      Many other things deserve to be said as this debate is larger than a single human brain can comprehend over a lifetime, but my time for writing stuff on slashdot is finite so I will end here for now. Key message: teaching of Christianity is selfless love to not only one's friends, but also enemies.

    63. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
    64. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      abb is an agnostic who killed for political reasons. Try again.

    65. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like banning nazi ideology in germany does not violate free speech principals because nazism symbolizes the end of free speech principals, the west must get comfortable shutting down, shutting up, jailing and deporting imams and assorted douchebags who preach hate and jihad

      Hear hear, if something like this can be decently enforced it's a solution that isn't easy for the mellow and naturalized Muslim immigrants to argue with.

    66. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2

      Doesn't this boil down to "people advocate their own way of life"? It's hardly surprising that people who have spent much or all of their lives under sharia law are basing their beliefs and opinions on that law. Just think about all the Americans who uncritically assume that freedom of speech is universally good and all the Germans who uncritically assume that suppressing national socialism trumps unrestricted freedom of speech. Turkey is a good example as great pains were taken to make Turkey a secular state. (Turkey is still rather quirky in many regards but religious nuts they're not.)

      Also, your first numbers are about what those Muslims who believe sharia should be the law of the land have to say about leaving Islam. We're already talking about people who want a theocracy and their opinion on the specific case of someone leaving their religion. If we look at other numbers we see a different picture. Firstly, if we take the number of people who ask for sharia in the first place into consideration we see that the results are very regional with South Asia being the most sharia-friendly.

      Even in places like Pakistan where most Muslims would like more sharia in their lives the vast majority still support religious freedom (pg. 63). As a matter of fact, the most intolerant country, Egypt, still has 77% in favor. Also note that virtually everywhere people are quite concerned about Muslim extremist groups (pg. 68) and that the only people who can muster even lukewarm approval of suicide bombings are those in very unstable regions like Palestine and Afghanistan.

      If anything, the Pew study tells me that it's not a religious problem but a regional and social one. The most extreme opinions come from regions that are either politically unstable, have been dominated by extremists for decades or are Pakistan. (I don't know much about Pakistani culture so I can't tell what colors their opinions.) Also, the great Islamic crusade to convert everyone in the world is a myth. Broadly claiming that Muslims everywhere behave like telegenic extremists in particularly extremist countries is like claiming that the entire USA are like the Bible Belt and that the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of popular opinion in the States.

      We have to figure out a way for everyone to get along. Painting an entire religion with broad strokes in a situation where religion is a politically charged topic is counterproductive, especially when all you have in favor of this is media coverage of extremists putting on a show for the media.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    67. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we can work on not murdering their innocent families, creating three new terrorists for every one that we get.

    68. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by zapadnik · · Score: 1

      Who are these mythical 'moderate' Muslims? To oppose jihad is apostasy and is punishable by death. 'Moderate' Muslims are Muslims in Name Only (and are being slaughtered by the pious Muslims, like ISIS and Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslims Brotherhood).

      According to a 2012 Pew Survey at least half of all Muslims (around 800 million of thej World's rapidly growing 1.6 Billion Muslims) believe in enforcing one or more parts of the Sharia (the barbaric Islamic Law):
      "Ben Shapiro: The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority" [6 mins]
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      You are being fed with disinformation, there are no "moderate" Muslims. According to Sharia there are only Muslims (the ones who participate or *support* the ***mandatory*** jihad) and 'apostates' (who are supposed to be killed, and are, all over the globe):
      http://www.thereligionofpeace....

      We need to help the apostates escape Islam.

    69. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      According to most (credible) sources, Aisha was married when she was 6 or 7. And she was 9 when Muhammad raped her.

      I like your citation. But I did remember this imperfectly, and had to look it up again. There is only one source, the Hadiths, which say that the nikah (betrothal) took place when Aïsha was six, and that she "entered his household" at the age of nine. This information was taken from Bukhari, and purports to be a quote from Aïsha. The other line from Bukhari states, “Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed [alone] for two years or so. He married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.”

      Even Muslims question the authenticity of those hadiths, (which were collected about a hundred years after Mohammed's time). From Maulana Muhammad Ali:

      “A great misconception prevails as to the age at which Aisha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the Tabaqat that when Abu Bakr [father of Aisha] was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubair, and that he would have to settle the matter first with him. This shows that Aisha must have been approaching majority at the time. Again, the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that Aisha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter [of the Holy Quran] entitled The Moon, the fifty-fourth chapter, was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the fifty-fourth chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that Aisha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikah, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqat that Aisha was nine years of age at the time of nikah. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage.”

      Now, if you're being honest, doesn't that make a lot more sense? Although it's been some years, I've read quite a bit on the topic, (yes, western writers, too), and nothing led me to believe there's anything to this charge. It just doesn't make sense in any context. Remember, we're talking about Mohammed's favorite wife, and an impressive woman in her own right, not some victim, and the daughter of his right-hand man. Believe me, I am no fan of religion. It seems to me there is plenty of awful stuff to pick on - no need to gild the lily when it comes to religion! - but I wouldn't put any stock in this one.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    70. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's not really victim blaming. We all know we have really awesome freedom of speech in the west. We know this. Every day we spend on this Earth is a testament to that. We love it. It's really important to us. Now, what is the sane approach when a group of people vehemently don't want this? Is it to sit down and talk about it, or is it to push their buttons repeatedly, knowing that it will not cause those with problems with free speech to go "aah - I get it now! Awesome!", but merely cause those already upset to be more upset...

      Is it victim blaming when you blame the child for poking the tiger with a stick? Serious question.

    71. Re:Bar fucking barians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we dont have problems of this scale with afro-Caribbeans, nor with hindus from india. Nor with the vast numbers of eastern europeans that came to the UK in the past few years. Yet we do with the muslims. And only the muslims. Converts and those born into is.
      Fuck em.

  4. Click Bait? by TechnoGrl · · Score: 0

    This is an obviously important story - available on hundreds of news sites elsewhere.
    My question is how this is related to technology ? How is this "news for geeks"?

    This is obvious clickbait designed to gather hits for people doing searches for this story.
    Next year are we to expect the site to be renamed the "Slashington Post" with the right hand column devoted to sideboob?

    --
    ----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
    1. Re:Click Bait? by FRAKK2 · · Score: 0

      Because this news is being transmitted via technology.. Of course you could have always not bothered to post!

    2. Re:Click Bait? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Slashdot has been posting political stories that have nothing to do with technology for well over a decade. Also the "news for nerds" subtitle was long since removed from the title of the site.

    3. Re:Click Bait? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      And look who clicked.

      The only thing more pathetic than clickbait are the fucktards who immediately turn up to shout "Clickbait!"

      At any rate, this is a serious issue because these sorts of terrorists takes inevitably lead to governments making laws and policies that adversely affect our liberties.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Click Bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sideboob is OK so I vote "Yes."

      Captcha: perverts.

  5. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by MrKevvy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because nerds are (generally) supportive of nonviolence and tolerance for unpopular ideas to promote intellectual and creative freedom, and these mindless idiot fundamentalist thugs are the enemy of that and will destroy it if they can. Is it clearer now?

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  6. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Feedom of Speech.

  7. why? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    "Watch this space for updates."

    If only there were places on the web one could go to watch live streaming coverage of event such as this, or liveblogs. Or a service where small messages containing updates could be broadcast to other users, searchable by special keywords called "hashtags"....

    1. Re:why? by Iniamyen · · Score: 4, Funny

      That stuff isn't always fact-checked or verified. What you get with /. is the second-to-none integrity of the information that's provided.

    2. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question "why give updates when there are other places from which I can get updates" applies to Slashdot, but also to each of the other sources you mentioned.

    3. Re:why? by neminem · · Score: 3, Funny

      Second-to-none, as in it's the literally the second option in terms of integrity, with "none" as the better option? :p

    4. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Watch this space for updates."

      If only there were places on the web one could go to watch live streaming coverage of event such as this, or liveblogs. Or a service where small messages containing updates could be broadcast to other users, searchable by special keywords called "hashtags"....

      Why does the media give these fools any coverage? If the "terrorists" were ignored, there would be no "talking head experts" on television and the "we need more surveillance powers traitors" would become irrelevant and put in their proper place - under the foot of every citizen. The "security forces" in France should have planted explosives and detonated them ensuring the terrorists were killed and any witnesses were inside at the time. These incidents prove the government cannot protect anyone including themselves; these two brothers were on watch lists and known to intelligence agencies yet managed to carry out these attacks? I call for the immediate execution of everyone working in these intelligence agencies because they are incompetent. Seeing the buffoon President Obama on television afterwards was further evidence he and his minions should be carted off to Club Gitmo forever. Hail Caesar!

  8. Latest news :D by FRAKK2 · · Score: 0

    Looks like the French Police decided to speed up the brothers meeting with Allah! GO FRANCE!

    1. Re:Latest news :D by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      That's actually not good news. They were much more valuable alive.

    2. Re:Latest news :D by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I have to say that I would have preferred them alive. Had a discussion in work about this, a couple of guys said they didn't want them locked up as it would make martyrs of them (I think they got it the wrong way round). I argued that allowing them to die is giving them what they want* and that locking them up means that they'll spend the rest of their lives in prison looking over their shoulder. Quite frankly, I like the idea of terrorists living in fear and paranoia for the rest of their lives.

      * It was argued that it was unlikely they wanted to die - that the desire to survive would take over - but what I've realised is that you simply cannot make the assumption that these fanatics think logically.

  9. bizarre choice of escape vehicle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >> Police suspect that the third gunman is the same man who shot and killed a policewoman on Thursday morning before escaping in a bulletproof vest.

    So he hopped into a bulletproof vest and rode it away from the scene?

    1. Re:bizarre choice of escape vehicle by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it was a very large vest?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
  10. Finished in the mean time by chthon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both brothers are dead and their hostage is freed

    1. Re:Finished in the mean time by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      From what I'm gathering, it had a rather strong resemblance to the end of the Blues Brothers.

    2. Re:Finished in the mean time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The third gunman responsible for the kosher market attack is dead too, as well as several hostages

    3. Re:Finished in the mean time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In special cases like these, I think capture and agonizing torture would be the best solution. Surgically remove their limbs, genitalia and eyes. Let them live out the rest of their lives as torsos who can hear everything, but have absolutely no way of responding.

  11. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    before escaping in a bulletproof vest.

    because it's rather impressive that one of the terrorists made a makeshift vehicle using only a bulletproof vest.

  12. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because nerds should be exposed to the outside world, not just the dim of their monitors?

  13. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by MrKevvy · · Score: 0

    Really, you could say that about every story. They are published so people will click on them and read them.

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  14. They're dead, Tim by MiniMike · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reported a few minutes ago, all three terrorists are dead.

    1. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And look, they managed to do it without closing Paris down for a day. Maybe Boston could learn something from France about dealing with Muslim terrorists.

    2. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      News from yesterday afternoon indicated that the remaining attackers had left Paris. Boston probably wouldn't have been closed as long if intel had the brothers driving out of Boston

    3. Re:They're dead, Tim by sandoval88419 · · Score: 1

      A video about the police assault at Paris :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er7rPjh-Ugs/

    4. Re:They're dead, Tim by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      Boston was also able to capture one of their terrorists alive which is much more valuable to intelligence agencies.

    5. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now they can't torture them for years in revenge.
      Should france nuke a city of whatever enthnicity the brothers are?

    6. Re:They're dead, Tim by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      And look, they managed to do it without closing Paris down for a day. Maybe Boston could learn something from France about dealing with Muslim terrorists.

