Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack

mpicpp writes with news that hackers claiming to represent Anonymous have declared war on terrorists. They pledged to take down websites and social media accounts being used by jihadists as retaliation for the Charlie Hebdo attack. They said, "It is clear that some people do not want, in a free world, this inviolable and sacred right to express in any way one's opinions. Anonymous will never leave this right violated by obscurantism and mysticism. We will fight always and everywhere the enemies of freedom of speech. ... Freedom of speech and opinion is a non-negotiable thing, to tackle it is to attack democracy. Expect a massive frontal reaction from us because the struggle for the defense of those freedoms is the foundation of our movement.

345 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. Frost Pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Shit, that was qu1%^..
    no carrier

  2. So they are doing what? by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.

    This is all getting a little to meta for me.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing to defend about the jihadists if part of "expressing their opinion" includes attacking people with guns.

    2. Re:So they are doing what? by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

    3. Re:So they are doing what? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.

      The problem is its all a matter of perspectives when you talk about advocating attacking people with guns.

      For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:So they are doing what? by mrbester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I consider it to be more like the First Amendment argument that is popular: you can say what you want but you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Nobody seems to have a problem with that.

      Jihadists can say what they want, but they can't advocate killing artists with Kalashnikovs.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    5. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Came here to say exactly this. It seems that people need to be reminded of what François Marie Arouet (it's often attributed to Voltair) said:

      I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Whilst the violent reaction of fundamental muslims is disgraceful, I fully support their ability to sprout their views. If I didn't, then I couldn't support Charlie Hebdo et al to mock islam (along with judaism and christianity and everyone else). Take a positive look at it - by allowing them to air their views, we're making sure the world sees how pathetic they are, and allows us [with clear conscience] to say "they are utter disgraces as human beings".

    6. Re:So they are doing what? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked the loons in France had no link with ISIS. The one had been trained by AQAP but that is about it. Other than that, they had as much link to ISIS as the attacks at CFB Saint Jean and in Ottawa.

    7. Re:So they are doing what? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1, Troll

      They will use all their skills over Internet in order to track people who don't use Internet.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    8. Re:So they are doing what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Came here to say exactly this. It seems that people need to be reminded of what François Marie Arouet (it's often attributed to Voltair) said:

      I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Whilst the violent reaction of fundamental muslims is disgraceful, I fully support their ability to sprout their views. If I didn't, then I couldn't support Charlie Hebdo et al to mock islam (along with judaism and christianity and everyone else). Take a positive look at it - by allowing them to air their views, we're making sure the world sees how pathetic they are, and allows us [with clear conscience] to say "they are utter disgraces as human beings".

      Uhm... I do no think you understand "Anonymous"
      They're like a super geeky version of your drunken Redneck cousin Rufus. Any semi-passable pretext to start a fight is leap upon. Then you're forced to listen to several minutes of chest puffing and threats that are usually followed by his ADD kicking in, him losing interest and you feeling embarrassed that hes related to you.

    9. Re:So they are doing what? by CanadianRealist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's wrong to kill people, if you do so, we will execute you. (Slashdot is quite US centric and the US still uses the death penalty.)

    10. Re:So they are doing what? by loufoque · · Score: 1, Troll

      That's easy: you don't.

    11. Re: So they are doing what? by bigkahunah · · Score: 1
    12. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Advocating violence against people, as are threats of violence, is actually a crime not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

      Seems many people are confused what freedom of speech really means.

    13. Re:So they are doing what? by rmdingler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sometimes, you have to put a dog down that you're particularly fond of.

      Sometimes, you have to put one down that really needs to go.

      This ubiquitous sanctity for human life is way overrated.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    14. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While that is true, that's completely irrelevant to DarkOx's point.

    15. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.

      The jihadis will still have a right to freely express their opinions, they're just going to have to fix their servers first. They can stick their heads out their wiindows and express to their hearts' content.

      I don't think a right to speech guarantees a platform. People using "rights" to deprive you of life don't exactly make sympathetic figures. I doubt that's what the Enlightenment had in mind.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it

      But neither is protected by any concept of "rights".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're like a super geeky version of your drunken Redneck cousin Rufus. Any semi-passable pretext to start a fight is leap upon.

      How do you know my family?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This ubiquitous sanctity for human life is way overrated.

      Anyone who's ever worked in an urban emergency room (I have) knows this is true. If life was "sanctified", it wouldn't be so cheap.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:So they are doing what? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      War declarations were useful things.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    20. Re: So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The utility of the death penalty is also way overrated.

    21. Re:So they are doing what? by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

      You ignore their words and punish them for their actions. If they have a majority you probably shouldn't have a democracy.

    22. Re:So they are doing what? by Mikawo · · Score: 1

      There are over 7 billion humans on this planet. People are dying everyday. In our entire lives, most of us will not do anything worth noting and are primarily focused on self preservation. Without the crutch of something like religion, the harsh reality is easy to see: we are insignificant. Just another burial in a very long history.

      I think the ubiquitous sanctity for human life is overrated too.

    23. Re:So they are doing what? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jihadists can say what they want, but they can't advocate killing artists with Kalashnikovs.

      Two things:

      1) so it would be okay if they advocated killing artists with shotguns?

      2) let them advocate anything they damn well please. Including killing artists with AK's. Punish the people who do the killing(s) is applicable.

      Note also that "incitement to riot" is a crime. wouldn't be hard to use that against people who publicly advocate killing all the "jews/blacks/cartoonists/Pats", assuming that someone then had a go at the actual killing. But we don't need to get into the habit of censoring people's speech because we don't like it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:So they are doing what? by goarilla · · Score: 1

      Actually the one who shot up the Jewish grocery claims affiliation or at least sympathy with ISIS according to
      the leaked phone message from RTL.

    25. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not in the middle east. Murder is quite accepted and even expected in some circumstances.
      In fact the Muslim faith lets you kill your wife for a lot of minor infractions.

      This is the biggest problem, Extremist Muslims utterly love murder and they don't understand why we have a problem with it.

    26. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Nothing is. It takes might to do the protecting. There are no 'rights' without it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    27. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Because mere advocacy is nothing, only words. People have to act.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, and we can't allow women to wear provocative clothing either, because it incites rape.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    29. Re: So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why we don't just induce comas or use anadthesia and then behead them fast. They won't feel a thing.

    30. Re:So they are doing what? by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

      The first step is to accept that it is a paradox, that no solution is going to be perfect and you're not going to fix everything. Politely ignore anybody who speaks in absolute terms or comes up with trite little not-even-wrong aphorisms like "you have the freedom to do anything you want except the freedom to take away freedom from others".

      Then, before imposing any laws, you have to remember that the acid test is not how they will be interpreted by judges and juries, but how it will be interpreted by publishers, employers, landlords, public institutions, police, security guards etc. who will tend to interpret them in the broadest, most restrictive possible way to cover their own backs.

      Everything is a risk/benefit tradeoff - and the risk can never be zero.

      In the case of freedom of speech, though, it's possible to be almost absolutist if you insist that any activity you do want to control (harassment, incitement to violence, etc.) must involve actions or behaviours that go beyond the words that are said or published. So, if you want to prosecute someone you should not simply have to prove that they uttered the word "fire" in a public theatre, but show evidence that they intentionally set out to cause disruption*. You can prohibit "inciting violence" if you like, but it needs to be absolutely literal, or supported by other activities. Harassment should need to include a pattern of behaviour that shows victimisation. Once you start banning speech that might induce panic, could be interpreted as inciting violence or that made the victim feel harassed the slippery slope beckons.

      Unfortunately, both religious extremists and politicians do like to pretend that they have the solution to everything, while lawyers lurk to apply 20:20 hindsight to anybody who takes a risk and loses, and lawmakers who seem to think that if a legal decision misinterpreting their law is put right on the third appeal then everything is rosy.

      (* Of course, although this is a popular example, they're quite rightly going to that special hell reserved for people who talk at the theatre *anyway* so free speech isn't really relevant)

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    31. Re:So they are doing what? by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's wrong to kill people, if you do so, we will execute you. (Slashdot is quite US centric and the US still uses the death penalty.)

      I'm against the death penalty myself, but the above is an oversimplification. The actual policy is more like "It's wrong to murder people, if you do so, we will put you to trial, and if you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, and all of your subsequent appeals are denied, then you may be executed".

      The key distinction being the (alleged) operation of due process and rule of law leading up to an execution, as opposed to the ad-hoc extrajudicial killing in the case of an individual committing murder.

      Unless you observe the distinction between what the law is allowed to do vs what an individual is allowed to do, the logic fails under its own weight. For example, you could use the same construction to accuse the US of hypocrisy for uncontroversial practices: "it's wrong to kidnap people and keep them in a cage; if you do so, we will imprison you", or "it's wrong to take money from people against their will; if you do so, we will make you pay a fine" ... but I don't think anyone is (seriously) arguing for getting rid of all prisons or fines.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    32. Re:So they are doing what? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It's wrong to summarily and indiscriminately kill people. The death penalty that you speak of is only administered after a trial, and the suspect is found guilty.

    33. Re:So they are doing what? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      So when are you going to start supporting my right to own a grenade launcher?

      Note that it requires a special FFL to own a grenade launcher, and that it's unlikely that Obama's Justice Department will issue you one, but they're otherwise legal in the USA.

      Shooting them at people, not so much....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    34. Re:So they are doing what? by unixisc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not just that, the sites in question are about plotting terror attacks, gloating over the ones that are successful and calling on people worldwide to go to $MUSLIMCOUNTRY to fight a jihad. That's no longer just 'expressing an opinion' - it's a pure declaration of war - not a debate or an ideological war, but an actual physical war.

      Honestly speaking, I wouldn't like Jihadi sites where they plot attacks to be taken down - they are useful to monitor their plans, and how to destroy them. But the ones that are Islamic propaganda sites, those I'd definitely like them to sabotage, since no useful purpose exists in them staying. A good way to do that would be to have those Mohammed cartoons - both the Charlie Hebdo and the Jylands Posten, as well as others from FaceBook's Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and others - littered over their sites. That would be a good way to retaliate!

    35. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think a right to speech guarantees a platform.

      That gives nobody the right to destroy the platform they have. All censorship is absolutely intolerable. ALL of it! Stop the guns, fine. Lift a finger to censor the speech, and I will be more than happy to cut it off.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:So they are doing what? by lucm · · Score: 1

      My preference favose scortched-earth --- vaporizing a few A-rab desert shiteholes like Mecca and razing all physical traces of Muslim juju. Back-to-the-cave b*stards!

      I'm sure they fear you personally

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    37. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech does not include promoting violence, terrorism, blackmail, uniniated use of force.

      Again, your making the mistake of confusing defense with offense.

      This is not cenorship, this is pushback against censorship.

    38. Re:So they are doing what? by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes, you have to put a dog down that you're particularly fond of.

      Sometimes, you have to put one down that really needs to go.

      This ubiquitous sanctity for human life is way overrated.

      This is exactly what those terrorists think. Don't you understand that in real life conflicts, neither side usually considers itself to be "the bad guys"?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    39. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1
      this times a million.