      Shut down any and all Jewish owned business. Check
      Require people in that area to stay inside, away from windows. Check
      Helicopters, and basically every SWAT team in France descending on Paris. Check
      "... deployed more than a thousand additional police and paramilitary forces across the greater metropolitan area of Paris, standing guard at department stores, newsrooms and religious sites." Check.

      Go on...tell me how many people in Paris were just going about their regular activities over the last couple of days.

      Meanwhile, in Boston, they captured one of them alive.

    7. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the french have always been very effective in hostage situations. Also how they handle it afterwards. I remember several times a french ship has been hijacked somewhere (usually africa or so) and next news you hear is that the situation has been resolved, if any. Hardly ever do you get any facts on what actually happened or any other info. But they are very efficient at it.

    8. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence is useless. All we hope for is to constrain our savage side for a little longer so that the Muslims of the world do not have to suffer the lessons we taught the "innocent" Japs of Nagasaki or the retributions we extracted from the "innocent" people of Dresden.
        I really hope it doesn't come to that, but the Muslims of the world had better realize that once a fat, rich, Caucasian - European or otherwise - gets his fat lazy ass off his couch, there's going to be fucking trouble.
      All I'm saying is that we've already elected a Black Muslim Commie to the White House. Things are NOT going to get better for you. There is a whole new generation of post 9/11 kids that are going to have to live with a lot of guilt when they are done spraying you cockroaches with raid. You might think Americans are ignorant of world affairs, (we're not). We just REALLY don't consider you fuckers to be people. We will ultimately wipe you off our shoe like the pieces of shit you are.

    9. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you plan on using chemical weapons, that's really up to the terrorist.

    10. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=313_1420809005

    11. Re:They're dead, Tim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the ones in Boston didn't exactly take hostages, did they? That makes it a whole lot easier to find them. Now, I agree that Boston overreacted, but it's also not quite a fair comparison.

  15. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    is that the new "frosty piss" around here??? i mean seriously

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  16. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No one has ever said that gun control prevents all gun violence. That's a ridiculous straw man. On the other hand, France has a significantly lower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...>homicide rate per capita from firearms over the US. From the chart you can see that the US has a 10 times higher homicide per capita rate. Seems those gun laws are quite effective.

  17. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is it written that they used a vehicle?

  18. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Care to quote anyone who has ever said that gun control prevents ever single instance of gun violence? I've never heard a single gun-control advocate make such a statement. On the other hand, the US has over 10 times the rate of murders per capita from guns as France.

  19. As if, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Watch this space for updates."

    Hahaha, updates on Slashdot! You're kidding me.

    Probably in a few days we'll see a dupe of this article, with hopefully correct information.

  20. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you can't spell.

  21. Looks like it's over by goldcd · · Score: 2
    1. Re:Looks like it's over by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      It is over. They launched an assault on both sites at once, killed all the terrorists and saved all the hostages. Two cops lightly injured, one more seriously. Given the circumstances, I'd say it's a pretty good job.

    2. Re:Looks like it's over by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> They launched an assault on both sites at once, killed all the terrorists

      Thanks goodness that the bad guys in the middle didn't think to duck.

  22. Terrorists just have been exterminated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As of right now.

  23. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by pitchpipe · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It is the religion of 'peace'. They just define 'peace' a little differently.

    Go out, and spread the religion by any peaceful means necessary. If your friend won't accept Allah, peacefully flog him in the streets. If someone insults Allah, peacefully remove his head. If a group refuses to convert to Islam, very peacefully bring your guns and bombs and peacefully kill as many of them as you can. If possible, obtain a peaceful nuclear weapon, and detonate it peacefully in their cities. They will be at peace. We bring them PEACE in the name of Allah!

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  24. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

    Meh... Work computer is restricted to IE9 (i.e., the new IE6 for intranet websites). No spellchecker available. Everything is horribly broken on this web browser.

  25. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by imatter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Conservatives did try to murder the NEA over that!

  26. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by geekmux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because nerds are (generally) supportive of nonviolence and tolerance for unpopular ideas to promote intellectual and creative freedom, and these mindless idiot fundamentalist thugs are the enemy of that and will destroy it if they can. Is it clearer now?

    Looking back upon Slashdot history (you know, back when it was News for Nerds), I'd say it's about as clear as fucking mud.

    That line you attempt to draw between relevance (Freedom of Speech issue) and Slashdot is practically anorexic, and I can get my usual OMGWTF News from a million other sites online that are in charge of the OMGWTF reporting.

    Wanna talk Slashdot with this? How about MI5's move to become an even Bigger Brother with surveillance laws. THAT would be a relevant sub-topic to discuss here, not death tolls and weapons calibers.

    In summary, look at the Slashdot of yesteryear before claiming relevance today. No wonder people bitch about how far we've fallen.

  27. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoosh

  28. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by operagost · · Score: 2

    Doesn't matter, does it? Every time there is some mass shooting in the US, someone says it's because the gun laws aren't strict enough even though they rarely obtained the weapon legally.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  29. Why didn't they take them alive? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

    Those guys have knowledge we needed. Why were they not taken out with some kind of sleep darts instead of lead bullets? Now we'll never know what we could have learned.

    Not that they'd know all that much, if dumb enough to kill over a stupid cartoon.

    1. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

      Seems too risky. Non-lethal weapons aren't always reliable in these types of situations.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      If you wanted to hit someone with a "sleep dart" over 100 yards away, such a weapon would most certainly be no different than a bullet at closer range, making it potentially lethal anyways.

      Not to mention that these guys were known to be heavily-armed, wore body armor, and had hostages. Better to take them out quickly than risk any more lives.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what could have possibly motivated those two??? I guess we'll never know.

    3. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by JeffAtl · · Score: 2

      Actually, the reason to take them alive would be to gather information about their network.

    4. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this is the real world, not a video game. Tranquilizer darts take time to work, and have to be properly dosed to the target. Too much and they'll never wake up again; too little and they won't pass out. Not to mention they will KNOW they've been tranq'd, and have at least a few seconds to respond -- probably by executing the hostages.

    5. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by geantvert · · Score: 1

      And tranquilizer darts probably do not work well through bullet proof vests and other similar protections.

    6. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why were they not taken out with some kind of sleep darts instead of lead bullets?

      Because "sleep darts" don't work in real life like they do in bad movies. These guys are holding hostages at gunpoint and swearing they're going to go down shooting. The cops didn't want another Sidney, where the crazy Islamist wackadoo had time (it only takes a moment, right?) to kill a hostage before being incapacitated.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I guess we'll never know. Unless...

      http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20150107-charlie-hebdo-attackers-shouted-allahu-akbar-reports-france-anti-terror-alert

      "In video filmed by a man from a nearby rooftop the two armed men can be heard shouting “Allahu Akbar!” before fleeing in a stolen car."

    8. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      oh please post link to your magical "sleep darts", you fucking moron

    9. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but the areas that would deliver fastest results -- near the subclavian artery, jugular, femoral artery, etc. -- are typically not protected by armor.

    10. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Eloking · · Score: 2

      True, but the areas that would deliver fastest results -- near the subclavian artery, jugular, femoral artery, etc. -- are typically not protected by armor.

      So....you're suggesting that we should try to precisely hit those zone without second chance of a potentially moving target with tranquilizer dart at what, 100 meter?

      And tranquilizer dart aren't exactly a "sniper-accuracy" type of munition either. Those can't be shoot at +1000 kmh.

      --
      Elok
    11. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by jopsen · · Score: 2

      Actually, the reason to take them alive would be to gather information about their network.

      Assuming there is one... Granted assault rifles and bullet proof vests aren't easy to come by (in Europe). This still isn't at a level of sophistication that indicates the support of a larger organization.

      One question that is left on my mind is how much did French intelligence know up front; did they know about the assault rifles...
      Not that I would expect them to catch every terrorist and stop every crazy person; that is not realistic.

    12. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      I know! Aren't all cops anesthesiologists who know the exact amount of non-existent anesthetic to administer through their perfectly placed tranq darts such that it will instantly send the bad guys into sleepytimeland without killing them or merely making them drowsy yet obviously threatened and desperate to take action before they're unconscious?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Have you ever fired a weapon, when someone is firing back at you?

    14. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dosages for tranquilizer darts have to be carefully measured out and prepared on site by an anesthesiologist based on the subject's medical records. Too little and they're ineffective, too much and they can be just as lethal as a bullet. Also they're not the magical night-night rounds you see in film and television. A subject hit with a tranquilizer may still have enough useful consciousness left to retaliate while the drugs take effect.

    15. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Ok, so you're about to enter the room against 2 dudes that spent a while in Africa getting trained by battle hardened terrorists. They have body armor and 7.62×39mm rounds that easily pierce most body armor on the planet. Here's your dart gun... GO!

    16. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      What concerns me, is how much this may be used as a strawman for more agency powers (MI6 is already asking for more). Seriously, there is nothing that can be done to stop a little bit of crazy, no matter how much data you collect, or who you spy on...

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    17. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. Are you really stupid enough to ask that?

      Just to be on the safe side, I'd like to point out that the question was rhetorical. Rhetorical meaning, you're not really supposed to answer it.

    18. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, I'm glad they are dead. I just wished they could have suffered more before dying.

    19. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Luckily everyone on Slashdot witnessed the events first-hand and can fully answer your question.

      Also, I am very interested in your sleep dart technology.

    20. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Except that 4 hostages did actually die.

    21. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by YoopDaDum · · Score: 1

      The 4 hostages were killed by the terrorist earlier on when he entered the supermarket, not during the assault. On both sites the terrorists had booby trapped the place with several sticks of explosives already connected to a detonator. It seems a pretty good explanation for "why didn't they try to take them alive?": killing them was the fastest and safest way to make them harmless in this situation.

    22. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Except that 4 hostages did actually die.

      Not during the raid to free the rest. That's the whole point.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    23. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Headshot with high powered rifle = dead, crysis averted

      No tranq is going to act instantly, no matter where it's injected. They could have easily triggered their explosives and killed everyone first.

    24. Re:Why didn't they take them alive? by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Agreed

  30. Swift Karma by Tolkienite · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad karma took the quick route for once. For islamic fundamentalists to die in a kosher store and in a printing press after attacking a magazine. Can't beat that.

    1. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an awesome comment and one I hope is repeated around the net.

    2. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure can beat that. Bury a them embracing a pig.

    3. Re:Swift Karma by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on the printing press. Kosher food rules are too close to halal food rules, though. If I'd been writing it, the lone loser would've landed in a (pork) barbecue pit, or sprawled under the spilled contents of an overturned hot-dog cart.

    4. Re:Swift Karma by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Brilliant observation.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noted the kosher ~halal, but this was a very jewish-specific market. Pork would indeed have been better ;)

    6. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every potential Islamic target should have several jars of pig parts in every room. You can shoot up the place and take hostages, but all the dead will be buried with pig parts, oops! Works for checkpoints too.

    7. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Republicans want them dead. Republicans are horrible people that want to kill everyone that isn't a rich old white man. The protests they had in NYC yesterday demanding the deaths of more brown people was just disgusting. That is the way of their kind. They hate us and want us to die.

    8. Re:Swift Karma by jalet · · Score: 1

      These are sad days, but you made mine today, thanks :-)

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    9. Re:Swift Karma by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Bonus points if the fatal shot is fired by a gay woman.

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

      Humm, if I was writing it... both would have been stabbed by the hostage with pens.

    11. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't beat that.

      Both sides agree. One person's defeated terrorist is another's martyr in the enemy's base.

    12. Re:Swift Karma by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I'm glad karma took the quick route for once. For islamic fundamentalists to die in a kosher store and in a printing press after attacking a magazine. Can't beat that.

      /bravo
      Time to make fun of them in every outlet I'm still allowed to post in.

    13. Re:Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close to? More like subset. All my Muslim friends that care about eating halal food are fine eating kosher. (The exceptions are uncommon.)

  31. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...rate of murders per capita from guns ...

    Right, because getting bludgeoned or stabbed to death is so much more pleasant. This is what irks me about gungrabbers. You focus on "death by gun" instead of overall death, and you always forget self-defence incidents when guns save lives (including the assailant's life). Compare overall homicide rates, then overall crime rates, then stratify it by income/wealth, then we'll talk.

  32. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by geekmux · · Score: 1

    because nerds should be exposed to the outside world, not just the dim of their monitors?

    Unless blissful ignorance was part of the reason you are in fact a nerd.

    There is a lot of news out there today for the consuming. Sadly, a good portion of it I try and avoid for my own sanity.

    I would imagine I'm not alone in my controls to limit the effects of the real world. It's rather horrid in case you hadn't noticed.

  33. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Not according to people who responded to my previous comment in response to the question, who watches sports?

    To them, there is no need to be exposed to the outside world. Anything not tech related is worthless is their mantra.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  34. Slow Slashdot by tekrat · · Score: 1

    As usual here, by the time they get a story up on the site; the news is over/changed/useless. Hostage takers are already dead. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  35. Re:Not Click Bait by boristdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is directly related to a story about people who want to censor certain information.

    Freedom of speech is as important to geeks as it is to journalists. We design, build and maintain the code and the hardware that journalists use to put out the stories to the public. Back in the print days most people didn't give a crap about what was printed in one country, or even in the next town over. Now we, the computer nerds of the world, have enabled a huge revolution in communication that is affecting entire countries, societies and religions. And we keep creating new ways to share information every day. Control of information, censorship, freedom of speech and the press are hugely intertwined with our nerd lives and livelihoods.

    Remember when anti-free-speech advocates tried to censor music lyrics? I do. Remember when they tried to ban many video games? I do. Remember wen they started shooting people who published satirical cartoons? Computer nerds like us are all about moving bits of information around. We thrive on information, data and ideas. It's what we're all about. And these shootings are a direct result of people trying to restrict the free exchange of ideas, which is the foundation of modern society.

    Any computer nerd, in fact anyone who appreciates their modern life, should want to know about anyone who is threatening the free flow of information.

  36. Oh it gets better by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I heard some standard issue left wing apologist halfwit on the radio here this morning in the UK trot out the usual "it was society's fault" rubbish. Yeah, because everyone with a fucking grievance grabs an AK-47 and shoots up a magazine don't they love?

    Just what the hell does it take to knock some common sense into these bloody liberals??

    1. Re:Oh it gets better by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, because everyone with a fucking grievance grabs an AK-47 and shoots up a magazine don't they love?

      Just what the hell does it take to knock some common sense into these bloody liberals??

      Irony: right-wingers complaining about left-wingers painting them as violent lunatics and then threatening them with violence.

      Of course, in the interest of literal correctness, you didn't threaten to shoot them up with an AK-47. So it's grazing irony, not center-of-mass double-tap irony.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Oh it gets better by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Irony: right-wingers complaining about left-wingers painting them as violent lunatics and then threatening them with violence.

      No, "irony" is a pretentious sounding lefty doing his best to sound intellectually superior to other people while simultaneously failing to recognize the perfectly reasonable use of a common idiom. The "knock" in this case is the attack by Islamists on a paragon of lefty publishing. The rhetorical question involved is whether said liberals are still so obtuse that even an event that head-knocking could fail to move them from their assertion that it was the writers and artists who are to blame for their deaths, not the Islamist wackadoos who planned and carried out their murders.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Oh it gets better by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I read your post, are you saying that he threatened violence because he used the words "knock some sense," or "bloody?"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Oh it gets better by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, because everyone with a fucking grievance grabs an AK-47 and shoots up a magazine don't they love?

      Just what the hell does it take to knock some common sense into these bloody liberals??

      Irony: right-wingers complaining about left-wingers painting them as violent lunatics and then threatening them with violence.

      Of course, in the interest of literal correctness, you didn't threaten to shoot them up with an AK-47. So it's grazing irony, not center-of-mass double-tap irony.

      Yeah, the AK-47 is a communist gun and it yet has become one of the most popular firearms of the American right wing. At the last count 2nd. amendment loving American civilians were buying as many AK47s as the Russian military and police combined. Irony abounds....

    5. Re:Oh it gets better by fsagx · · Score: 1

      So it's grazing irony, not center-of-mass double-tap irony.

      Putting in my rhetorical ammo box for future use. Thanks!

    6. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not all liberals. I'm an anarchist and my spirit animal is a Molotov cocktail, but I'm as far from that position as possible.

    7. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Oh look it's 5pm. Off home go the Europeans and here come the Americans making stupid comments on Slashdot and degrading it into a braindead partisan jerkfest as usual.

      American prime time: where all intellect leaves the building.

    8. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They DO have common sense. It's just that "left wing" parties are composed of objectively evil and corrupt people. They obviously aren't going to badmouth their terrorist bosses. Once you take for granted that they only have evil intentions in everything they say and do, their doublethink and contradictions suddenly make sense.

    9. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the AK-47 is a communist gun .....

      Guns have ideology now?

    10. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a "perfectly reasonable use of a common idiom" is the constant threats and actual violence done against abortion clinics?

      I will admit that that is only a particular extremist subset of the "right" in America. Will you admit that these attacks were only a particular extremist subset of those who call themselves muslim?

    11. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice that the article frequently refers to the terrorists as "gunmen," as if the most significant fact about them is that they have guns, not that they are driven to murder innocent people by extreme religious beliefs. The police that shot them were also "gunmen," but not referred to as such.

    12. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the AK-47 is a communist gun .....

      Guns have ideology now?

      A true right winger would never confirm that Communism did anything right by finding one of it's products useful.

    13. Re:Oh it gets better by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

      So a "perfectly reasonable use of a common idiom" is the constant threats and actual violence done against abortion clinics?

      Are you actually that obtuse, or are you just pretending to be? You really think that the phrase "knock some sense into" is to be construed as a threat against abortion clinics?

      Will you admit that these attacks were only a particular extremist subset of those who call themselves muslim?

      No, I'll characterize the attacks as exactly in keeping with a very large (and growing), well-funded, technically astute religious organization that is now controlling large swaths of territory, training foreigners with clean passports on how to do more of the same, and NOT being shut down by the quiet, indulgent majority of their fellow Muslims. If the billions of Muslims in the world wanted their militantly activist branch to stop slaughtering people, they could stop it immediately. But since countries that are run by that religion at the government level are not only refusing to do so, but are egging them on ... no, I'd say that you're asking me to "admit" to a deliberate lie on your part. That doesn't seem very constructive.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    14. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because everyone with a fucking grievance grabs an AK-47 and shoots up a magazine don't they love?

      One would assume that the point is that it's society's fault because it doesn't prevent these nutcases from becoming a problem. Nice attempt at polarizing the issue by bringing in overly generalized political terms through.

    15. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incredibly stupid

    16. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the billions of Muslims in the world wanted their militantly activist branch to stop slaughtering people, they could stop it immediately.

      How?

    17. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the AK-47 is a communist gun and it yet has become one of the most popular firearms of the American right wing.

      Guns don't have economic philosophies. AK-47s will kill liberal-communist-muslims just as well as imperial-capitalist-fascists. More importantly, the AK is a well designed weapon as well as a piece of history, that any gun enthusiast would like to have.

    18. Re:Oh it gets better by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      No, "irony" is a pretentious sounding lefty doing his best to sound intellectually superior to other people while simultaneously failing to recognize the perfectly reasonable use of a common idiom. The "knock" in this case is the attack by Islamists on a paragon of lefty publishing.

      Blah blah blah lefty, blah blah Liberal blah blah

      Seriously you neocons fucked up big time, putting us into the longest wars in US history. Winning hearts and minds?" Seriously? These people hate us, and you neocon crypto-fascists were just telling yourselves your mutual masturbation tales of winning hearts and minds while your companies were sucking off the public teat, the largest wellfare project ever made. All the time, blaming every problem on the mythical liberals.

      My kind of war would last about 20 minutes from start to finish. Fight to win, or stay at home.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:Oh it gets better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AK47 is just a robust design, that's all, and make great varmint guns if you need to get gophers out of your field.

      Guns aren't capitalist or communist.

    20. Re:Oh it gets better by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You want some real irony?

      Kalashnikov was an NRA Life Member.

      (Though I have no idea whether he knew about it or not. That said, he did make some claims that are broadly the kind of stuff that NRA usually promotes on a few occasions when visiting US.)

    21. Re:Oh it gets better by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the AK-47 is a communist gun and it yet has become one of the most popular firearms of the American right wing.

      Guns don't have economic philosophies. AK-47s will kill liberal-communist-muslims just as well as imperial-capitalist-fascists. More importantly, the AK is a well designed weapon as well as a piece of history, that any gun enthusiast would like to have.

      It's also one of the most enduring icons of communist/marxist resistance struggles and revolutions around the world.

  37. HELL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good riddens mother fuckers

  38. Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Time to leave the Muslim faith. Embrace God, or no god.. But time to stop following the path of the lunatic 7th century warlord pedophile butcher.

    1. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by MadCow42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Christianity is not much better, if you actually read the bible. Thankfully most churches ignore the parts of the bible that promote exactly the same actions that we criticize "radical Muslims" for... but then again, most Muslims also ignore those parts of the Koran. The difference is that there seem to be fewer "radical Christians" that interpret the bible literally, otherwise we'd be getting it from both sides.

      However, if there were more radical Christians, maybe people would realize that Islam isn't the issue... it's religion as a whole that's the problem.

      Check out Deuteronomy 20 some day, before you reply.

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    2. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but then again, most Muslims also ignore those parts of the Koran."

      Unfortunately, Islam doesn't permit them to do that.

      Per Islamic theology, *ALL* of the Qur'an is the literal words of Allah (as opposed to most of the Bible being people just relating what happened and only part of it is what God or Jesus actually said or commanded), and a devout Muslim is supposed to believe and obey *EVERY* *WORD*.

      The moderate and acceptable Muslims who are "ignoring the violent parts" of the Qur'an are, strictly speaking, apostate, and are, again strictly speaking and per judgements from *all* of the accepted Islamic theological authorities and schools, thus subject to death.

    3. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please compare the life and teachings of Mohammed vs life and teachings of Jesus. You'll find a stark difference.

    4. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      There are plenty of radical Christians who interpret the bible literally, including the nasty parts. There are just fewer (by no means none) who care to die for their convictions.

      Christianity is older than Islam. It had some pretty nasty times, then it mellowed. It seems to be getting more violent again though.

    5. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. I've had leaders of at least three major Christian sects tell me that the bible is the literal word of god, written down by divinely inspired men. Including the pornographic poem in the middle of it.

    6. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Time to leave the Muslim faith. Embrace God, or no god.. But time to stop following the path of the lunatic 7th century warlord pedophile butcher."

      Old Testament allows men to rape female children and then keep them as brides. Deuteronomy 22 28-29, read it in hebrew.

      God is not an SJW feminist like you are.

    7. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity is not much better... it's religion as a whole that's the problem.

      No, the problem is that western civilization is based upon Christian morality and values while Islamic morality and values is actually quite different in many ways. You can pretend Christianity is bad all you want to, but it laid the moral framework for modern western civilization that you are a part of. It the incompatibility between Islamic culture and Western culture that is the problem and we can see it very clearly. The Muslim's want western society to change to accommodate them and western society wants Muslims to change to accommodate it. Islam doesn't allow such change, by the way. Homosexuals, apostates and unfaithful wives are still killed in Islamic countries. The false equivalency you are drawing is tired and frail, but still offensive, misguided and ultimately counter productive.