      The reason we are so fucked as a society, as no one can draw the line between jihadis and muslims, not the left nor the right. I support a war against the jihadis. So does most of the planet.

    40. Re:So they are doing what? by unixisc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All of them have an aim to subvert non-Muslim countries into accepting Shariah law, and making the rights of Muslims trump those of non-Muslims, regardless of whether Muslims are a majority or not, and regardless of whether those countries have democratic traditions. Does it really make a fucking difference whether it's ISIS or al Qaeda or Hamas or Hizbullah or Lashkar e Toiba or Jemimah Islamiya or Abu Sayyaf or Islamic Jihad or CAIR or any other Islamic group? This is like having an argument over whether cat excrement is tastier than dog excrement vs human vs horse vs bull vs lion. If an attack has been recognized as an Islamic attack, how the fuck does it matter whether it's a bunch of fanatics from Algeria or Yemen or Iraq or Pakistan or Syria or Bangladesh or Malaysia or Egypt?

    41. Re:So they are doing what? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So if you murder somebody, you are not taking away their freedom, since they are still free to do everything they were doing before, provided they can!!!

    42. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it. Its a very subtle difference, I admit.

      Its the diffrence between conspiracy, and assault with the intent to comit murder. Nowhere ever is it legal to advocate attacking people with guns, this is a crime. It is not considered "free speech" anywhere. In the USA, we have the 9th amendment which prevents the enumerations of rights from being used to deny others their rights:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...

      For instance ISIS considers itself a nation state. I imagine they consider the US Army's recruitment site as advocating people join an organization to attack them with guns. I am not saying that is a reasonable opinion but I'd wager many ISIS guys would agree with it if you asked them.

      Also again, not relative, because we're not in any areas controlled by ISIS. As far as ISIS, no one else recognizes them as a nation state, no more than the handful of "soviergn citizens" in the US, of which they have far less legitimacy because most of ISIS are westerners who moved to the middle east to occupy western syria, by force.

    43. Re:So they are doing what? by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

      And when Hitler, or these fanaticals go from saying something, to enacting something - what then did Voltair say?

      The Western world bends over backwards to almost a rediculous, silly degree to allow for religious, Political and even silly expression. Nothing Voltair said is in question. And indeed, its not people saying something in discussion in a philosophical way that is in question.

      The Choudary idiot can't stop running his mouth, and he is given amazing latitude.

      --
      We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    44. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      not true, and "free speech" has never been interpretated as such. a "credible threat" is viewed as "assault" and always has been. A person's rights end, where another person's right begins. So speach which interferes with "life, liberty, pursuit of hapiness", is interfering with someone elses rights and is not "free speech"

    45. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Thats more like supporting your right to shoot a grenade launcher off in a shopping mall killing innocent people, and then claim it as "freedom of speech"

    46. Re:So they are doing what? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Jihadists can say what they want, but they can't advocate killing artists with Kalashnikovs.

      Yes but groups like the various Jihadists groups, the the New Black Panther Party and the KKK all have ways of advocating killing of people they hate without actually advocating the killing of people they hate.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    47. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Speech can do nothing. If you don't believe in free will, say it! Otherwise you're talking out yer ass

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    48. Re:So they are doing what? by godrik · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with the topic of conversation.

      Your signature say "Repel the 17th amendment today". I assume you are talking about the amendment to the US constitution which gives 2 senators to each state.

      What is the rationale for repeling it? Is it to get a representation proportional to the population instead of a flattening per state?

      I was under the impression that the house of representative was elected proportional to the population and that the senate was elected proportional to the states. And that gives a balance of power between population and states.

      Any insight?

    49. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, it is close to happening again, and in France. Marine Le Pen has a very real chance of being elected president in the next election.

    50. Re:So they are doing what? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      But when one side is willing to silence speech with violence, what is the other side to do? Anonymous' position seems fairly self consistent: If people think that free speech is a bad thing, then they don't get any.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    51. Re:So they are doing what? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's because there is an obsession with actually killing the executed, as opposed to letting them die. Opiates are actually quite pleasant, you just get this warm fuzzy feeling and every once in a while you think "Oh yeah I have to breath"; with a little more, you just forget to breath for longer periods until you don't breath at all. Of course using opiates is too passive of a way of executing people, not enough execution in the execution.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    52. Re: So they are doing what? by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      I have yet to have one single person who hates the Citizen's United case tell me that they knew that.

      We all knew it. That was the whole point of the act—preventing anyone other than the candidate from making ads that name a particular candidate close to the election. By preventing that, you prevent what amounts to an infinite amount of support for candidates by the rich, thus removing a giant loophole that negated all the benefits of having campaign finance limits in the first place.

      The reality is that the CU decision ensured that only establishment candidates could campaign, because they're the ones with rich friends who can help them out by running independent TV ads when their coffers start to run dry.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    53. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you don't have the right to displace another from their position. Now you advocating outright theft.

      *I'm sorry, I'll be taking that nice laptop of yours, and while I'm at it, get out, the house is mine too.*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    54. Re:So they are doing what? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Nobody, this side of the -opaths, thinks of themselves as the antagonists in a real life conflict. Human capacity for justification is boundless.

      This bug or feature, depending on your mindset, plays no role in the identification of the idiots murdering on behalf of some false god belief.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    55. Re:So they are doing what? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      This is precisely the problem with "bringing democracy" to places where absolute freedom isn't valued. It just opens the door for thugs to co-opt the process and impose their will on the populace all within the framework of "free" elections. But enough about how things work in the US.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    56. Re:So they are doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Fine, agree 100%, but denying the holocaust is strictly verboten in France. Another equivalent expression would be to goose-step down the Champs-Élysées singing Deutschland uber alles. All examples tasteless and repugnant, but Mohammed in homo-scenes seems to be quite acceptable.

      This #'jesuischarlie thing is not very well thought-out, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to my French friends on the basis they are in shock, and emotions are running high. But defending unsavory freedom of speech when directed towards Arabs, but taking offence when directed against Jews, or French nationalism is far from the sophisticated, elegant and enlightened image many Europeans like to hold of themselves.

    57. Re:So they are doing what? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      There is still a great degree of cognitive dissonance when one gets upset by the senseless killing of a few hostages or bystanders at a public event but the mass killing of many thousands of innocent civilians by aerial bombardment is collectively ignored when it's enshrouded by the "legitimacy" of war. If the bombs were falling on you, you'd want to retaliate too.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    58. Re:So they are doing what? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They use the internet to recruit people in other countries.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    59. Re:So they are doing what? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Note that it requires a special FFL to own a grenade launcher, ...

      I'm not so sure about that, most grenade launchers are fairly short, the M79 has a 14 inch barrel, the M203 so the restriction is more likely,

      Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), it is illegal for a private citizen to possess a sawed-off modern smokeless powder shotgun (a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than 18 inches (46 cm) or an overall length shorter than 26 inches (66 cm)) (under U.S.C. Title II), without a tax-paid registration from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, requiring a background check and either a $200 or $5 tax for every transfer, depending upon the specific manufacturing circumstances of the particular sawed-off modern shotgun being transferred. Sawed-off shotgun

      that they are sawed-off shotguns, rather than because they are grenade launchers, the issue of the grenades are a separate issue, non-explosive projectiles should be ok. If the grenade launcher were long enough it would be considered a 1 1/4 guage shotgun.

      Of course IANAL so consult a trusted advisor for anything other than hypothetical banter.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    60. Re:So they are doing what? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Life is over-rated, but seeing as it's the only game in town ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    61. Re:So they are doing what? by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr.: "[There are those] who claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

    62. Re:So they are doing what? by pepty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly. Such a simple elegant answer to a tough question.

      Cue several centuries of judges and lawyers arguing over what constitutes speech and what constitutes action. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre? Political campaign contributions or commercials? The seven deadly words of television?

    63. Re:So they are doing what? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      OOPS,

      In the United States, M203 grenade launcher attachments fitted with the standard rifled 40mm barrel are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11,[27] because they are a "non-sporting" firearm with a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter. M203 grenade launcher

      I was wrong, because the barrel is rifled, it breach loads and uses smokeless powder and if memory serves me correctly the M79 barrel is rifled as well.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    64. Re:So they are doing what? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      The newspaper will still have a right to freely express its opinions; it's just going to have to repair its presses first.

      Damaging the property of another--whether physically or operationally--is also a violation of rights.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    65. Re:So they are doing what? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      "Advocating death against a person or group is not protected free speech"

      Indeed and more to the point it shouldn't be protected free speech.

    66. Re:So they are doing what? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      What difference does it really make that guns, specifically, were used or not? It is less of a crime if they were all stabbed and cut to death (and/or beheaded) with knives, machetes or swords, or doused with gasoline and set afire, or grenades were thrown through the doorway, or a car bomb was set off, or a hundred other ways you can kill someone?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    67. Re:So they are doing what? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      "If I didn't, then I couldn't support Charlie Hebdo et al to mock islam"

      I don't know why you see it that way. I don't support the right of people to advocate in specific terms for the extrajudicial death and destruction of... well of anybody. I do support the right of people to poke fun at things they find silly or dumb. What's the contradiction?

    68. Re:So they are doing what? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 2

      You're sitting in front of a terminal that gives you access to information in a way that makes the great library at Alexandria look like a comic book store, and you can't be arsed to look up what the 17th Amendment says before commenting on it?

      The 17th Amendment does not give two senators to each state. That was written into the original Constitution; the bicameral system was a compromise between those who wanted population-proportional representation (i.e. the House of Representatives) and equal-state representation (i.e. the Senate).

      The 17th Amendment changed the method for choosing senators from selection by the state legislature (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1) to a popular vote by the people of the state. The Founders had very specific reasons for having the state legislatures choose senators instead of the people; the 17th Amendment changed the balance of power significantly.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    69. Re:So they are doing what? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      However, the law is made, enacted and enforced by individuals. Your point stands that it is different than just killing those you don't like but there are many (myself included) that would say that it's not more legitimate to kill people just because you do it as a gang.

    70. Re:So they are doing what? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between advocating attacking people with guns and actually doing it

      But neither is protected by any concept of "rights".

      Really? So none of the warhawks are covered by the First Amendment?

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    71. Re:So they are doing what? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

      "they are useful to monitor their plans" are you sure about that? In theory that sounds right, but how do we really know that by allowing them there is just too much signal to noise and we're missing these "plans"? ISIS propaganda has grown to the point it's attracting "lone wolf" operators that are motivated by them yet are not actual members all over the place. It's no longer "come to the Middle East, train some, then go fight". Now people who where not radical one day are beheading people a month later in the central US, kids taking off from Canada, etc. If they where just communicating plans them maybe...yet I hope Anon can go knock this recruiting capabilities back to bin Laden's VCR tapes.