    8. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of radical Christians who interpret the bible literally, including the nasty parts. There are just fewer (by no means none) who care to die for their convictions.

      Christianity is older than Islam. It had some pretty nasty times, then it mellowed. It seems to be getting more violent again though.

      It's not being older that makes Christianity less violent. It's how it interacts with government.

      Christianity's darkest times were when church and state were closely intertwined. Separating the two is an important milestone in freedom and reducing violence in the world.

      Most Muslims accept the idea and are peaceful. The few who don't get violent. Same with the Christians that seem to be getting more violent. For whatever reason, they believe government should use its monopoly on violence for their religion's benefit. When government won't do it, they take matters into their own hands.

      And it hasn't always been like this. The middle ages wasn't all Crusades all the time. Most of the time the Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted. It was in fact the Arab world who preserved some of the Roman and Greek knowledge that enabled the Renaissance. People didn't always wanted religion in their government, or government in their religion

    9. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Several passages in the New Testament make it quite clear that Christians are not beholden to Jewish law, because Jesus fulfilled it. Jesus, Paul and the other writers repeat the message that Christians are bound by a much simpler law (to love God and one another).

      The old testament is included in the Christian Bible to provide historical context, not to assert the authority of ancient Jewish laws (which, incidentally, modern Jews have also seen fit to reinterpret).

      Your polemic against Christianity is simply uneducated. Christians don't ignore those passages, they (correctly) understand them as history, not doctrine. The Bible, being a collection of books written for grown-ups, requires a bit of intelligent reader-comprehension in order to be properly understood.

    10. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonsense. I've had leaders of at least three major Christian sects tell me that the bible is the literal word of god, written down by divinely inspired men. Including the pornographic poem in the middle of it.

      Great. Now I have to go read the bible.

      Or at least the middle of it.

    11. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a very true observation that both the bible and the koran are full of vengefulness. But there is a distinction you fail to note. Christ and the new testament form a tremendous moderating influence. That is not the case with the koran. Mohammed was an evil vengeful bastard, and the koran is full of vengefulness from one end to the other. Relativism doesn't fly here.

    12. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Old testament definition of rape was 'sex without the women's fathers (or other owners) permission.'

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Livius · · Score: 1

      No-one interprets the Bible literally. That's a logical impossibility. They interpret selectively, and pretend it's about literal interpretation because that sounds less obviously self-serving.

    14. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a radical Christian. I take the entire Bible as God's revealed word. It is completely in keeping with that word that I wouldn't dream of engaging in violence to promote the Christian faith. However, it is a common misunderstanding amongst secular non-Christians as to how Christian theology is developed out of the Old Testament in the Bible.

      The Bible does not function as a rule book for Christians - rather it functions as a story - a story with implications about the appropriate behaviour that we ought to engage in - but to get to those implications, you need to read the whole story and understand it in its fulfillment in the life, death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ.

      To give you an analogy of how the Old Testament functions for Christians - a friend of mine recently allowed his young children (8 and 9 years old) to watch the Star Wars movies for the first time. In the movie ÃoeToy story 2Ã there is a scene where Buzz lightyear meets Zurg. Buzz says to Zurg, ÃoeYou killed my fatherÃ, and Zurg replies ÃoeNo Buzz, I AM your father!Ã. When asked what they thought of it, their comment was that Darth Vader was a lot like Zurg. This was because they had seen Toy Story as young Children and Ã" having never seen Star Wars, completely missed the reference to it. However, when they watched Star Wars, they began to see aspects of the Toy Story movie, they hadn't previously understood.

      For many people, reading the New Testament without a good understanding of the Old Testament means they encounter a similar problem. If you're familiar with the Old Testament, you Ãoegetà Jesus a great deal better. Although it is possible to understand the essentials of the Gospel from the New Testament alone (in the same way that you can enjoy Toy story without having first seen Star Wars), if you're unfamiliar with the story of the Old Testament, you'll miss or not understand properly a very great deal of the message.

      This leads into my next point Ã" the Bible is a story, and we are all part of that story. Where we fit in that story is a vitally important part of knowing how the Bible calls us to respond to God, and how we are called to live as Christians. I have underlined Ãoeas Christiansà because we are called to live as Christians Ã" not as Ancient Israelites.

      Understanding what God has said, to whom he said it and what it's got to do with us is critically important to properly understanding the Bible's message. The Bible in general, and the Old Testament in particular Ã" was written FOR us, but NOT TO us. Therefore, very often to take a passage of scripture (especially out of the Old Testament) and to attempt to apply it at face value, is almost always to miss-apply the text.

      The Old Testament was written TO the people of Israel living in the land that God had given them. It is written FOR US, because understanding it, helps us understand Jesus. It was not however written TO us. That is, what is said is not directly applicable to us Ã" it is however indirectly applicable. It's applicability is via Jesus. A good understanding of Biblical theology is necessary to see how Christians interpret the Old Testament through Jesus (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_theology). Graham Goldworthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Goldsworthy) in particular has done some excellent work on explaining Biblical theology.

      To summarise, the Old Testament functions (for Christians) as a series of historical events with theological meanings that provide the categories of thought by which we can properly understand Jesus. This course will do that by exploring the major events in the story of the Bible, and looking at how God gradually reveals more and more of his plan and how it is that God's plans for the world all find their fulfilment in the life, death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ.

      We cannot read Deuteronomy 20, and think it is face-value how war is to be conducted in

    15. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that christians follow the new testament.

      The problem is when the wrong people gets power.

    16. Re:Time to leave the muslim faith. by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Let Civilized Muslims deal with Radical Muslims.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

  39. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by boristdog · · Score: 1

    France: 3.01 gun deaths per 100,000
    USA: 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    So according to you, if their gun laws weren't so restrictive they could have had over three times as many deaths!

    And before you flip out and call me a "gun grabber" I happen to own about 8 guns. Which admittedly is a ridiculous amount. Though I have grabbed them on occasion.

  40. Mod Up^! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hear, hear!!!!!!!!!

  41. sideboob by tekrat · · Score: 0

    Slashdot's geek cred might go up a little if they dedicated some space to sideboob. They are admittedly aiming for the lowest common denominator.

    Let's face it, since Taco sold it, it's never been the same. But what are you gonna do? Unless you're prepared to buy Slashdot from the current owners, or make your own competing website, I think this is still the best we've got. The stories are crap, but the comments out there shows me there's still a lot of good people who frequent this place. That's what I come here for.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:sideboob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot ... sideboob

      Ew...

  42. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Because nerds are (generally) supportive of nonviolence and tolerance for unpopular ideas to promote intellectual and creative freedom, and these mindless idiot fundamentalist thugs are the enemy of that and will destroy it if they can. Is it clearer now?

    Looking back upon Slashdot history (you know, back when it was News for Nerds), I'd say it's about as clear as fucking mud.

    You're forgetting the rest: News for nerds, stuff that matters. This is stuff that matters. As another example Osama Bin Laden Reported Dead, Body In US Hands got 1,855 comments, the most for any story I've submitted. Stuff that matters is subjective, but obviously a lot of people thought this mattered.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  43. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since you seem to be very knowledgeable on gun laws and event, could you tell us how many school shootings happened in the last 15 years in the US, vs France

    Anyone who claims that gun laws will get rid of gun violence is stupid.
    Anyone who claims that gun laws will get rid of terrorism is living in a world of their own.
    The aim of gun laws is to make it less probable by making it more difficult to get the firearm in the first place, reducing the number of firearms available locally and driving the black market prices up.

    Assuming the figures in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) are valid, then someone leaving in the US about 12 times more likely to be intentionally killed (homicide) and 6 times more likely to by killed by accident than someone leaving in France. Let's leave suicide aside, it does not really matters (e.g. French seems more suicidal than US).
    I don't know how you could say that the French law is effective.

    Your hope is that less gun control will shift the ratio of good guys vs bad guys because people will be able to defend themselves. Any numbers that shows that such things is happening if you have it your way?

  44. /. Taken Hostage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're coming to take me away, ha ha!

  45. Stand up now or kneel later. by ricemanstm4672 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Wrap'em in bacon and pigs' entrails.Hang'em in Muslim ghettos as a message.Put urine soaked Qurans around their necks

    1. Re:Stand up now or kneel later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see this as an idea, actually. Or as the Israelis do/did, any live ones that are taken before execution get the enjoyment of interrogations with urine-soaked burlap sacks over their heads before they are sent off the their false camel fucking prophet and moon god, allah, the all-stupid.

  46. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Jiro · · Score: 1

    US gun death statistics include high-gun-crime, high-minority, areas where guns are as illegal as the city can make them. These areas skew the statistics, and France doesn't have many of them.

    If the areas with the gun rights in the USA also had the gun crime you might have had a better point.

  47. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by fafaforza · · Score: 1

    Nerds also drive to work in cars, so we should have car news as well. And I don't mean the "self driving Audi A7" type of news, but "Toyota introduces the 2016 Corolla, with redesigned styling and improved economy" type of news.

    I mean, we could say "nerds do _____ with ____, thus relevant" for any story really.

  48. There is no such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as a "bulletproof" vest. Ballistic vests come in different levels: I, II, III, and IIIa. With each level you gain protection against larger, heavier, and faster projectiles. That said, even the highest level of soft armor (IIIA) does not protect against rifles (except where a pistol cartridge is fired from a long gun). To gain protection from rifles you have to add a plate, but that will only cover your most vital organs (lungs and heart) and does not protect against all rifle cartridges.

    There are two main gotchyas:
    1. The vests and plates only going stop a few projectiles reliably.
    2. Even if the shot is "stopped" by the vest/plate, the vast majority still hits you (just spread out a bit more).

  49. Re:Not Click Bait by xplora1a · · Score: 0

    +1

  50. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A spell checker won't make you able to spell.

  51. Oh, they did threaten to kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there are christians around the world killing men for being gay (or just being accused of being gay) and girls killed and mutilated for being "witches".

    Religion has FUCK ALL to do with god or reality. Tells you nothing about them. What it DOES tell you about are the people who believe in them.

    Really, the only difference between these religious people and the religious people you don't mind are that you don't mind the bollocks that they insist god makes them do for the latter. They both believe in the same damn god, and have the same damn proof that god is there.

    Tell me, how do you know that their god DOESN'T want them to do this? And if god DOES, then why the hell are you OK with pissing on god's ideas?

    Do you know why they are doing this? Every godbotherer and their apologist makes the (socially accepted but dangerous) claim that all you need to do is BELIEVE and that's enough proof for anyone that you're right. You can look at ALL religion as merely the gateway drug to fundamentalist murdering scum like these blokes. Godbotherers enable them, give them all the reason they want. Better, these godbotherers get so pissed off at people telling them they're wrong that they successfuly make it appear that merely by disagreeing with them, you are persecuting them and thereby PROVE that those against them are evil subhumans working for satan (or whoever) and that this PROVES that their religious requirements ARE TRUE.

    EVERYTHING those people do are because society makes it acceptable to believe in anything, no matter how unproven, and that anyone gainsaying it are bad people, therefore proving the religious people are "good people".

  52. Please, kill 'em and bury 'em with pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Send a message to their 7th-century brethren:

    "You do this, you rot in hell for all eternity."

    Wanna be a murderous religious whack job? We'll use that against you.

    Maybe - just maybe - doing things like that will drag Islam into the 21st century.