    72. Re:So they are doing what? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      Not an FFL, just a $200 tax stamp (which won't be issued without a background check, but still). It takes a Type 03 FFL to transfer an NFA item, but not to own one. And yes, Obama's ATF will issue it as long as the paperwork comes back clean, just as it will with a suppressor, machine gun, short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or any other NFA item.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    73. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I think it could be argued that no, it's not protected. Since the system is purely jingoistic, and all "Constitutional Rights" have only ever existed at the pleasure of the ruling elite, that argument could never win in court.

      But I would say that specifically saying, "Hey, everyone reading this tweet, let's go kill some Iraqis" is not really protected under the intent of the Enlightenment thinkers who thought up this strange notion of "human civil rights".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    74. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      *I'm sorry, I'll be taking that nice laptop of yours, and while I'm at it, get out, the house is mine too.*

      The jihadis hacked servers will still be theirs. I doubt Anon is going to helicopter in and steal them.

      The servers, and the jihadis, will still be in their same position. The worst you could say is that what Anonymous is threatening to do is approximately equal to egging their garage or TP'ing their house. A misdemeanor.

      I have a question here: If you violate the civil rights of someone who doesn't recognize that civil rights exist, what exactly has happened? I'm not advocating for this, mind you, I'm curious. It seems that "civil rights" is a shared compact. If one of the parties involved doesn't believe they exist, what is their meaning?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    75. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I say this because it seems, looking at the course of history since the Enlightenment, that "civil rights" is just a conceit that we use to make us feel better about ourselves while we're being subjected to rule by the elite.

      We have these "Rights granted at birth by The Creator" right up until the time someone powerful comes along and says we don't have them anymore. Then we change their definition so we can still believe we have those rights.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    76. Re: So they are doing what? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      People do not like the Citizens United verdict because it allows corporations to donate unlimited money to political campaigns...

      No, GP was right. The only thing the ruling legalized was groups other than the campaigns running ads. Outside groups (like corporations, labor unions, and civic organizations like Citizens United) are now allowed to run ads closer to the election date, but they're still not allowed to coordinate with the actual campaigns.

    77. Re:So they are doing what? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but they practically flew over from ISIS headquarters to attack us. They are muslim.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    78. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know how to disagree with some of that. It takes might to protect 'rights', no matter what angle you look at it. What humans need to learn is respect, starting with one's self and letting it grow. We also suffer an extremely high level of frustration over our failure to communicate.

      Our only 'rights' are ingloriously defined by the laws of physics. You have the 'right' to fall if pushed off a cliff.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    79. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      They can always Skype :-)

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    80. Re:So they are doing what? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The Choudary idiot can't stop running his mouth, and he is given amazing latitude.

      This is a feature, not a bug. Choudary is a freaking NUTCASE, and the whole world knows it now because of what he said and what he persists in saying. Kudos to USA Today for digging this guy up and handing him a megaphone. The idea that the punishment for blasphemy should be death is antithetical to western values, and we should be scared of anyone (or any group) that's in favor of this.

      It's the same with Holocaust deniers. It's the same with flag burners. As far as I'm concerned, the First Ammendment just makes it easier to calibrate your filter so you can ignore the dopes.

    81. Re:So they are doing what? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      uh, no they're not, they're polarised radicals. Anyone claiming this kind of shit in the name of ANY God is a fucking liar.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    82. Re:So they are doing what? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      whoosh

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    83. Re:So they are doing what? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      You sure about that?

      Not an exhaustive list and only up to 2011:

      China 1945-46
      Korea 1950-53
      China 1950-53
      Guatemala 1954
      Indonesia 1958
      Cuba 1959-60
      Guatemala 1960
      Belgian Congo 1964
      Guatemala 1964
      Dominican Republic 1965-66
      Peru 1965
      Laos 1964-73
      Vietnam 1961-73
      Cambodia 1969-70
      Guatemala 1967-69
      Lebanon 1982-84
      Grenada 1983-84
      Libya 1986
      El Salvador 1981-92
      Nicaragua 1981-90
      Iran 1987-88
      Libya 1989
      Panama 1989-90
      Iraq 1991
      Kuwait 1991
      Somalia 1992-94
      Bosnia 1995
      Iran 1998
      Sudan 1998
      Afghanistan 1998
      Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999
      Yemen 2000
      Afghanistan 2001-ongoing
      Iraq 2002-ongoing
      Libya 2011

      As at 2011, the total number of noncombatant civilian casualties to US military activity since September 1945 stood at 50 million.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    84. Re:So they are doing what? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      It has already happened.
      May 2010. Coalition Government under David Cameron formed after the popular vote states "None Of The Above".
      2014: Leaked documents reveal Cameron's plan to create a One-Party State following the 2015 Election.

      Welcome to the UK, home of the Fourth Reich.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    85. Re:So they are doing what? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      declaring war on a group isn't protected free speech either.

      Unless you're a head of State.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    86. Re:So they are doing what? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      you've really thought this through, haven't you?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    87. Re:So they are doing what? by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

      You recognize that the solution to bad speech isn't to silence the bad speech, it's more speech.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    88. Re:So they are doing what? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Every act says something, and every instance of speech is an action. What's important is to distinguish the "speech" aspect of a given speech-act from the "action" aspect. The distinction is very easy to make in rigorous physical terms. Every "act" of one thing upon another (really always and interaction between them), including actions by humans upon other humans and other things, transfers both information and energy. We should not regulate those actions based on their information content. We should only regulate them based on their energy content, relative to already-present ambient energies.

      For a simple example: every image displayed is light emitted or reflected at people who might possibly claim victimization by that. We can regulate shining light at people based on how bright that light is, or based on the general shape of its spectrum compared to ambient lighting (x-rays are not ok), but we cannot regulate shining light at people based on the information conveyed by that light, i.e. based on the image. Likewise sounds: we can regulate sending air vibrations at people based on the amplitude and general frequency pattern of those vibrations relative to ambient noise, but not based on the information conveyed by them. Likewise smells: we can regulate emitting chemicals into the atmosphere based on their quantities relative to quantities already present in the ambient atmosphere, but otherwise not (so exhaling your carbon dioxide into the air is OK, but spraying noxious chemicals in the same quantities into the air is not). Likewise touch, which since there is not generally an ambient level of people touching each other (except maybe to some degree in crowds where shoulders bump etc), means touching can almost always be regulated.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    89. Re:So they are doing what? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      As long as the competing sides do not use guns and bombs to win the argument the democracy can survive. However, history has shown that competing sides never entertain making compromises to end the conflict until after 1000's or even millions have been killed. Every communist, socialist, dictator, democracy, republican, or monarchy was originally put in place by violence or the threat of violence. Ultimately the US the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not suicide pacts. Under certain conditions your rights often take second place in the decision making matrix.

    90. Re:So they are doing what? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You can't seriously believe this is the same thing.

      Something more similar to the wearing provocative clothing would be somebody who was wearing clothing so glaringly unstylish that it provoked murder (which, I will note, happens, for certain values of "stylish"). Something more similar to advocating and cheering murder would be advocating and cheering rape (which, I will note, people do in prison contexts).

    91. Re:So they are doing what? by Alastor187 · · Score: 1

      I consider it to be more like the First Amendment argument that is popular: you can say what you want but you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

      What if the theater is actually on fire?

      The actual argument was "[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (emphasis is mine).

      Please read up the history of that argument before repeating it because it muddies everyone's understanding of the 1st Amendment when repeated incorrectly.

      Professor Thane Rosenbaum Deceptively Carries On The Tradition of Censorship-Cheerleading

    92. Re: So they are doing what? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      So, you would not criminalize shouting fire in a crowded theater, as it only is meant to convey information?

    93. Re:So they are doing what? by finalcutmonstar · · Score: 1

      it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has everything to do with preventing terrorists from networking and planning attacks against innocent people.

    94. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      They are exactly the same, a 'provocation'. You cannot justify censorship without admitting there is no free will.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    95. Re:So they are doing what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Enlightenment thinkers, or for that matter the US founders. They would have probably differed. I'm pretty sure that Jefferson would prefer to err on the side of free speech here, for example.

      Given that we live in here and now, though, are you aware of Brandenburg v. Ohio decision?

    96. Re:So they are doing what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It actually is, at least in US, so long as there's no threat of imminent lawless action stemming from such advocacy.

      Ironically, you've brought up KKK. KKK was exactly the organization that pushed the limits of freedom of speech, triggering a SCOTUS decision on where the boundary lies (which was defined as stated above - and KKK propaganda in that case specifically ruled legal and protected speech).

    97. Re:So they are doing what? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I was burned badly enough to be peeled like a bananna at a regional burn center, so I've had as much morphine as you can get without getting into respiratory depression; and it still hurt like hell.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    98. Re:So they are doing what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In a war, is hacking the servers run by the IT division of the enemy army censorship, or is it just a strike against a legitimate military target?

    99. Re: So they are doing what? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Uh no. It was only debunked by ppl that had no access or interest.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    100. Re: So they are doing what? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Depends. For many, the death penalty ensure absolute closure for the victim of the criminal whom has just been executed. Never mind the fact that person was behind bars; for the remote possible specter of the criminal making its way back to the victim again is a living torment. The death penalty makes that an impossibility for it's a final judgement on Earth.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    101. Re:So they are doing what? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      To use a computing analogy here (not the /. car analogy), if your network is under attack by certain bots, what do you do? Do you set up your firewall so that traffic into your network is filtered, or do you go on a wild goose chase of the source of every attack, and try to pinpoint just that? Also if you can identify behavioral patterns that are symptomatic of malicious sites, do you allow such traffic into your network, or keep them out at all costs?

      The solution to this problem is to halt Muslim immigration to the West completely, and deport Muslims every time they indulge in such behavior. In this case in Paris, the Kouachi brothers would have been deported to Algeria the first time they engaged in a Jihad act. The solution to the West - HALT all MUSLIM immigration, and whenever Muslim immigrants commit a crime, deport them! If the Muslims happen to be Western citizens who were either born here or converted to Islam, get them killed in encounters, and then start an anal investigation of their families. In short, make life in the West absolutely miserable for Muslims, so that only the ones who genuinely have no illwill against the West settle down here.

      On a related note, one of the things mentioned about the Kouachi brothers is that one of them tried to go to Syria. My question to all Western governments - why stop them? Allow them to go to Syria or Iraq or Somalia or Pakistan or anywhere and join $JIHADIGROUP; only thing - once they go, cancel their passports, visas and everything and make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to RETURN. That way, those who have nothing but Jihad on their minds can go off to Raqqa or Mogadishu or Kandahar and die for Islam and go up and meet their 72 or whatever number of virgins they are promised. My own gut feeling - they get 72 Helen Thomases.

    102. Re:So they are doing what? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The idea of moral relativism is bullshit. Either you're a direct instigator, or you're having to react in defense (the victim). Even proponents of moral relativism haven't got a clue. What gives them the right to judge when they themselves have no standards by which to contrast with?

      In confrontation and war, if you don't choose sides, a side will be chosen for you.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    103. Re:So they are doing what? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Of course, they are polarized radicals! Wanting us to all believe in Christ. Or Vishnu. Or Jevohah. Or Buddha. Or L Ron Hubbard. Or Karl Marx. Or Vladimir Lenin. Or Mao Zedong.