    1. Re:Please, kill 'em and bury 'em with pigs by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      Nah, let 'em have the 72 virgins. I suggest grade-school-teaching Dominican nuns.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    2. Re:Please, kill 'em and bury 'em with pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait....what someone does to your corpse after you die determines whether or not you rot in hell for all eternity? It does not make sense for a religion that tries to motivate people to go die in enemy territory to believe such a thing.

    3. Re:Please, kill 'em and bury 'em with pigs by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just FYI, burying with pigs, shooting with pit fat greased bullets etc does not have any meaningful theological effect to an observant Muslim.

      Hell, Islam explicitly permits eating pork if the alternative is death (for example, if someone holds a gun to your head and demands that you do so or die... but also in extreme non-human-induced situations like starving to death and no other food around). Same for pretty much all other dietary restrictions and other lifestyle regulations, and even things that are otherwise considered as grave crimes, such as apostasy (so long as it's not genuine, of course).

      Look up "idtirar" if you want to know the details.

  53. Christian Terrorism (Wikipedia) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&oldid=641483564

    Of course, most of the victims are non WASP or the countries are non-western, so they don't count.
    And of course the terrorists are not real Christians, so they don't count.

  54. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by MrKevvy · · Score: 2

    In summary, look at the Slashdot of yesteryear before claiming relevance today.

    I guess you missed my UID.

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  55. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Because nerds are (generally) supportive of nonviolence and tolerance for unpopular ideas to promote intellectual and creative freedom

    Is that why every story about the on-goings in France has been filled with comments denouncing Islam the religion rather than Islamic Extremists? Not just from ACs either, there have been calls to arms from low UID posters as well, plus the usual litany of posts mocking all forms of religious belief.

    I don't buy that nerds are any different than the population at large when it comes to tolerance and non-violence.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  56. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

    whoosh

    That's one fast vest!

  57. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by geantvert · · Score: 0

    Terrorists are trained by the A-team and Mac Guyver.

  58. Click Bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, it'll be "The Daily Slash"

  59. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    A spellchecker will help me catch misspellings.

  60. We just need to nuke the entire middle east by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They seem intent on living in the dark ages, let's make ourselves a great big golf course

  61. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by loufoque · · Score: 2

    France does not even have true freedom of speech.

  62. Nonsense: by Hartree · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Conservatives did try to murder the NEA over that!"

    Trying to shut a government agency is attempted murder?

    So, does that mean trying to shut down a corporation is attempted murder as well?

    (Note, I don't want the NEA shut down, but equating it to murdering a person is ridiculous.)

    1. Re:Nonsense: by imatter · · Score: 0

      ...not really trying to compare that to REAL murder but I guess you can read it that way if you want.

    2. Re:Nonsense: by nedlohs · · Score: 0

      There is no other way to read it.

  63. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Conservatives did try to murder the NEA [arts.gov] over that!

    Actually, I believe they tried to stop the government from forcing people to pay for having such art made. Some people saw the creation of Piss Christ as being outside the role of the federal government. Crazy, I know.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  64. Re: Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuz () said so!

  65. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot: Hall of Fame

    Most Active Stories
    5687 Kerry Concedes Election To Bush by timothy
    4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
    3709 Barack Obama Wins US Presidency by CmdrTaco
    3468 Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk
    3451 Equal Time For Creationism by Zonk
    3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3315 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design by Hemos
    3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
    3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco
    3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff

    Complaining about the irrelevance of stories is a time honored tradition here, along with grammar nazis and tired memes.

  66. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nerds aren't distinctive in that regard; nearly everyone claims that viewpoint, so it's not a nerd thing. (And nerds aren't distinctive in sometimes rationalizing not practicing what they preach, either.) Even the bad guys in this story might have said something like that, along with a mumble about "exceptional circumstances."

  67. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would imagine I'm not alone in my controls to limit the effects of the real world. It's rather horrid in case you hadn't noticed.

    I'm with you - kind of - I've imposed a ten-year news/tv/radio blackout upon myself and feel much happier.

    I'm going to say that it's the news that's horrid, rather than the real world.

    "On tonight's show, everything is great once again - the whole of humanity is living in perfect harmony" doesn't 'sell' nor fuel the war machine.

    captcha: unrest

  68. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolls aside, I do see a lot of people on Slashdot rational enough to separate the Muslim kooks from the mainstream Muslims. It actually is a good thing reading the voice of reason compared to the random rants from other sources just bashing Islam or religion in general or just the same old keyboard warrior stuff, or just euro/French bashing [1].

    [1]: Europe maintains their civilization quite well without having to have every citizen feel they have to be armed to the teeth. Even comparing death toll to death toll, what happened in France is less than the amount of people eating lead in an hour in Chicago.

  69. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Terrorists are trained by the A-team and Mac Guyver.

    Well, given the terrorists died - it's more likely they were trained by MacGruber.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  70. Re: Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the vest was made of Lego.

  71. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by jwhyche · · Score: 1

    I guess you missed my UID.

    If you want to play the UID game, have a look at mine. I've pretty much been here since day 1. Starting with the Columbine killings and 9/11 terrorist acts that have impacts on society have always been on /.

    This is news that matters because if they backwards nutjobs have their way we will all be back herding goats and the only education we will have will come from a really old book of superstition. Yeah, that goes for both Muslim and Christians.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  72. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

    You can't dismiss it as trolling, I've seen numerous anti-Muslim comments receive up-mods these last few days. And speaking of trolling:

    Europe maintains their civilization quite well without having to have every citizen feel they have to be armed to the teeth. Even comparing death toll to death toll, what happened in France is less than the amount of people eating lead in an hour in Chicago

    Nice anti-American slam you've got there. As if gun control/RKBA has anything at all to do with the issue at hand.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  73. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by GbrDead · · Score: 1

    > and I can get my usual OMGWTF News from a million other sites online

    Please, tell me what other site I can get Slashdot comments from?

  74. I never thought I'd say this.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 0

    ...but thank you, France.

  75. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only with *complete* (rather than partial) disregard for spelling.

  76. Re:obamas fault by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nice try.
    But when taken in context of the entire speech, its not what you try to twist it into.
    The speech was condemning all of the hatred and bigotry.

    The relevent section of the speech:

    It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

    The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

    The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

    The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

    Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that's the vision we will support.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-...

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  77. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Shakrai · · Score: 2

    Please, tell me what other site I can get Slashdot comments from?

    reddit

    *duck*

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  78. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looking back upon Slashdot history (you know, back when it was News for Nerds ),

    Way back then, it used to be Nudes for Nerds

    You must be Nude here . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  79. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by ADRA · · Score: 1

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

    US --- 2.83 homicides per 100k
    FR --- 0.22 homicides per 100k

    I'd say it's mission accomplished, or at least better off. Sorry, what was your point exactly? That these highly armored, highly armed individuals would've been stopped dead by citizen vigilantes?

    --
    Bye!
  80. Aftermath - minimizing their martyrdom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So the jihadi terrorists are all dead. Good.

    This is what the French government should now do:

    (1) Stuff bacon down their throats,
    (2) Wash their bodies in pig blood,
    (3) Sew their bodies up in uncured pigskins, and
    (4) Bury them facedown with their feet pointing towards Mecca

    This might reduce the desire of other Muslims to emulate them.

  81. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not news for nerds. Stuff that matters.

  82. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by ADRA · · Score: 2

    Slashdot posted 911, so how exactly is this any different? Oh, because most slashdotters are American, it automatically becomes relevant, whereas when it happens to someone else, "how the fuck is this for nerds"? The truth is, big news specifically regarding military and terrorism usually gets a passing article link through Slashdot, and if you're really that hard done by for it, just skip the post.

    --
    Bye!
  83. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 1

    No, a spellchecker will help you pass your finals at Hogwart's. A spelling checker will help you catch misspellings.</pedant>

  84. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    Meh, everyone is aware that there are illegal guns, they're used in bank robberies and jewelry store heists and such. But for the average petty thief, robber or burglar they're not worth the cost/risk and apart from hunters during hunting season the risk of running into an armed person is basically zero. And the ones who go postal tend to stab the first one or two persons to death before they can get away, they don't rack up 10+ deaths with a gun. And yes there are less accidental lethal stabbings than gun accidents.

    Unless I'm mistaken there were already two "friendly" guns here, the lifeguard and the police officer shot in the street. It doesn't do much against people in body armor with rifles who have the choice of venue and timing, element of surprise and will kill mercilessly. There'll always be soft targets, you can't protect everyone, all the time against an armed assault. Following the "everyone has guns brings peace" should mean there was hardly any gang violence at all, since the other side has guns too you wouldn't attack them right? Right? Doesn't work that way.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  85. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Complaining about the irrelevance of stories is a time honored tradition here, along with grammar nazis and tired memes.

    That should be grammar Nazis.

  86. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by westlake · · Score: 1

    Looking back upon Slashdot history (you know, back when it was News for Nerds), I'd say it's about as clear as fucking mud.
    That line you attempt to draw between relevance (Freedom of Speech issue) and Slashdot is practically anorexic.

    Having been around here awhile ---

    I'd say that "News For Nerds" becomes an issue only when a story takes a geek outside his comfort zone, which seems to shrink a little faster each year. When the talk turns to gender issues in tech, for example, you can see him circling the wagons.

  87. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot will really be in trouble if Natalie Portman ever goes into politics.

  88. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by imatter · · Score: 1

    The thing to understand, is that Andres Serano did not get a grant to create Piss Christ, he won an award and the show that gave him that award was in part funded by the NEA. That is very different than giving him the money to create Piss Christ, as it is almost always portrayed.

  89. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    whoosh

    That's one fast vest!

    It must be a hybrid

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  90. What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The LEAST I now expect is for the relevant Muslim leaders to condemn that shit. To declare a fatwa that such behavior is un-Islam and that it is against Islam teachings.

    Anything less is at the very least acceptance if not support for this behavior. And that should be enough to discuss forbidding a cult that accepts or supports what we in the western world consider the foundation of being able to live together.

    And when we're done with that, let's take a closer look at that Westboro Baptist Church and whether we can get rid of those loonies too while we're at it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This, please. Also, can we all take a moment for the muslim cop who died defending a magazine that routinely satirised his religion? I'm pretty sure he is now close to Allah while the fundamentalists burn.

    2. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      Like this guy? http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/...
      Or these guys? http://rt.com/uk/184112-britis...
      http://www.theguardian.com/wor... (and holy shit that's the Saudis)

      Or maybe you'd like to say "If only the Muslims would fight ISIS and the fundamentalists!"
      I mean, who do you think the YPK is made up of? Or Hezbollah (which, oddly enough is an ally in the fight against ISIS and their ilk)?

      The fact is, there are MANY MANY MANY Muslims who are sick of this shit, just like non-Muslims. And they speak out against their backwards, inbred rednecks. The media is loathe to report this side of the story (see the Fergeson protests.. the media only concentrated on the trouble makers, not the hundreds/thousands who protested without managing to rob stores and burn shit down). All it takes is a cursory look around and you realize that money is to be made by sensationalism, and you've been had.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have the Westboro followers been murdering people? Or otherwise breaking the law in service to their religion? Until they start that up, we must continue to abide their existence.

      You, in fact, should defend their right to say things that you disagree with.

    4. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LEAST I now expect is for the relevant Muslim leaders to condemn that shit. To declare a fatwa that such behavior is un-Islam and that it is against Islam teachings.

      Anything less is at the very least acceptance if not support for this behavior. And that should be enough to discuss forbidding a cult that accepts or supports what we in the western world consider the foundation of being able to live together.