    104. Re:So they are doing what? by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      What you did here, I see it.

      --
      meep
    105. Re:So they are doing what? by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Welcome to the world of SJW's, and progressives. Where "feelings" and "perceived hurtful comments" are all that's required to try and block someone's free speech. But getting yourself killed over said free speech? Say...in the Charlie Hebdo case, well you deserved it. There's no shortage of people coming out from that particular side of authoritarianism proclaiming that they deserved it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    106. Re:So they are doing what? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      They are expressing opinions that (they believe) justify the murders, they did not carry out the act themselves. Shutting down free speech to protect free speech is the act of an immature morality. When one side can't speak we get the kind of vile propaganda that occurred in Nazi germany and Rwanda, it ultimately led normal people to support and take part in those infamous genocides. Anonymous do not have the wisdom to be the arbiter of free speech, fortunately neither they or the (other) terrorists have that power.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    107. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I'll go on record as saying that I disagree with laws criminalising holocaust denial. As someone who is half-German, and who has been to Bergen Belsen (visit doesn't feel like the right word) I can understand why they can be desirable, but it doesn't change my opinion. Besides, I've seen how David Irving is received in the UK, his name is mud, because of his views - freedom of expression is often dangerous for extremists - it's all to easy to hang yourself with it.

      Likewise with charges of anti-semitism or islamophobia which very often are used to deflect legitimate criticism. I don't see why certain sections of society should be above criticism.

    108. Re:So they are doing what? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Two problems with this. In order for violent idiots to show themselves to be violent idiots you must allow them to do so, best they expose themselves prior to taking actions, so that they can be investigated and prosecuted based upon that exposure and then the web site shut down, rather then allow them to hide until it is too late. Exposing more of their true nature makes more sense, you can only tackle a problem when you see it is a problem and exposing the true nature of many individuals and groups has been very successful else where, which is of course why three letter agencies tried to copy the idea.

      This and of course western multi-national corporate media has been doing far, far worse than the inept religious fundamentalists and have been actively fomenting tensions and violence to feed their greed to drive "watch this or your will die" product promotion. In this case exposing them for who they really are will do far more good in the battle against evil actions than silencing them.

      Weird but true, allowing them their voice promotes hoisting them by their petard.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    109. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Well for one thing, Choudary et al have become very good at making sure they're not actually advocating the actual death of homosexuals, infidels, etc. They tend to go with the "Koran says so..." approach. I agree, it's very easy to infer what is meant, but [IMO] inference starts to get a little too close to thought crime for my liking. Keep in mind, they have been charged in past over inciting actual violence.

      I appreciate I'm treading a very fine line between giving these fuckers too much freedom, and defending what our society stands for. It's just that I loath the idea that these people are responsible for altering [in any way] the way we are allowed to live our lives.

    110. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Did not realise that - thanks.

    111. Re:So they are doing what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      While I mostly agree with your general sentiment, you are wrong about the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution. The purpose of the 9th Amendment is to point out that the individual rights that had been listed in the Constitution was, and is, not a comprehensive list of the rights of individuals. It is a reminder that the US Constitution's purpose is to itemize what the federal government is allowed to do and that if the US Constitution does not specifically say that the federal government is allowed or required to do something, then it is not allowed to do it.

      It is sad that far too many folks forget that.

    112. Re: So they are doing what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      That would be because you didn't actually read the decision nor the dissenting opinion and educate yourself. The opinions discuss that a ruling against Citizens United would probably have required shutting down essentially all political reporting as it essentially all political reporting is done by employees of corporations and there is no way to legally distinguish one corporation from another, especially when the corporation directly involved in the case was formed for the sole purpose of producing a film about a politician. The case had nothing to do with corporations donating money; it had to do with corporations publishing political material.

    113. Re: So they are doing what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      It also ensured that CNN, MSNBC, Mother Jones, et al are allowed to continue to comment about politics. But hey, who cares about that aspect of it?

    114. Re:So they are doing what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      And our constitutional republic seems to be trying its best to follow suit.

    115. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What humans need to learn is respect, starting with one's self and letting it grow.

      Amen to that.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    116. Re:So they are doing what? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The Brandenburg test (also known as the imminent lawless action test)[edit]
      The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages.

      I'm pretty sure that ISIS and Al Qaeda websites have passed the Brandenburg test with flying colors.

      Is there intent to kill? Are their exhortations for imminent action? Is there a likelihood that their threats could be carried out?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    117. Re:So they are doing what? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      ooh, ouch... worst I ever had was a dislocated kneecap, 15mg morphine and I was the highest 13 year old on the planet.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    118. Re:So they are doing what? by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      but I don't think anyone is (seriously) arguing for getting rid of all prisons or fines.

      We probably need prisons to some degree, but all fines, and all profit made off of prisons should definitely be stopped. It should legitimately cost the government enough to put a person in prison so as to discourage its use for petty things.

      As a constitutional matter, this should immediately extend to things such as having to pay for pretrial monitoring, anger/drug/whatever classes ordered pretrial, and any other conditions other than some sum of money sufficient enough to compel you to return for trial.

      Its bad enough we pick the pockets of those on probation as an alternative, but doing it to the innocent (and under the law they are) pretrial is obscene.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    119. Re:So they are doing what? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, their websites probably would. And I think this is as it should be.

      The specific preachers, OTOH... if a guy talks about killing Jews in a mosque during a sermon, and then one of the listeners goes and actually does that? I'm pretty comfortable stuffing them both in the same cell.

    120. Re:So they are doing what? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Quite a few US states have outlawed the death penalty. Of those that do allow it, most execute single-digit numbers of prisoners annually. Some don't even tally 1 execution per year. TBH, if the choice is between life in the prison system (30 years? 50, 60?) or a painless death, I'd take door #2. Unfortunately anti-death-penalty advocates have been taking away the "painless" part. It's similar to how the "war on drugs" has actually exacerbated drug-related problems.
      Recently, states have had to experiment with untested, and not wholly effective, lethal injection drugs due to the suppliers worrying about death penalty-related PR. That's caused several needlessly painful executions. Perhaps the most completely painless option is nitrogen asphyxiation under heavy sedation - but whenever that gets suggested people come out with "OMG they want to gas prisoners like Nazis!" Never mind the fact Nazis used a completely different gas (Zyklon B) that kills by a very painful mode of action...

    121. Re:So they are doing what? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      in any case, freedom of speech is an american phenomenon and is not automatic in much of europe.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    122. Re:So they are doing what? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      even if you do advocate killing artists with kalashnikovs, how many artists really carry kalashnikovs?!

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    123. Re: So they are doing what? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Yes. The people hypothetically trampling others in a panic are responsible for that act, not the person claiming there is a fire, whether or not there really is a fire.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    124. Re:So they are doing what? by radtea · · Score: 1

      So in order to protect the rights of others to freely express opinions they are going to silence people expressing the opinion that certain opinions should not be expressed.

      Nope. In order to enforce consistency on assholes they are forcing the assholes to live with the logical consequences of their own world view.

      That is: if you believe property is theft, people should be free to steal from you. If you believe free speech is subject to ideological approval, ideologues should be able to take it away from you.

      You should treat people according to the views they espouse. This--like tit-for-tat in the prisoner's dilemma--is the only stable solution to the problem of morality.

      There is, admittedly, an issue of what the appropriate level of abstraction is, but in general the rules of a) going one level of abstraction above the one at which people posit their moral theories and b) tending toward the level of abstraction that gives the victims of any moral theory the greatest influence will solve that problem. So it really isn't such a big issue after all.

      Consequential libertarianism (which is what I call this theory) is the only stable moral theory. It ultimately leads to a relatively generous, live-and-let live, non-violent morality, if carried through consistently.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    125. Re:So they are doing what? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There likely is no difference. The use of guns was likely used because the GP used the term which was likely in reference to the the situation in France last week which this article is about and is still on a lot of people's mind.

    126. Re:So they are doing what? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Free to do anything except to live which I think is a prerequisite for the ability to do just about anything else they may want to do.

    127. Re:So they are doing what? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      There comes a point and time in life when you just got to say "fuck it" and just kill the bastards advocating you be killed. If not, you will lose your opportunity forever.

      Typically, I would reserve that sentiment for the times when someone carrying a weapon is headed for you saying you are dead now, but I do not really see the difference between the thug in charge passing orders to his minions or the thug actually coming after me if the result is more than likely to be serious bodily harm or death. It's sort of like car jackings, you are likely to suffer serious bodily harm or death if one happens to you, the same is likely when some idiot trying to follow the scam of some illiterate pedophile who created a religion based on drunken ramblings of other religions declares you should be dead because you offended their imagined view of the illiterate pedophile.

      I say when they demonstrate that bad speech might kill you, you just kill them instead.

    128. Re:So they are doing what? by Maxx169 · · Score: 1

      Fairly sure François Marie Arouet was Voltaire. You're probably thinking of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (S. G. Tallentyre) who wrote a biography of Voltaire and summed up his thinking with the aforementioned quote.

    129. Re:So they are doing what? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Exactly. "Freedom of speech" isn't one thing and it varies by country.e.g. in the UK, threats and abuse aren't covered by freedom of speech. There are similar exceptions in the US. Furthermore, "freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want" it means the government can muzzle your speech or regulate what the media say. If you say something silly there are still consequences.

    130. Re:So they are doing what? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      in any case, freedom of speech is an american phenomenon and is not automatic in much of europe.

      If only we had freedom of speech in Europe

    131. Re:So they are doing what? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      It's kind of the paradox of democracy -- how do you square the rights of a free society against those would use those rights to advocate against them or overthrow them?

      Why is it a paradox? "Democracy" simple means "the rule of the people" (usually via voting) and isn't a single thing, as it's a broad definition, and varies from country to country. e.g. compare the US model to the Swiss model. Very different, but they're both democracies (they even both have "states"). So you're free to set up your democracy in a number of different ways. Most deal with freedom of speech by saying that the government won't infringe it. So the press is free and we can criticize those who rule us, etc. There are commonly restrictions designed to stop people from inciting hatred or abusing others. An individual or an organisation can sue for defamation (e.g. libel). All this seems like a reasonable compromise.

    132. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Yup, somebody else has mentioned this - I most likely copied and pasted the the wrong name. I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for my pesky habit of trying to give credit where it due!

    133. Re:So they are doing what? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      The hypocrisy is staggering alright. Consider Brenden Eichs, who lost his job over opposition to gay marriage, or Kevin Williamson, who was fired over a transgender article. The NYT boldly proclaims freedom of the press - when it is printing anti-Jewish and anti-Asian cartoons, but in 2005 when the Danish cartoons about Mohammed came out, and today?

      Obama says of Sony: "We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States" but then his press secretary in 2012 says "...we question the judgement behind the decision to publish it" where it were cartoons from Charlie Hebdo. Again, the hypocrisy on display is absolutely stunning. And what are they saying about this? We need to prioritize Islamophobia!!

      Plagerized from another opinion piece by Clarice Feldman but worth reading:

      On Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced that the Obama administration would prioritize fighting Islamophobia in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in France. Never mind that most Westerners aren’t Islamophobic, but rather GettingShotInTheFaceForExpressingMyOpinion-Phobic....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    134. Re:So they are doing what? by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      Ideology without room for common sense is dangerous. Your extreme example cannot be used to justify one group with something to gain, minipulating a vulnerable group to commit violence. For example, I remember a few years ago there was a 15 year old suicide bomber at an Israel/Palestine checkpoint who didn't blow himself up. Either his bomb malfunctioned or he changed his mind, but either way he was caught and questioned. Turns out he was not very religious or political, just scared of getting in trouble because of bad grades at school. He was recruited by an older man who preyed on the young and vulnerable for his own political ends and convinced this boy that a bomb would fix his problems. Don't tell me this older man's free speech should be protected. He may not have strapped the bomb on himself, but he is an accessory to attempted murder nonetheless.

      I say, thank you, Anonymous. They have the balls not to be paralyzed by self-righteous navel-gazing.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    135. Re: So they are doing what? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Alright, cool, then we can safely disregard your wall o' text.

    136. Re:So they are doing what? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I never said I was in agreement with the argument, primarily because it is incorrect; I merely pointed out its popularity.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    137. Re:So they are doing what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Fine, agree 100%, but denying the holocaust is strictly verboten in France. Another equivalent expression would be to goose-step down the Champs-Élysées singing Deutschland uber alles. All examples tasteless and repugnant, but Mohammed in homo-scenes seems to be quite acceptable.

      This #'jesuischarlie thing is not very well thought-out, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to my French friends on the basis they are in shock, and emotions are running high. But defending unsavory freedom of speech when directed towards Arabs, but taking offence when directed against Jews, or French nationalism is far from the sophisticated, elegant and enlightened image many Europeans like to hold of themselves.

      Except the Mohammed stuff is made up and a joke. The holocaust really did happen, and makes most other events in human history pale in comparison. And those that would deny that it happened are doing so for the very purpose of repeating the event. The purpose of the Mohammed cartoons was to try and get Muslims to lighten up (A good thing) The purpose of denying the holocost is to recreate it (a bad thing.)

      I do not support those laws, but they're like the child molester laws of free speech. It's really hard to argue they're bad no matter how hardcore you are into free speech.

    138. Re: So they are doing what? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      And we can safely disregard anything you ever have to say again, you flippant sack of shit.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    139. Re: So they are doing what? by pepty · · Score: 1

      So no enforcement against libel, slander, harassment, conspiracy (hey, I only said I'd pay the guy to commit murder, I didn't actually pay the guy), etc.

    140. Re:So they are doing what? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. Freedom of speech can be difficult, and the edges of the right can be difficult to balance. In my opinion, America hits the balance almost perfectly. Not exactly perfect, but as close as anyone could reasonably expect in a complicated world. Listening to asshats spouting hate is near the edge of the right, but in my opinion is inside it. Putting out fatwa's on people heads -- and there was a fatwa against the Charlie Hebdo editors' -- is outside the edge of the right, in my opinion.

    141. Re:So they are doing what? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Exactly, a Fatwa falls under "inciting violence as it is explicitly calling for somebody's murder, which *should be* illegal in the UK - it's illegal to order a contract killing. Unfortunately, as we've seen in the past, the CPS doesn't charge people issuing them, probably for the same reasons that the authorities didn't want to investigate the Rotherham sex abuse because, as past MP Denis MacShane said "I think there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat if I may put it like that."

    142. Re:So they are doing what? by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

      The ability to think meta is important. Some once pointed out that the US Constitution is not a suicide pact, even though without meta-thinking it appears to be so. This is a variation on the idea that the only thing we must not tolerate is intolerance. Do not be afraid to embrace this conflict.

      --
      "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
    143. Re:So they are doing what? by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      How are you marked insightful? This is UTTERLY FALSE. Advocating violence is absolutely protected speech in the USA.

      AS IT SHOULD BE. Or do you think saying "Somebody should go kill those terrorist scum" ought to be illegal?

    144. Re:So they are doing what? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      .. meet their 72 or whatever number of virgins they are promised. ...

      That was an ancient translation error.
      The correct phrase was "72 Virginians". Meaning the passengers that were on that airliner that crashed in Virginia on 9/11 (instead of hitting the Whitehouse). Their spirits would like "a word" with any "martyr" that shows up after murdering people. And they bring the fire of the airliner with them ...

    145. Re:So they are doing what? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. Just read through. Confirms what I had heard from other Europeans. There are clear limits on what is otherwise called "freedom of speech" so that it is not really "freedom of speech" in the sense that we have it here in the USA but more like "mostly you can say what you want as long as you don't offend people too much"

      just a sampling of what's not allowed in Czech...much more in the article from other countries...

      denigration of a nation, race, ethnic or other group of people (Article 355 of the Criminal Code),[65] i.e. hate speech,
      inciting of hatred towards a group of people or inciting limitation of their civil rights (Article 356 of the Criminal Code),[66]

      public approval of a felony crime (Article 365 of the Criminal Code),[69]

      public display of sympathy towards a movement oriented at curbing rights of the people (Article 404 of the Criminal Code),[70] e.g. propagation of hate-groups,

      public denial, questioning, endorsement or vindication of genocide (Article 405 of the Criminal Code),[71] e.g. Auschwitz lie,

      Don't get me wrong, these all seem aimed at making for a better society, and they may be good to have, but they are nonetheless limits of freedom of speech.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    146. Re:So they are doing what? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      speech" in the sense that we have it here in the USA but more like "mostly you can say what you want as long as you don't offend people too much"

      I've been down-modded a lot for saying this today, but you also have limitations on what constitutes freedom of speech in the US. It's really not so different from many European countries. The boundaries are drawn differently from other countries, but there are still boundaries.

      There's this idea that "freedom of speech" is a binary thing which you either have or don't have. But it isn't: it's a graded thing (both in Europe and in the US). The law regulates your speech in a similar manner to the way it regulates your actions, the actions of companies, acceptable behavior of the markets, etc.

      In my opinion, the key thing about freedom of speech is that citizens can criticise their government and leaders. This is the bedrock of democracy and is as important as the vote. This is what the US constitution gives you and why freedom of speech is a big deal in the US.

    147. Re: So they are doing what? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Free speech has limits. It always has. Companies can't lie in ads. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. And so on. One particular category of limits is frequently not a first amendment violation: time, place, and manner restrictions. Examples include limits on sale of porn mags within a block of an elementary school (place), bans on protests near cemeteries during funerals (place and time), and limits on size and style of signage for businesses (manner). Those restrictions are allowable if the law is:

      • Content neutral. This doesn't discriminate among candidates, nor among affected third-party groups, so it meets this criterion.
      • Be narrowly tailored. This affects exactly one thing: ads that mention a candidate by name. That's pretty darn narrow. Okay still.
      • Serve a significant governmental interest. This prevents outside parties from effectively subverting election contribution laws. Still good.
      • Leave open ample alternative channels for communication. In my view, the law as written applied only to advertising, not to news coverage or other non-advertising channels of communication, so in my view, it passes this test as well. However, others disagreed, and the result was the CU decision, which I view as a serious error on the part of the SCOTUS.

      My opinion has nothing to do with ignoring the first amendment, and everything to do with having a deep understanding of it and of how the courts have interpreted it for several decades. Come back when you've taken at least one class on communications law or constitutional law, and we can have a serious conversation on the subject.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    148. Re: So they are doing what? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      That's simply not true. News organizations were explicitly excluded from limits by McCain-Feingold. If anything, their exception was probably too broad, as it potentially allowed them to editorially declare their support for a candidate during the blackout period while denying that right to non-media companies.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    149. Re: So they are doing what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the Citizens United case but now that you mention it, isn't it wonderful how those two liberal asshats (yes, McCain is a liberal) allowed certain corporations to expend unlimited amounts of money making political speech. Equal under the law my ass.

      And isn't it wonderful that they actually had blackout periods restricting when we are allowed to make political speech? I guess I am supposed to rejoice at the 270 days they still allowed free speech instead of focusing on the 90 where they removed it.

    150. Re: So they are doing what? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the Citizens United case but ...

      So was I. Citizens United was about overturning part of McCain-Feingold/BCRA.

      And isn't it wonderful that they actually had blackout periods restricting when we are allowed to make political speech? I guess I am supposed to rejoice at the 270 days they still allowed free speech instead of focusing on the 90 where they removed it.

      AFAIK, it isn't 90 days around any election; it's 90 days around an election that the person in question is running in. So not 270 days, but rather 640 days for the House, 1370 for the President, and 2100 for the Senate. In relative terms, that's a pretty small window.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    151. Re: So they are doing what? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      but the first amendment pretty much implies that any window is too large.

    152. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1
      speech can do a lot actually. unless you think that the entire premise of both psychology and sociology are made up, then yes, speech can do a lot.

      Not going that far, imagine if someone followed you around all day with a bullhorn, and shouted random words everytime you went to speak. Free Speech? or is he using his speech to deny someone elses speech?

    153. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...unless you think that the entire premise of both psychology and sociology are made up...

      On the contrary. But all reactions to the words are a conditioned response. Unlike a rock hitting you on the head, they have no intrinsic value not defined by another person. The meaning of a word can change overnight. A rock is still a rock with real value in its mass and energy. The 'value' of the word is totally dependent on the person's reaction, which is usually quite variable, but the value is the choice to react, not the word itself. And it is person who made that choice that must be held accountable, not the word he claims to have provoked him.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    154. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Unlike a rock hitting you on the head, they have no intrinsic value not defined by another person. The meaning of a word can change overnight.

      Again, not what we are talking about. The concept of "giving orders", is as old as civilization, and until we live in a world free of hiearchy, there will be people in a position to give orders. There are many ways to deny someones rights using speech, one is giving orders, or otherwise persuading someone else to deny rights.

      The 'value' of the word is totally dependent on the person's reaction, which is usually quite variable, but the value is the choice to react, not the word itself.

      The fact that social constructs aren't completely solid doesn't mean they don't exist.

      And it is person who made that choice that must be held accountable, not the word he claims to have provoked him.

      and no one is claiming otherwise. If someone orders an assassination, both the person who did the hit, and the person who gave the order are both liable. This has always been the case.

    155. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The hierarchy is self imposed. 'Persuasion' cannot be held responsible for the personal choice to act. You are scapegoating social constructs for bad personal choices. Didn't your mother ever ask you if you would jump off a cliff just because your friends did? They is nothing physical in a word that is capable of compelling a person with a free will to act. If nobody follows the order to kill, then you cannot sanction the person who made the order, No harm was done. Only some noise was made. We are star struck by leaders when the danger emerges from those who follow. When you kill the leader, they only find another one just like him. The war is forever until people actually think first before acting. Instead of censorship, preach resistance to peer pressure. Tear down the social constructs that you blame for how people react to speech.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    156. Re:So they are doing what? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      The hierarchy is self imposed.

      what?