      Will that happen before or after conservative leaders to condemn the NAACP bombing from this week? How often have Chrisitian leaders gotten together to publicly decry the heinous crimes that whackjobs committed in the name of their religion? Muslim leaders don't owe the world any apologies on behalf of themselves or their religion just because some assholes claim it as a reason for their crimes.

    5. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, like these guys. I'm quite convinced that there are lots of Muslims, especially Muslims who represent some sort of authority concerning Islam and its teachings, who oppose this lunacy.

      It is important, though, that they keep repeating it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As long as my country drags me to court for saying that religion is a form of mental illness I have, hopefully understandably, little interest in supporting hate speech of said mentally ill people going on everyone's nerve by yelling how their imaginary friend hates people for fucking the wrong way.

      Personally I'd say their imaginary friend is quite a bit of a pervert if he peeks on people fucking to know whether they do it in a way that goes according to his personal fetish. A pervert with control issues.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      They don't owe it, but it would be sensible to do so. Not doing so leads to the conclusion that people who claim to commit atrocities in the name of their religion are something they support.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by itzly · · Score: 1

      To declare a fatwa that such behavior is un-Islam and that it is against Islam teachings.

      Killing those that insult Mohammed is actually very much according to Islam teachings.

    9. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the Muslims apologize for something the Republicans are doing? This is yet another false flag operation by the Republicans intended to make Muslims look bad. You should feel bad for the lies that you believe. Believing a lie makes you a liar. Your kind is disgusting. Your kind is the reason we haven't killed off the Republicans in order to achieve piece. As long as we let them live, they will keep killing us. We must kill them for peace.

    10. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by hey! · · Score: 1

      The LEAST I now expect is for the relevant Muslim leaders to condemn that shit. To declare a fatwa that such behavior is un-Islam and that it is against Islam teachings.

      You mean like this one (text available here)? Or this one? Or this one? Or this one?

      The problem is that people who demand Muslims condemn violence actually don't care what Muslims have to say. It's just posturing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychological abuse meted out on vulnerable teenage homosexuals and driving them to suicide is as killing them, yes. And no democide was ever built on fists, but on words.

    12. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      And when we're done with that, let's take a closer look at that Westboro Baptist Church and whether we can get rid of those loonies too while we're at it.

      Quick, someone hack their website and put the cartoon up!

    13. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me when they issue a fatwa in favor of free speech, and not this milquetoast "murder is just as bad as drawing cartoons" bullshit.

      Until then, fuck off and quit apologizing for these shitlords.

    14. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0

      In Sharia "terrorism" is unlawful warfare. Jihad is lawful warfare, and any counter-terror operations against Muslims are considered unlawful warfare, aka "terrorism".

      In Sharia "innocents" are Muslims (only). Non-Muslims cannot be innocent, ever - our very existence is "oppression of Muslims" and affront to Allah. This is why the last non-abrogated commandment in the Koran is Sura 9:29 which commands Islams to take over the World and convert or kill all disbelievers (I don't make up the rules of abrogation, I'm just reporting them for you).

      The problem is that people who demand Muslims condemn violence actually don't care what Muslims have to say. It's just posturing.

      No. The problem is Islam (which is a totalitarian ideology). Stop blaming the victims of jihad, you are enabling evil.

    15. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by hey! · · Score: 1

      citation needed.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by oobayly · · Score: 1

      What I would really like to see is muslim leaders publicly announcing that these and future terrorists will not be buried according to islam* - effectively telling fanatics "you terrorise people in the name of our religion - you are not a muslim, and you will not be allowed to enter paradise". Not that it will ever happen, but it's nice to dream sometimes.

      * Cremation would probably be the ultimate insult

    17. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The relevant Muslim leaders"? So your political leaders that are Muslim? Perhaps the Muslim news commentators that you watch and listen to? Oh, you don't have any of those? I see, you just want people you don't care about any other day to suddenly bend to your will.

    18. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he is now close to Allah while the fundamentalists burn.

      I'm pretty sure that he's either just gone or, if alive in some sense, certainly not in any of the senses of the human-invented religions.

    19. Re:What I'd expect now from the muslim world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, nearly every muslim leader HAS ALREADY come out strongly against it, and has since the second it happened.

      Second, why the fuck SHOULD they be responsible for it or have to make noise about it for you? When the KKK kills someone, do you demand that the LEAST that Chrstian leaders can do is condemn it? No, because that would be fucking stupid. There's almost no actual relation between extremists acting in the name of something and the real thing. Besides, the vast VAST majority of Islamic terrorism is against other Muslims.

      The racism is seeping through the pores in your post even though it's not on the surface. How about thinking before posting (or moderating, considering you're already at +5 insightful)?

  91. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    Not according to people who responded to my previous comment in response to the question, who watches sports? To them, there is no need to be exposed to the outside world. Anything not tech related is worthless is their mantra.

    Not everything that is not tech-related is worthless... only sports ;->

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  92. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by tbuddy · · Score: 0

    Dice already had their advertisement for uncommon programming languages that were neither uncommon, nor were they programming languages.

  93. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It's easy to spread peace by making people who disagree dead people. I sure don't need an imaginary friend to know that.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  94. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is wrong. US gun statistics include accidents and suicides (which account for over half) while France only counts murders.

  95. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot: Hall of Fame

    Most Active Stories
    5687 Kerry Concedes Election To Bush by timothy
    4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
    3709 Barack Obama Wins US Presidency by CmdrTaco
    3468 Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk
    3451 Equal Time For Creationism by Zonk
    3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3315 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design by Hemos
    3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
    3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco
    3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff

    Complaining about the irrelevance of stories is a time honored tradition here, along with grammar nazis and tired memes.

    CowboyNeal has the power to declare things Unconstitutional? And here I thought he was just a joke entry on surveys.

  96. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many posts each of those would have if you removed all the ones complaining about the irrelevance of the story.

  97. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Conservatives did try to murder the NEA [arts.gov] over that!

    Actually, I believe they tried to stop the government from forcing people to pay for having such art made. Some people saw the creation of Piss Christ as being outside the role of the federal government. Crazy, I know.

    The Government / NEA doesn't (usually) commission specific pieces of art, but rather gives grants to artists so they may pursue their craft (with some measure of freedom of expression). If we limit grants to only those artists that produce art pleasing to everyone, that offends no one, or simply placates the common denominator, than what does that gain us as a society?

    The Government funds a lot of things that offend *someone* - my mother thinks grants that study oceanic algae blooms are a waste of money, despite the fact that about 70-80% of the world's oxygen comes from marine algae.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  98. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by t_ban · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jeez, I'd really like to meet this Cmdrtaco guy who carried out the strike on Iraq, arrested Saddam Hussein and won the presidency for Obama!

    --
    First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
  99. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    Thanks for submitting this, Ms Hudson, I've just learned from your well linked /. item that the killers are dead, as they need to be. This is "stuff that matters" in our modern world. Innocent people were slaughtered like cattle by these a**holes, real men tracked and stopped them, and here we have idiotic AC's here whining from the safe cover of their mom's basements.

  100. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Straw men, you say? Then what's the comparison between overall homicide rates instead of firearm homicide rates? Or do you personally prefer to die a violent death by non-gun means?

  101. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    The Government funds a lot of things that offend *someone* - my mother thinks grants that study oceanic algae blooms...

    Do you consider a grant to study algae blooms to be a form of politicized artistic expression? No? Apples/Oranges.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  102. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by kqs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You sure about that? A few minutes with Google implies that Texas has more gun deaths per capita than New York, which seems to completely contradict your point. Actually, I see more pro-gun states in the top 10 than anti-gun states.

    Actually, the strongest indicator (in my completely unscientific glance) is poverty, not gun laws. But hey, you can keep on blaming minorities, cities, and gun-control. And I suspect you will.

    Kevin

  103. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Don't you know? Death by gun is less dead than death by anything else.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  104. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, calms areas have no crime but they have guns, clearly we just need to give everyone guns so they all become calm...
    moron

  105. Know for years by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Interesting

    isn't it hilarious how MI-5 says these attacks show why they need even more super powers... yet forget the fact they had these guys on watch lists for years. I mean, even Santa checks the list twice, right?

  106. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    OOH, I'm sure a story about cheap SSD's will come up soon, go waste your post there.

  107. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? I thought it was more dead? The least dead is drunk driving, or getting killed by a criminal who "was just turning his life around".

  108. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Except now someone will call them martyrs, instead of just murderers.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  109. Freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go and say something about Jewish people and see what your free speech gets you (antisemitism) - yeah but that's because of the holocaust right? it doesn't whats happened since then....

    1. Re:Freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, say something about the Mormons or the Scientologists. They can be pretty protective as well.

  110. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

    Well, it is news. And as a nerd, I am also curious what other nerds think of the matter. The one thing I don't get from other news outlets is a bunch of comments from my fellow nerdy types on what they think of matters in the world. I'm curious how it benefits Slashdot or your fellow nerds to complain about a story showing up here. Surely you'd be better off just not commenting and letting a story die. If you really hate seeing these stories, a complete lack of response would serve better to deter more of them.

    But personally, I like to see these here because the commenting is higher quality (the bar isn't very high) than other outlets. Nerds aren't only interested in computers.

  111. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Murder rates per 100,000 per year (2012):

    France: 1.0
    USA : 4.7

    Looks like France is doing something right in the overall department too.

  112. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We do. How many non-technical Tesla stories have been posted here now?

  113. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by Deadstick · · Score: 2

    The Last Temptation, on the other hand...

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

  114. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by cheater512 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hey if it is good enough for the US then it must be good enough for the Islamic extremists.

  115. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The Government funds a lot of things that offend *someone* - my mother thinks grants that study oceanic algae blooms...

    Do you consider a grant to study algae blooms to be a form of politicized artistic expression? No? Apples/Oranges.

    No, duh, don't be an obtuse little dick. Government funding is Government funding. Some people object to it funding art, some science, etc... Political and religious beliefs are often the root cause of their objections, but we are a nation of *all* the people and, if the Government offers grants - for whatever purpose - and since the First Amendment exists, then those political and religious beliefs should not be a part of the grant consideration process.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  116. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Guru80 · · Score: 1

    He said fast

  117. They like girls, not slags or men. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They like young girls as brides. So does the old testament. Guess they aren't a faggot pro-feminist SJW like you are.

  118. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    PARIS — Police stormed a kosher supermarket on the eastern edge of Paris on Friday, killing a gunman linked to the killing of a policewoman and a deadly attack on a French satirical newspaper. Four hostages were feared dead, while others escaped unharmed, according to multiple media reports.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

  119. And another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking post that DOES NOT below on SLASHDOT!

  120. The leader of Egypt did, a week ago by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Egypt's president called for a religious revolution against extremism.

    Now we'll see if others start echoing this...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The leader of Egypt did, a week ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LEAST I now expect is for opportunist to recognize this article since he spouts the same bullshit on any stories regarding Muslims even though each time someone responds with an example. Kinda funny that he can recognize all hatred besides his own.

  121. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    Please ignore my reply to you, I jumped the gun and didn't realize that the first line was a quote from the parent, stressed out day for me. :^/

  122. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    But they have freedom fries!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  123. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    whoosh

    That's one fast vest!

    He said fast

    Woosh?


    You see "hybrid" means a cross between two things, and the whole "he escaped in a vest" statement.... ah you know what, nevermind.

    :-)

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  124. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine there were real women involved in the tracking and shootout both from the police side and the victim side.

  125. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps this article falls more under the "stuff that matters" category.

    Not that it matters. Every article always has at least one reader who thinks it doesn't belong on slashdot.