      'Persuasion' cannot be held responsible for the personal choice to act. You are scapegoating social constructs for bad personal choices. Didn't your mother ever ask you if you would jump off a cliff just because your friends did?

      you are not responding to my argument, which is a straw man. Then you have an argument from authority, i.e. the mother. By your logic, Hitler did nothing wrong, it was all the low ranking mebers of the SA/SS, Wermarcht, that did all the killing. All politicians like Bush, Obama, etc... are exempt from whatever political decisions they made too because, well shit they never actually did anything, just made speaches and gave orders. That applies to all leaders of all countries all places. The argument is that someone giving orders is just as responsible, not that one party gets off the hook somehow.

      If nobody follows the order to kill, then you cannot sanction the person who made the order, No harm was done.

      and if someone does, someone dies.

    157. Re:So they are doing what? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      and if someone does, someone dies.

      Exactly. Thee follower executed the order. He alone is responsible.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. will it really matter? by ardiri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    sounds like a PR campaign over something that will be effective.. if you look at any footage of ISIS and these extremists; they are a tad behind when it comes to technology - the social networks should be the one shutting down any propoganda efforts from these guys.. smells like "anonymous" is just riding on the publicity behind these tragic events to get noticed.

    1. Re:will it really matter? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The social networks are trying, but even the low-tech army of IS is good enough to make new dummy accounts as needed. If my mother can figure out how to use facebook, so can IS.

    2. Re:will it really matter? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      sounds like a PR campaign over something that will be effective.. if you look at any footage of ISIS and these extremists; they are a tad behind when it comes to technology

      "Behind" can still be plenty effective. How much technology do you need to recruit disaffected kids to come join your spree kill cult? Or to put a target on someone's back?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:will it really matter? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Of course. All ISIS has to do is put up a YouTube saying they've got 72 virgins and plenty of Playstations and that if you join them you too can stop the SJWs and give the finger to your mom who's not the boss of you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Anonymous who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Daily reminder that the anonymous flag is in great supply and ready for anyone to just pick it up and wave it around for any reason

  5. Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back in 2011 them Anonymous declared war on the Zetas --- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... --- and then what happened?

    Nothing, absolutely NOT A _MOTHERFUCKING_ THING !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They were threatened and they stopped, out of fear: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous-zetas-hacking-climbdown

    2. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I speak Spanish and can confirm, no fucks where given.

    3. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, that seems like a pretty big reaction. Presumably not their intended goal, but if the zetas took them seriously enough to start threatening them then that's actually a significant confirmation of the risk they posed to the zetas.

    4. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The Zetas operate like the Mafia. They do not accept any challenge. Any. Criminal organization work by subduing the populace through fear, and they will not suffer any lack of respect. If you so much as seem to cross them, you're dead. They make an example out of you, so that any fool who thinks of going against them will see the error of his ways. Do not overestimate yourself or you will be a dead nerd. You have seen what happened to all those students, haven't you?

    5. Re:Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Chas · · Score: 1

      {Anonymous}Script kiddies of the world UNITE! Everyone download a copy of LOIC so we can just DDOS people!

      {Everyone Else} *Sigh*

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      As a sidebar to this discussion: What the actual fuck do you do about 'organizations' like the Zeta drug cartel that are, for all intents and purposes, the de-facto power in Mexico? Or have I given them more credit than they deserve, here?, because from what you read and hear in the news, it's like they're the de-facto power in Mexico, and even the combined forces of the Mexican military and their police force couldn't manage to wipe them out before they were wiped out.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by CauseBy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You legalize drugs, obvs.

    8. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by thoughtlover · · Score: 2

      You legalize drugs, obvs.

      Yes.. everywhere. Now you have cartels buying Colorado weed and smuggling it back to Mexico to sell at a profit to the wealthy who live there. This world needs to stop looking to the USA for legal advice and policy and do it their own way.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    9. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can't exactly legalize extortion and human trafficking...

      You're not thinking like a libertarian.

    10. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by blang · · Score: 1

      Thats a simplifcation, tirebiter.
      Of the original targets in Anonymous announcement were taxi drivers, and those are usually working with the cartel under duress.
      Maybe Anonymous backed down, maybe not. But mostly they changed from original tactic to avoid bloodshed of innocent thirdparties.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    11. Re: Anonymous ? Get a life !! by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Weed is the low-hanging fruit. It is a vast outlier in terms of both safety and popularity. All arguments are in favor of legalizing weed.

      Other drugs are not as safe and not as popular but I still think there is a strong argument for some kind of stepped legalization of most drugs.

  6. negative reinforcement by kdataman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read that some small towns around Paris had their Websites defaced with the ISIS flag. I am surprised the Anons haven't thought of defacing a few ISIS leaning web sites with images of the cartoons in question or something similar. That way, instead of the terrorists feeling like they reduced the distribution of the images they will actually be faced with more of the images right on the sites they use. And this gets the images out there without giving ISIS any new targets. OTOH if the Anons take-down an ISIS site it would probably just deprive the NSA and MI5 of some valuable intelligence. This is something more within their skillset.

    1. Re:negative reinforcement by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the NSA or Mi5 need targets, there's plenty of asshats preaching death and destruction. There's your target. Where's your bullet?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:negative reinforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the NSA or Mi5 need targets, there's plenty of asshats preaching death and destruction.

      Sounds like few of the christian shows on some religious TV channel around here.

      "end of days is almost here! prepare for salvation!"
      "we must pray for the troops of freedom ..."

      and these are the moderates. The whackos are going off showing "proof" of "creation" and how evolution is questioned by every real scientist because of "evidence".

    3. Re:negative reinforcement by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The preachers are NOT the problem. The choir is. They are the ones actually pulling the trigger. Address that goddammit!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:negative reinforcement by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When fighting an army, don't bother shooting soldiers. Shoot the politicians sending them. WW2 didn't end just because a whole army died in Stalingrad.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:negative reinforcement by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      They don't have to follow orders. Though you might not win many wars that way, the soldier still has a free will. As for the politicians, you just have to stop voting for them. All choices are personal.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:negative reinforcement by kheldan · · Score: 1

      I would think it just as likely that this sort of activity is being committed by 'useful idiots' as it would be from actual IS forces or their actual affiliates.

      Best of luck to Anonymous in this.. but frankly I think they're probably better suited to 'declare war' on the guys who did the Sony break-in than they are against a militant terrorist organization like I.S., who has (apparently, and at least for the moment) deep pockets to obtain whatever it is they need to track down Anonymous members and cut their heads off.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:negative reinforcement by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      They don't have to follow orders. Though you might not win many wars that way, the soldier still has a free will

      This is pure bullshit. Join the goddam military and THEN claim expertise.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:negative reinforcement by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There you go. You don't have to join, do you? You cannot justify censorship, not now, not ever.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:negative reinforcement by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Use of force is not speech. But yes, those might be your choices. It does not justify censorship in any way. Nothing does.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:negative reinforcement by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And how do you address it? Kill them? They become martyrs to the cause, prompting even more to step in, and bolstering the argument of the preachers.

      No. When the preachers advocate violence, and those preached to immediately and directly follow up on that, the preachers are fully responsible. We're not talking about something abstract here, but, essentially, giving orders. Giving criminal orders from a position of authority has been a crime in every society in the world, regardless of its stance on free speech, and rightly so. Most of the people executed at Nuremberg didn't personally shoot or gas anyone, but they gave orders to others to do so knowing full well that those orders would be obeyed.

    11. Re:negative reinforcement by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      'The devil made me do it' is no excuse for whatever personal choices a person makes to follow orders. Obedience is what needs to be addressed. It is not, because a tyrant needs blind obedience. It frees the people from responsibility, and thus guilt, for their actions. Without it tyranny cannot exist. So the tyrant needs to control who gives what orders. Censorship can only empower tyranny, doesn't matter if it's by the one or by the many. It serves no other purpose.

      And Nuremberg was a sham. The only people executed there were those that nobody had any use for. You certainly can't use anything there to rationalize censorship. Followers chose to follow. That is the simple fact.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:negative reinforcement by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Instead of defacing websites, they should find the list of porn sites that ISIS/Daesh/wahabite members visit and publish that. With full name and addresses of course. That'd be fun to watch.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    13. Re:negative reinforcement by aliquis · · Score: 1

      That's your opinion.

    14. Re:negative reinforcement by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, it's simple fact. If nobody follows, nothing happens.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever since the advent of Islam "Butchering the infidels" has become their favorite pastime

    The Middle East and North Africa, from Morocco to Iran, used to be populated by Jews and Christians

    Since that pedophile crawled out of that cave where he claimed the Archangel Gabriel bestowed on him the 'Profart' title, however, most of the Jews and the Christians have vanished, thanks to that "Butchering the infidels" pastime of theirs

    Afghanistan / Pakistan used to be territories of the Buddhists and the Hindus, and the same thing happened to the locals ... all butchered

    1. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well... No.

      There was about 1000 years of peace before that happened.

      They then suffered a series of lost battles with the Christians and their empires pretty much collapsed. And that got blamed on not being sufficiently "pure" in the faith.

      Of course that didn't stop the collapse either.

    2. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1000 years of peace? you know nothing at all about the middle east. there has NEVER been peace there. Muslims have been killing muslims over STUPID minor ideal differences since the beginning.

      The Muslim faith is the faith of hate and intolerance. Read the fucking Koran.

    3. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Stealthey · · Score: 1

      Well... No.

      There was about 1000 years of peace before that happened.

      They then suffered a series of lost battles with the Christians and their empires pretty much collapsed. And that got blamed on not being sufficiently "pure" in the faith.

      Of course that didn't stop the collapse either.

      1000 years of Peace????? where????

      --
      I am at loss with words...
    4. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by gizmo2199 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think we do well to think of current strains of Sunni Islamism as distinct from historical Islam, especially if you attempt to link current terrorists to a culture from 1,000 years ago.

      That would be like trying to explain French politics of the 1980's by looking to the history of Charlemagne, or the First Crusades for an explanation. No, you are better suited to look for the motivations of Jihadis in the problems of failed and failing states in the Near East and Africa, for an explanation.

      In fact, I would imagine that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1970's goes a long way in explaining Islamism today, similarly, the failure of post-colonial regimes in that region after the end of the Cold War.

      Talking about Caliphates and Sharia Law, etc. is kind of playing into the hands of Islamists, who while claiming to be fighting for long-ago Islamic culture, are actually the product of post Cold-War international politics.

      As with everything in international relations, you have to look at the actions of international actors, and not their words. Because talk is cheap, and action costs money and lives.

      --
      This Sig does not Exist.
    5. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Beeftopia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As with everything in international relations, you have to look at the actions of international actors, and not their words. Because talk is cheap, and action costs money and lives.

      It's about power. The fact that Muslims - Sunni Muslims - are slaughtered in great numbers by the jihadis shows it's about something other than defending Islam or Muslims.