  126. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    I'd vote for her :D

  127. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    <pedant> It is correctly referred to as Spell Checker in modern English. Your attempt at pedantry is in error. Remember: popular use, not logical consistence, defines the rules of the English language, whether pedants like that or not.</pedant>

  128. Yeah, but dig a little deeper... by DumbSwede · · Score: 1

    A nice list and all, but I will repost my reply that I made to the article itself in disqus

    The list of condemnation is nice,
    however I don’t think it speaks to uniform outrage by the Muslim
    community.

    Take item 27.

    27. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham:

    Such actions are a continuation of radical waves and
    physical aggressions which have spread throughout the world in the
    past decade, and incorrect policies and double standards in
    confronting extremism and violence have unfortunately given way to a
    spreading of such undertakings.

    I don’t see this as condemnation, but
    rather blame the west.

    Many of the examples are strong
    condemnation, but others seem as though they are cut short of getting
    to the how-the-west-is-also-at-fault part which were probably omitted
    cause that would weaken the author's point.

    Yes many Muslims condemn this, but
    were these acts committed in the service of other faiths the
    condemnation would be near universal by those faiths.

    This is also currious from the second entry:

    2. Ahmadiyya
    Muslim Community USA Spokesperson Qasim: ...

    This is not about religion. This is about political power, this is
    about uneducated, ignorant youth who are being manipulated by clerics
    and extremists.

    How many other religions have clerics or holy men advocating extreme
    violence? Seems not to be that unusual a thing in the world of
    Islam. So the moderates tell us their religion is misrepresented by
    extremists and yet there seem to be enough clerics Imams, holy men,
    to egg them to action. This number should be virtually zero – when
    was the last time you heard the Pope calling for the murder of
    Muslims? As far as I know Iran has not distanced itself all that far
    from Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa calling the the death of Salman
    Rushdie – their best effort would be a statement in 1998 promising
    to "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on
    Rushdie" which is the policy to this day, and it only came about
    because they wanted to restore diplomatic relations with Britian.

    That Britain would accept this wording is pathetic as well.

    1. Re:Yeah, but dig a little deeper... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      In most of the Middle East there is no political freedom. You can't be a politician unless you work for the current government. So they take on the clothes/speach of a devout holy man and do their politics in Gods name. In western nations holy men are expected to refrain from politics, and so we see these men as radical clerics instead of politicians.

    2. Re:Yeah, but dig a little deeper... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      This is not about religion. This is about political power, this is about uneducated, ignorant youth who are being manipulated by clerics and extremists.

      How many other religions have clerics or holy men advocating extreme violence?

      Yeah, why can't they convince the ignorant youth to suck priest cock, like the Catholics do? Violence? That's bad. Good thing rape isn't violence.

  129. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by fafaforza · · Score: 1

    You missed at least one point I made. Try rereading.

  130. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Chas · · Score: 1, Funny

    E-Peen! AWAYYYYYYYYY!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  131. The conflict is served by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The remainder of the 21st century will be the struggle for freedom, especially freedom of thought, between the West and the forces of religious obscurantism represented in their most despicable and abhorrent fashion by fundamentalist, militant Islam.

  132. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by njnnja · · Score: 1

    "Peace through tyranny!"

    -Megatron

  133. Moderate Muslims need to deal with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is unfortunate that religion is being used to justify violence.
    This is not a new story considering the Christians and the Pope sponsored Crusades.
    But the difference is that the Christians have mended their ways and these folks are still in the dark ages.
    To be a part of the civilized world, the Muslim community really needs a Reformation.

    This sound logic from infidels presented with humor is what these cartoonists represented.
    This call to leave the dark ages was seen as an insult requiring a violent response.

    Given this, it would seem that the only civilized hope is for the moderate Muslim community to deal with it.
    Hopefully this will happen.
    If it does not, then the only conclusion to draw is that Muslims in general are not moderate.

    Freedom of religion requires a bargain.
    In order to be permitted to exist, each group has to be willing to accept that other faiths (and non-faiths) can also exist.
    To say otherwise defies logic.
    Just like the Christians before the Reformation, the Muslim community is not holding to this bargain,
    The moderate Muslim community must recognize the seriousness of what they are allowing to happen.
    They must deal with it.
    Their very survival may depend on it.

  134. Get over it by dhaen · · Score: 1

    They're just cunts.

  135. Bury them in pig shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it's the least Muslim terrorists should expect.

  136. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by puzzled_decoy · · Score: 1

    Subjective vs. objective value. Break down for me the objective benefits of art, vs. the objective benefits scientific research.

    It seems to me you are the one being obtuse.

  137. Unless it's government violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because nerds are (generally) supportive of nonviolence

    Slashdot nerds have no problem using the government to bully people into participating in their grand utopian progressive wet-dreams.

  138. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

    Slashdot posted 9/11. I was here for that. And while yes, I do concede that was an event that shook not just just the US but the entire World to its core and needed to be posted here, not every military/terrorist event since then that made its way to the pages of /. needed to. This was what I was afraid of, and even CmdrTaco had reservations about posting it: http://slashdot.org/story/01/0...">http://slashdot.org/story/01/09/11/1314258/world-trade-towers-and-pentagon-attacked. Most notably his line: "Normally I wouldn't consider posting this on Slashdot, but I'm making an exception this time because I can't get news through any of the conventional websites, and I assume I'm not alone." He had reason to make the post, even given his reservations. Unfortunately, the other editors of /. and even Mr. Taco himself began making more and more posts that weren't necessarily relevant to the geek culture.

    Compared to the WTC event which was heard and felt around the world with the loss of 3,000 international lives in a single coordinated terrorist event, this is a minor event that has so far has taken 14 lives (not including the terrorists themselves). Even if these events were happening in the US, I'd still be groaning when this story hit the front page on /. This is already being covered by CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and others out there... I don't need to see it here too. There's plenty of "terrorist/counter-terrorist" activities that would qualify to make the front page here, as they involve the dark side of the tech we work with. There isn't anything here that can link back to this Tech...except for maybe the computers the Satirists used to publish their work...

  139. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

    That should be grammar Nazis.

    That should be "grammar Nazis."

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  140. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

    Yes, I realized afterward I used the male, when surely there were/are brave men and women who risk(ed) their lives to try to protect the public from the mad-"people" in our world.

  141. The violence came from ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... the rejection of being a part of a civilized society

    Look, no matter if we are talking about the ancient Jewish texts (the Torah) or the Christian texts (the New Testaments) or the Islamic texts (the Koran) they all contain verses which are really despicable

    The difference is that many Moslems today are still preferring to stick with and practice those despicable texts from their Koran, rather than choosing to live like civilized human beings with civilized mindset ; Whilst most of the Jews and the Christians have opted to become civilized

    Even among many of those so-called 'moderate Moslems', they too secretly harbor the same sentiment that the Moslems are 'more superior" than the infidels; That the only useful value of the infidels is to become slaves for them, the superior Moslems

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:The violence came from ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who mods this dumb troll up?

    2. Re: The violence came from ... by PatrickNarkinsky · · Score: 1

      What are the truly despicable texts from the New Testament?

  142. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by khallow · · Score: 1

    The Government / NEA doesn't (usually) commission specific pieces of art, but rather gives grants to artists so they may pursue their craft (with some measure of freedom of expression). If we limit grants to only those artists that produce art pleasing to everyone, that offends no one, or simply placates the common denominator, than what does that gain us as a society?

    I think the obvious solution is don't do it at all. Then people can status signal with their own money.

  143. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inequality stats (CIA Gini score) also give the US a score of 45 (worse) and France 32 (better). I bet if we plot murder (and crime) rates vs Gini (admittedly an imperfect score), we will also see a correlation.

  144. Sadly, Radical Islam is not a "fringe" belief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pew research shows that approval of terrorist goals (and sometimes terrorist means) is not a fringe in the Muslim world:

    Muslim support for stoning as a punishment for adultery is more than 20% in all countries surveyed.
    Support for the death penalty for apostasy ranges from 4% of Muslims in Kazakhstan to 86% in Egypt.
    Fully 99% of Afghan Muslims want Sharia law, which makes it hard to regard our long-term intervention there as anything but a failure.
    In the UK, in another poll from 2006, 20% of surveyed Muslims supported the 2005 7/7 suicide attacks, and 40% supported the imposition of Sharia law.

  145. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    You can objectively argue that government shouldn't have any financial role in assisting the creation of art (in which case there are a LOT more areas where funding needs to be cut including university funding) or you accept that government has a role in funding the creation of art but no say in what art is created.

    Government in this country is specifically prevented from having a say in free speech which includes art so if government funds it they don't get a say in the result.

  146. Re:obamas fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The speech was condemning all of the hatred and bigotry.

    And painting it with such a wide bush that it also condemned Charlie Hebdo. You know that Charlie Hebdo made fun of everyone, right? Including Christians and Jews? So when Obama says:

    The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated...

    He's condemning Charlie Hebdo because they also desecrate the image of Jesus Christ. They had a cover where Jesus is literally having anal sex with God the Father.

    Face it, "free speech" and "Obama" don't mix. There's a reason he had the IRS investigate conservative political groups.

  147. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Still zero murders. Non-zero attempted murders I guess. So Islamic nutters are more competent than christian nutters?

  148. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    He said fast

    It was a Tesla vest.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  149. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, it's back to fearful, knee-jerk responses to any kind of gun control suggestion?
    Something like 90% of americans, including gun owners, would like to see background checks put into place.
    This does NOT mean you can't have your arsenal and it certainly doesn't mean anyone wants to take something from you.

  150. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The police officer was unarmed.

    Otherwise, excellent job of just making shit up.

    Oh, and you know where gang violence is at its worst in America? Check out those places with extremely liberal gun laws--Detroit, LA, New York, et al.

  151. becasue the WBC people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are apparently all lawyers (NOT theologians), mostly Democrats (some were delegates to the Democrat convention that nominated Bill Clinton), mostly related (by blood or marriage) appear to be using the "church thing" as a clever legal protection (it's not like they have a congregation of lots of people from their community who are NOT all relatives), and might well be pro-gay but doing the "false flag" routine; they never seem to protest at places where large numbers of gays would be confronted, but rather seem to prefer to bait people into attacking them by protesting at completely unrelated places where they think some "redneck" might throw a punch and give them a chance to sue (like funerals for fallen soldiers). Their "protests" have NEVER infuenced anybody to be anything other than MORE tolerant of gays. They have quite a history of suing people for violations of their rights and probably get their funding that way.

  152. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Subjective vs. objective value. Break down for me the objective benefits of art, vs. the objective benefits scientific research. It seems to me you are the one being obtuse.

    Anything can have objective or subjective value (and/or measures of each) given the appropriate circumstances or frame of thinking and each type of value can be beneficial to the other. In other words, it's not a black/white issue, but many shades of gray.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  153. 72 virgins sounds like hell to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anybody ever think about what it would be like with all those virgins for eternity? They'd STAY virgins because sex is impossible in the after life as defined in the religion. So that is a lot of women to exist with for a long time with zero sex. Also no food or child raising either. So they have no use except as companions for eternity. Just think about some fundamentalist with 72 women who serve no purpose except to talk with... something they are not all that keen women do in the 1st place. You'd be lucky to enjoy the company of just 1 for an eternity.

  154. Re:Bar-fucking-barians... by sudon't · · Score: 1

    For some reason after a Christian zealot beheaded his roommate in Stillwater, I never heard my pastor denouce that kind of violence perpeuated in Christianity's name.

    I'm guessing your pastor will denounce that kind of violence if he learns significant amount of his congregation thought killing a man for practicing witchcraft was acceptable.