      Government and religion are ancient and potentially competing power centers. The convenience of Islam to a potential king is that it combines the two power centers into one. So, the wannabe king can rally followers by saying "Fight for God and religion!" instead of "Fight for me, a narcissistic psychopath!" In failed (or decapitated) states, the most effective of these power-hungry actors wins the prize of the throne.

    6. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Talking about Caliphates and Sharia Law, etc. is kind of playing into the hands of Islamists, who while claiming to be fighting for long-ago Islamic culture, are actually the product of post Cold-War international politics.

      It doesn't matter what they're a product of. What matters is their vision for the future and the actual actions they take. THEY are the ones talking about Caliphates and Sharia, and they're the ones happy to slaughter innocents in order to establish what they want. It isn't, and doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

      It doesn't matter if a culture that considers it better to burn a teacher alive than to let her instruct girls in reading and writing is wanting things to be like they were centuries ago, or if they simply want illiterate girls for the sake of keeping them illiterate. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they're acting to make it so.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Islam is no more than 750 years old. It is a religion of hate that preaches death to all who will not convert. Their "prophet" did not say one intelligent thing, all he could say was kill, kill, kill. Not one prophetic word.

      Islam is a fucking sham, and should be eliminated from the face of the earth. We did not tolerate Nazi Germany, nor should we tolerate genocidal Islam.

    8. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if a culture that considers it better to burn a teacher alive than to let her instruct girls in reading and writing is wanting things to be like they were centuries ago, or if they simply want illiterate girls for the sake of keeping them illiterate. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they're acting to make it so.

      In the near-term, you are probably correct.
      In the long-term, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    9. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It matters in a sense that identifying the root cause correctly helps deal with the problem more efficiently, and prevent the re-occurrence of the same problem in the future.

    10. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by oneeyed2 · · Score: 1

      As you point out, that's not how today's Europeans would look at things. The French wouldn't try and re-invoke Charlemagne or Napoleon, the Macedonians aren't trying to get back an Alexander, the Spaniards aren't trying to get back a Ferdinand or Isabella, and so on. The only European country that looks even close to what the Muslims want is Russia, which looks like it misses the days of Tsar Peter I.

      Not sure I can agree with you.

      Linking your country/ideology to some historical figures even back to the middle age isn't at all something that can be limited to muslims countries.

      To go back to France, the FN party which is the leading right-extremist party today and has increasing popular support, take Jeanne d'Arc as their symbol... They celebrate her every year with all the press following the event.

      So yeah... I don't buy how backwards Muslims are because they want invoke some historical figure.

    11. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a social scientist, I'll let Slashdot in on a little secret: if you want to know where violence will occur, look for young males between the ages of 15-25 or so.

      Take a look at this figure and ponder for a moment what it means, in terms of who those individuals are in their stage of life, their self-control and wisdom:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Median_age.png

      It's not a coincidence those areas of the world have so many problems.

      The terrorism plaguing the middle east is like institutionalized gang violence. It's Lord of the Flies playing out on a global scale, with automatic weapons and IEDs. I guarantee if you took a random sample of the adolescent population from just about anywhere, plunged them into poverty and lack of education and resources, especially if you had them overseen by insanely rich authoritarian tyrants, you'd end up with the terrorism you see now. It probably leads to a viscous cycle, because no one grows old enough to act as role models and build an alternative way out.

      The events in France are horrific, absolutely disgusting. What's happened in France is also arguably distinct from what's happening at the epicenter in the middle east. But as the parent post is noting, sometimes it helps to start with the basics, like current demographic and socioeconomic information.

    12. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Motard · · Score: 1

      You know, I generally dislike Anonymous and just about everything they stand for. However, in this case they've stumbled into an area where we are in agreement and I think I support their actions. Yes, it is ironic. Shutting down voices to protest shutting down voices. However, if I must choose, I'll side with the less violent, freedom seeking suppression over the violent, repressive intimidation.

      #NousSommesTousCharlie

      My only concern is that, while they may succeed to some extent to the blocking extremist message, the may interfere with the intelligence tracking of those allied (in this case) people with the capability to do far more than Anonymous could ever dream of.

    13. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by oneeyed2 · · Score: 1

      You are talking about how the French admire historical figures, like every country does.

      Actually I wasn't.

      In this case the FN claims Jeanne d'Arc as their symbol to advance a political agenda. Specifically to oust all foreigners from french soil like Jeanne d'Arc did with the English.

      Anyway I do understand your point but it seems you are generalizing way too much to my taste. All extremists like to invoke past figures from a supposedly better time in their country/state. And I seriously doubt Muslims in general are better or worse than anyone else.
      There ARE people in Germany actually nostalgic of the glory of the Third Reich, just like there are some people in France nostalgic of their colonial empires. And politicans do take advantage of that even there.

    14. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It matters in a sense that identifying the root cause correctly helps deal with the problem more efficiently, and prevent the re-occurrence of the same problem in the future.

      You're still trying too hard. The root cause of this problem is a desire on the part of millions of people to see the world run according to their oppressively misogynistic, apocolyptically theocratic, thug-centric vision. You don't need to be a thorough student of history to know that people like that, who are willing to machine gun rooms full of students to make their point, aren't ever talked out of their world view. It's too late for that. They have to be shut down.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The collapse of the Ottoman empire occured 1000yrs after the crusades, the event is now referred to in history books as "WW1".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Those people are not fundamentally different from us; the problem is in their culture, not in their genes. Even then, their basic culture is not all that thug-centric. Most people would very much rather have a stable society than war. The passionate fanatics - the ones that are willing to machine gun rooms full of students to make their points - are few (percentage-wise; it still amounts to hundreds of thousands when you take into account the overall population), but their fervor drags the rest along.

      The tricky part is that when you take them out, their ranks will be refilled by more from the disinterested mass whose fervor was reignited by that "martyrdom". If you insist on killing as the ultimate and only solution, then you'll have to keep killing until there are no more left, not from the smaller group, but from the larger one. So, are you ready and willing to start a genocide of over a billion people?

      The other way is to offer an alternative to those who would follow. You still go after the fanatics and kill them, but not before you discredit them in the eyes of the rest, so that their death is then seen as just punishment or defense, not martyrdom. And to do that, you have to make their society work better, and prove that you and your policies are responsible for it.

      Yes, this means occupying and then staying for as long as it takes. And not just in one place, but on all of them where the cancer has already spread. Problem is, among such places there are several major US allies in the region (like Saudi Arabia), and then there's Pakistan and its nukes. But all of them ultimately have to be dealt with. Which is a very long-term, and very expensive (both in terms of money, and in terms of lives) proposition. But it's still less expensive than your proposed alternative.

    17. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Keep the same literature and you keep to the same principles the only difference is how many of us actively block the application of the principles contained in that chosen literature and how many of our us had to die in order to be able achieve that not just today but our ancestors who sacrificed their lives to bring about the ability block, crusades, jihads, inquisitions, religious prosecutions without evidence and the idiocy of trying keep alive the worst elements of primitive societies to feed the disturbed nature of those whose egos are fed by taking those primitive actions and holding power over others.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Livius · · Score: 1

      So, the wannabe king can rally followers by saying "Fight for God..." instead of "Fight for me, the other narcissistic psychopath!"

      Fixed that for you.

    19. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

      I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that much of the history of Europe is the story of unbelievable brutality conducted in the name of Christian orthodoxy. Google "inquisition" or "Salem" for starters.

    20. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm curious.

      What are the problems and what are the steps to "prevent the re-occurrence of the same problem in the future"? Killing them all and letting God sort it out doesn't seem practical to me. Passing laws seem to well, end up just like in France where they ignored the gun laws and the murder laws, a lot of traffic laws.

      Is there some way to actually deal with the problem that in and of itself is not also a problem?

    21. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I see two distinct problems here.

      One is the severe social injustice that is prevalent in some areas of the world (notably Africa and Middle East) that creates a lot of disaffected people who have little to lose and a lot to gain, and are a fertile ground for others to come and plant fanatical ideas into, so long as those ideas promise some kind of justice, from their perspective... even if it's the classic "who had none shall have all" in Islamic theological wrapping. In some places (most notably Africa, but also e.g. Afghanistan and some parts of Pakistan) there's a general poverty issue, and this requires significant material investment - not the "feed a hungry African kid for a dollar" kind, but long-term stuff that will make those hungry kids have education and eventually paying jobs once they grow up.

      In some places there's plenty of wealth to go around, but its distribution is very one sided - most of Middle East is like that (though all the really poor places have that problem too in addition to just being poor). This is largely a function of the corrupt local elites that have sprung up pretty much everywhere post-decolonization. These need to be replaced with something better, and if in some places it means going back to running them directly for a while, so be it (regardless of people crying about neo-colonialism... the difference would be in why it's done). In some perhaps helping the opposing parties take over, with firm guarantees of loyalty and supervision in return for such support, would be sufficient. Either way, unless it is done, those corrupt elites will be swept away in an uprising, except what comes instead of them will be much less pretty. See Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, ISIS, and Yemeni fundies (whatever their name is, I forgot) for a few examples.

      The second problem is that some people, and even some states (again, ruling elites, not whole nations) use that social injustice to plant their destructive ideas in masses.

      With states, it's easier because they can be isolated, embargoed etc - take KSA for example, one of the biggest sponsors of extreme Islam and terrorism worldwide. Take them out, and suddenly many hundreds of fundamentalist madrassah around the world, from Indonesia to Tatarstan, suddenly find themselves without funding. And where does that money come from? Why, the oil that we buy from the Saudis. Why are we doing that again? Stop them from selling their oil, and they will collapse, and world will be that much better for it. The question then is how do you maintain some stable society on that territory afterwards; it requires some of the local contenders for regional leadership, the saner ones, to step in. Iran, perhaps, they have a decent historical track record of running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire.

      With specific individuals - the leaders, but most importantly the thinkers and the preachers, the ones that create and spread those ideas - direct violence is probably the most efficient and justified approach. Drones, special teams, even hired assassins - whatever it takes. But this has to be done after their sources of funding are gone, and after the social injustices have been corrected to the extent that most common people in those societies would have enough to lose in a war. If that is not done first, then killing the prominent figures only makes them martyrs in the eyes of the rest, and they're swiftly replaced anyway. This is the problem with the ongoing drone strike program... it creates more harm in PR effect than it helps in taking out the enemy command.

    22. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by steelfood · · Score: 2

      I think they both matter. One is the basis of addressing the now of things. The other should be used as the basis of addressing the later of things. Addressing the now without addressing the later is irresponsible. Addressing the later without addressing the now is dangerous.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    23. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the problem is in their culture, not in their genes

      In practical terms, kids who are marinated in hate while being kept deliberately free of useful information and critical thinking skills turn out to be adults who are permanently different - in the way they process new information, in the way they react, in their motivations, and in how they perpetuate that culture - from others. And the difference manifests itself in the sorts of real-life behavior that we're watching play out, right now. Yes, it's a cultural problem. But it might as well be genetic for as entrenched as it is, and the impact is has on the behavior of millions of people.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    24. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by FunkyLich · · Score: 1

      You have the right to take that oppotyunity. Some of us have the right to take the oportunity to not want the same thing to happen again because exactly as you mention while you are being opportune, taking the lives of those who draw caricatures because said caricatures offend them enough to kill, is not a good thing. And lastly, some of us do not have the opportunity to fuck off from one of such places where the majority of the population are offended by said drawings and would seriously kick your arse if you boasted about your atheism.
      I will not recomend anything for starters, since you seem fairly advanced in experience.