    Why does it have to be his own congregation? There are plenty of Christians promoting the killing of child "witches" right now. If we demand Muslims speak up about other Muslims, it's only logical to expect the same of Christians. But we (within the Christian culture) don't, because we're expected to be able to see the difference between Christian lunatics, and the garden variety. We demand this of others because:ignorance. The fact is, all peoples have used, and continue to use, their scriptures to justify evil deeds. Christians like to forget their own not-so-distant past, and ignore their more radical contemporary adherents.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  155. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

    Religion and Peace are like polar opposites when you look at the grand picture throughout history.

    Do you have a reading comprehension issue? We are talking about ISLAM, not other religions which do not go around killing people for being offended.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  156. ah, the "moderate muslim" delusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "moderate Muslims" are like "Ted Kennedy" Catholics ... they're NOT "moderate" they are simply non-practicing.

    The problem is that, unlike Christianity or Judaism, their "Holy" writings contain explicit instructions from God, via their "perfect" prophet ordering them to subjugate and kill aybody who is non-Muslim and refuses to convert to Islam (with the exception that "people of The Book" AKA Jews and Christians MAY be permitted to live if they agree to live as 2nd class citizens and pay a special tax). Their writings also demand that anybody who leaves their religion must be killed - and since these writing are from Mohammad, whom they declare a perfect man and spokesman for God, these commands are from God and thus cannot be "reformed" or countermanded, or "re-interpreted" to mean something dripping with less blood.

    The Bible, unlike the Koran, only contains violence in four distinct types: [1] accounts of past historical violence, [2] instructions to certain people at certain times and places in the distant past do commit specific acts (generally involving acient Hebrew wars) [3] predictions of future violent events (absent ANY encouragement to try to cause them), and [4] Old Testament severe punishments for various offenses (which Jesus taught Christians to see as God's teaching about how severe those offenses were BUT that that no sinner (and we're all sinners) was justified in inflicting them on another sinner). Much of the Koran's vioolence is in the form of general instructions to kill non believers any where and at any time

    "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." - Qur'an 2:191

    "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."" - Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177

    Christianity was able to have a "reformation" precisely because devout Christians could go to their fellow Christians and say "look here! that bad stuff you are doing is AGAINST the scriptures you claim to be following." Such a "reformation" is not possible for Islam, because the mis-named "radicals" and "extremists" cna point to their scriptures and prove that THEY are the ones being faithful and the so-called moderates are the real radicals who are NOT following the religion.

  157. Re: Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Hellburner · · Score: 1

    Good gracious, to what depths have we sunk?

    The phrase "That should be grammar Nazis." is an incomplete clause. Our readership is scandalized, and I rebuke you in the strongest possible terms, madam or sir.

  158. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    WTF? Everything is socially constructed?

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  159. yeah, but that's a crazy as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nancy Pelosi advertizing that she's a Catholic and then working to support abortion and gay marriage. She's not setting the agenda of the pope and the cardinals.... she's just a bad catholic. She can denounce the Catholic position on abortion or gay marriage all she wants, but it has NOTHING to do with what any ACTUAL Catholic believes and does.

  160. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though I think a few points for the Hogwarts joke is in order.

  161. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

    So you think art has no objective benefits? Back to your cave, Neanderthal!

  162. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facts have a known liberal bias.

  163. Here's some recent Protestant terrorism by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 2

    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

  164. I waited for 5 weeks before registered by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    The very first day of /.'s existence I was here

    I didn't think much of it back then, after all, the whole 'website' thing was still new and everyone were still screaming 'cyber this' or 'e-that' or 'i-whatever' and that guy from the Greatful Dead had just posted his famous 'cybernation' declaration, and I was looking for new services where I can get free email addresses (remember usa.net or military.net?)
     
    ... but I kept coming back
     
    Only after 5 weeks or so I told myself, "What the hell, just register"
     
    ... the rest, as they say, is history

      decided to register

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  165. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Unless I'm mistaken there were already two "friendly" guns here, the lifeguard and the police officer shot in the street. It doesn't do much against people in body armor with rifles who have the choice of venue and timing, element of surprise and will kill mercilessly. There'll always be soft targets, you can't protect everyone, all the time against an armed assault. Following the "everyone has guns brings peace" should mean there was hardly any gang violence at all, since the other side has guns too you wouldn't attack them right? Right? Doesn't work that way."

    This. It terrifies me how gun advocates always envisage these active shooter scenarios where average Joe with a handgun is going to get into this Hollywood-esque gun battle against gunmen armed with automatic rifles and armor and the good guys live, the bad guys die, and no bystanders are hurt by stray gun fire.

  166. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like 90% of americans, including gun owners, would like to see background checks put into place.
    This does NOT mean you can't have your arsenal and it certainly doesn't mean anyone wants to take something from you.

    Background checks are already in place. National Instant Check System is queried every time a purchase is made.
    What is not desired is a feel-good infringement of self-defence and property rights that ends up increasing the crime and death rates.

  167. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russua, the meme tires of you...

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  168. Re:obamas fault by oobayly · · Score: 1

    You know, I wouldn't have believed it unless I'd seen it with my own eyes - an AC quote mining!

  169. Re:obamas fault by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated

    Yeah, let's see Obama do that. Although pointing out hypocrisy in politicians is mundane.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  170. That explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Tesla vest? No wonder the guy survived- it was made by Ironman!

  171. Because there's no such thing as sleep darts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The absolute fastest (PCP) still takes 10â"30 seconds to kick in.

    How many hostages can you kill in 10â"30 seconds, if you have an AK-47 in your hands?

  172. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Complaining about the irrelevance of stories is a time honored tradition here, along with grammar nazis and tired memes.

    That should be grammar Nazis.

    Remember the recent nerd rage on "starivores"? You should not mix languages within technical terms. Since "Nazi" is a German word (short for "Nationalsozialist" - which is funny because the "nati" part is already pronounced as "na-tsi"), the term you're looking for is "Grammatiknazi".

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  173. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

    Reddit comments are exactly of OMGWTF kind.

    --
    May Peace Prevail On Earth
  174. Re:Besides the blantant bloodshed... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1
    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  175. Peaceful by numbers, not media reporting by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    More from the religion of peace and tolerance.

    The problem is not the religion, it's the crazy people who act as if their religion is actually true. Half the world (Christians, Muslims, and Jews) are followers of the God of Abraham, who throughout His early existence as a war god reveled in things that would absolutely disgust most of His current followers. However, most of His followers have learned that, for various reasons, God actually would rather you ignore some of His previous commands that are especially disgusting or inconvenient. This is even true of terrorists -- most terrorism is done for non-religious reasons.

    And then if you look at the numbers, you find for example that more terrorist attacks on the US are done by Jewish extremists than by Muslims. And way more than both by Latinos upset about Puerto Rico or Cuba. However, we have peaceful relations with Israel and most Latino countries, as opposed to oil-bearing countries in the Middle East which we have been, are, and will continue to meddle with in the future and conveniently happen to have a different religion. We need more soldiers to defend us against the evil Muslims. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  176. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you think art has no objective benefits? Back to your cave, Neanderthal!

    Well, since you seem to believe that art has "objective benefits", please list them for us. I'm sure you will be able to rattle off an "objective" list of benefits in no time. I'm waiting.

  177. Re:Yay, religion of peace! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Government funding is Government funding.

    No, it's not.

    Government funding that's in keeping with the constitutionally defined role of the government is appropriate. Taking tax money and spending it on one artist's political statements so that the administration choosing to spend that money can use your money (if you actually pay taxes) and the power of government to amplify that artist's politics is not appropriate, and certainly not "the same."

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  178. This is not terrorism by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    This is not terrorism. Killing journalists for their opinion is a political murder. Only the method is new: it is gangster-like approach to murdering.

  179. Re: Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't remember CmdrTaco's strike on Iraq either, but it's there so it happened.

  180. Swift Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad karma took the quick route for once. For islamic fundamentalists to die in a kosher store and in a printing press after attacking a magazine. Can't beat that. Free download full version software&game click to this link: http://softwarescollectionawes...

  181. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Almost all guns used in mass shootings in the US were obtained legally. Adam Lanza's mom bought them legally. If they were illegal for his mom to own, would he have still had access to guns to shoot up the school?

  182. Re:Restrictive Gun laws by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Oh, and the US has a higher suicide rate than Foxconn. And guns are good for that. Why do we count suicides inconsistently?

  183. Re: Besides the blantant bloodshed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because now the fight for a free and open internet is truly lost forever. Anyone promoting freedom of speech online will be seen as siding with the terrorists. It's over.

  184. In memory of hebdo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a satirical paper, I think we should more jokes. So here goes my attempt...

    Muhammed and Allah walk into the office of a satirical magazine, with their kalashnikovs.

    After they're done shooting, Muhammad says to Allah: 'I bet our faces will be all over the papers tomorrow!'

  185. Some alternative thoughts by BlueScreenO'Life · · Score: 1
    Well worth checking out.

    Also, the root cause of it all is geopolitics, religion being a good excuse for brainwashing.

  186. We are stuck in time by Amigo+Van+Helical · · Score: 1

    I see lots of good points in this thread as well as fairly typical amounts of invective. And, because of some clever writing, it's occasionally hard to distinguish between the two.

    Perhaps I missed it in the flood of back-and-forth, but I haven't seen a reference to the relative ages of Christianity and Islam. Isn't it about five hundred years? So, maybe we might consider how the Catholic Church behaved toward dissent and scientific thought during the (CE) fifteen hundreds... The terms "horrific" and "barbaric" come to mind.

    I don't condone or try to justify violence then or now, but I do find it interesting that we are quick to argue about what we see today while we tend to ignore historical patterns.

  187. Correct - according to Sharia by zapadnik · · Score: 1

    You are completely correct. In Sharia, 'slander' of Muslims does not mean telling falsehoods (as it does in the West), it means 'anything a Muslims doesn't want to hear' - especially from a 'kafir which is translated as infidel but is a pejorative closer to 'n*gger'. Non-Muslims are considered subhuman by Sharia.

    Major Stephen Coughlin lays the truth about Sharia (Islamic Law) out for you:
    Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law [58 mins]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
    Islamicists do not want you to know the truth about Islamic law, and they are obliged to lie to you it if advances Islam (there are for types of deception Islam commands: taqiyya, kitman, tawriya and muruna):
    http://www.annaqed.com/en/isla...
    http://www.islam-watch.org/aut...

    When a Muslim cleric denounces "terrorism and killing of innocents" this is also a deception. Under Sharia, unlawful warfare is anyone who resists jihad. Our counter-terror forces and militaries are thus considered "terrorists" according to Sharia. Similarly, under Sharia "innocents" are Muslims *only*. Non-Muslims can never be innocent, their existence and disbelief is an affront to Allah (who is the Nabatean chief god Dushara).

    So when a Muslim cleric condemns "terrorism and killing of innocents" they are condemning the West for killing Muslims and jihadis. They are using the "kitman" deception that Islam obliges them to.

    In order to condemn the Charlie Hebdo attacks a Muslim cleric would have to use the words "we condemn jihadis and the killing of all civilians". But they do not - because they agree with the jihadis, as Islamic scripture requires them to.

    The precedent for slaughtering the critics of Islamic evil comes from evil Mohammed himself, who ordered many assassinations of his critics:
    http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/...

    Of course, all of the claims of Islam are false. Historical evidence is emerging that PROVES the claims made about the origins of Islam are all completely false:
    " An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings - Jay Smith " [72 mins]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    Muslims who know about this scholarship want to suppress it - they are afraid of how the truth with cause their superstition to disintegrate and stop the global jihad in its tracks.

  188. Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of Bible by NewYork · · Score: 1

    THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...