    25. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. But it wont be popular because it implies there's not much that can be done except wait for this demographic bubble to pass. I distinctly remember a demographer in the 80's showing a similar chart of US population and crime statistics. He correctly predicted the high US crime rate would drop as the high risk population aged. But every political figure has claimed their 'tough on crime' policies were responsible for the drop in crime and no one mentions the simple demographics which were predicted very accurately decades ago.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    26. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if a culture that considers it better to burn a teacher alive than to let her instruct girls in reading and writing is wanting things to be like they were centuries ago, or if they simply want illiterate girls for the sake of keeping them illiterate. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they're acting to make it so.

      In the near-term, you are probably correct.

      In the long-term, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      In other words:
      It is said that "repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome, is the definition of insanity."
      That applies in the long-term also. Repeating what was done long before, and expecting a different outcome, is also insanity.
      Therefore, -not- studying history will result in insane policies and actions!
      Try it and see ... again. It will only take about twenty years. Or, read about it in history. 8-)

    27. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      While Muslims use a lot of different techniques to achieve their goals they are directed to follow Jihad, always, just in different ways depending on their current local situation. There may be peaceful Muslims individually but as a society there will always, eventually be bloodshed because they are directed to that end by their prophet. No other religion still holds on to that thinking and haven't for a long time. Israel stopped enforcing their anti gay sex laws in the 60's and made it legal altogether in the late eighties. Anyone claiming to hate gays and claiming to be a Christian is a false Christian who is acting against the words of their prophet to love their neighbors as their brothers. A Muslim who cuts your head off can not only find several suras in the Koran to back him up but will find none admonishing his act if you are a non-muslim who refuses to convert.
      When they are greatly outnumbered they are directed to follow silent jihad. They move into an area, abuse any freedoms in the land for religion and preach tolerance and love. They did this during their foundation in the city of Medina. A city of Jews felt compassion for the new religion and welcomed them in. The Muslims did as their prophet directed and waited. The same thing is happening in the USA and many places in Europe. They call for tolerance until they outnumber the non-Muslim population. Then they either vote in Sharia laws then enforce them by killing people who don't follow the new rules or they murder everyone who disagrees with war and terroristic behaviors like they did in Medina.
      Once they reach the point where Muslims are the greater number they either wait while their power solidifies or aggressively expand by converting their neighbors and killing the infidels. You can see this behavior pretty much every where Muslims rule in the world. Its not that occasionally some maniac takes over the religion and abuses its holy book's wording to kill, its that occasionally a Muslim comes along who convinces their neighbors to end their apostasy and do what they are called to do by their prophet. Its so ingrained in who they are that they even turn on each other, with one or both sides claiming sura such and such directed them to kill their Muslim brothers.

    28. Re:Favorite Pastime for the Islamists by nobodie · · Score: 1

      The fundamentalism of the current version of Islam is the source of the theology/philosophy. It is a philosophy that supports and encourages jihadism as a solution to the problems of their political structures: mostly feudal dictatorships. The single point of beginning sometimes pointed to is the rise in power of AlWahaba and so-called Wahabism in the early 1900s. It was this brand of Sunni fundamentalism that, teamed with the political support of AbdulAziz's Saud family that led to the idea that :
      1) all infidels must die to purify the world
      2) non-Sunni Muslims are equally infidels
      3) if you do not support the political group that is being supported by whoever is talking at that moment, you are an infidel even if you claim to be a Sunni. For these reasons, the young blogger busted for anti-government writing in Saudi Arabia is getting 1000 lashes over the next 20 weeks as an infidel and for attacking religion.
      So it is not just religious, it is also political and .... well, obviously fucked up.

      Note, I have a number of students from the Middle East. They consider this all to be correct, and normal, logical and proper. Until they can grow past this view of the world (basically a pre-Renaissance world view) they are going to be kept in the dark ages. They can't see that they are the victims, they think that god loves them because they accept this. They need a voice of reason based on compassion and love. Frankly, it seems far off at the moment, but the sadness of the blinders they wear (stitched onto their minds) is overwhelming. In every other aspect of their world they are kind, generous, warm and loving people, but get near the theology and they turn off their minds and hearts.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  8. Re: What bullshit by blang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the purp0se of the website is to recruit suicide bombers and bloodthirsty killers to attack innocent 3rd parties, then you can consider it part of the infrastructure of a hostile army, and a first class target for anyone wanting to interrupt such monsters. If you go all meta and pedantic, you have already lost grasp on reality, and need a brain check.

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  9. Re:never understood this cyberwar thing by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Change someones facebook profile picture or block their twitter accounts?

    Yes, because it's what they know how to do, and it's more than you or I are going to do about it, if we're honest.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Je suis Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Posting anonymously as I'll probably burn mod points here later on

    I personally feel that these 'jihadist' murderers should be charged and sentenced under Sharia law. But not for murder, that would only reward the behavior by making them martyrs.

    Instead, try them for the theft of another person's life, and sentence them as common, petty thieves. That sentence would be cutting off both their hands, then bandaging the stumps and sending the assholes back to ISIS. Let ISIS handle their food and waste needs, and their rehabilitation. Let the fanatically blind ISIS recruits see, in terms that they would understand, how terribly misguided this abomination calling itself a "jihad" is in the eyes of the world, and in the vision of Allah and the Prophet.

    --

    Je suis Charlie.

    1. Re:Je suis Charlie by x0ra · · Score: 2

      I think the killing of an "infidel" is not considered murder. AFAIK, christians had the same rule during their crusades.

    2. Re:Je suis Charlie by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why under Shiria, when a woman was raped, she'd be beheaded for adultry, yet the man who raped her was unpunished; you'd think if a thief would have his hand amputated, a rapist would be castrated and penis amputated for stealing her virginity!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Je suis Charlie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This one is based on an incident involving Mohammed and his child bride Aisha, who he married when she was 6 and fucked when she was 9. The story was that there was an incident where she was alone, and there were allegations that she had committed adultery. Mohammed then came up with the 4 witnesses rule and demanded to know whether 4 witnesses had seen her do what she was charged with. Since there weren't, Aisha got saved.

      Problem with that, however, down the road was that this '4 witnesses' rule was used in cases of rape. In other words, if a woman was raped, she had to have 4 witnesses to substantiate her allegation. Failing that, rape couldn't be proved, but the woman in that case would then be guilty of adultery/fornication, and be sentenced to N lashes or imprisonment. And while some woman might try to get away by not reporting it, if she got pregnant, then she was fucked in more ways than one, since the sentence for this, under Shariah, was being buried at waist level and then stoned. (This too Mohammed did to a woman who confessed that sin to him). Combine this with yet another law - the evidence of one Muslim man is equivalent to that of 2 Muslim women.

      So if a man raped a woman, unless he was stupid enough to do it in front of 4 hostile witnesses, he'd be safe. Only case a woman might have it lucky - if it was a non Muslim man raping a Muslim woman. Then another law kicks in - that the evidence of 1 Muslim is equivalent to that of 2 or more Infidels, and there, the woman would probably be lucky. But other than that, most raped women in a Muslim country would be SOL

  11. Re:never understood this cyberwar thing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I think it's illegal to go and send one of those jihad preachers to discuss matters directly with his boss. No idea why, but my lawyer says so.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Anonymous sees the logical flaw, right? by fygment · · Score: 1

    Right?

    Removing the freedom of speech of those who would seek to remove the freedom of speech ....

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Anonymous sees the logical flaw, right? by Squirmy+McPhee · · Score: 1

      Removing the freedom of speech of those who would seek to remove the freedom of speech ....

      I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate way to characterize the statement by Anonymous. The way I read it, they're not trying to silence the jihadists, but merely disrupt the channels they use to communicate with one another. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, it seems to me to be a bit of poetic justice, a well thought-out way to target the perpetrators of violence in a peaceful, yet disruptive manner without offending the billion or so peaceful Muslims on the planet (which, honestly, is the route I expected them to go...).

  13. Re:never understood this cyberwar thing by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    I was rocking back and forth between selfish PR grab and (h)activism, But your post is spot on.

    If they do anything, it trumps my own contribution Of: "Gosh, that's just horrible!"

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  14. Back to roots by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anonymous originally (if I recollect rightly) came to a more public place originally when they choose to stand and have a fight with the cult of Scientology. And in doing so a level of fame was garnished. Not to mention fighting a good fight.

    Since then, Anonymous has waged a lot of Ops and has hit various targets - and in my HO has lost its way.

    Freedom and Liberty - generally even if it gets lost along its path sometimes is a Western Foundation. Millions of people leave other parts of the west to try and escape the terrible events taking place not in the west. There is a constant war where people in the west question themselves, their activities, their history.

    But this is a form of war, first between Islamics and Islamics, the intolerant, and the tolerant, and the largesst numbers of people suffering in this war is generall Muslims.

    People take affront at Islam being selected as a problem. An issue. It is. The Islamic world has some of the worst government, and where there is better government it is persistantly under threat - not from democracy, but usually henchmen and AK47s and the threat of sharia gangsterism. There are terrible things that take place, from the Saudi Blogger who is being brutally whipped for the next weeks by a so called 'Theocratic' Government of Saudi Arabia. There is widescale FGM and terrible treatment of women, and children are killed, have acid thrown over them, and there is a war on education, liberty and freedom. Most educated, well adjusted islamics who benefit from living in the west and make case defence for Islam have their view. They have a voice in the discussion, but it is not a view that can be accepted.

    50+ states have attempted to enact UN level movement to try to inflict laws that would apply world wide and eliminate and reduce the free speech, free expression, and the age of enlightenment - explicitly a larger Charlie Hebdo political effort aimed at everyone. And its backed daily in all corners of the world by brutal men - no, not men, scumbags and physcopaths, sociopaths and idiots - who carry out a brutal drawling of lines in the sand agaist anyone who doesn't comply. Its maintained by limited education, brutality against women and repression, poverty and misery against everyone else.

    This is a war. Its a war against lunatic elements of humanity who have decided in a new facism - one where their totalitarian view is the only view. This was carried out when they decided not to kill cartoonists in Paris. That was just a message. They sent a bigger message which is if you say anything, men will come to your door and execute you.

    The answer was every single media outlet and paper should have published the cartoons. But no matter. The fact many did not was cowardice - but cowardice has been the path of Mass media for years. So, Charlie Hedbo was left exposed being a refusnik in this cowardice and now people are dead.

    If anonymous was to enact what they have said, it would be their finest hour. In worthy cause, and in line with its original ideal. Whatever fights the world faces, Western governments and companies are generally a lower scale issue than the threat of lunatic islam. It has reached a point where Islam is creating no go areas in the west. Areas where threats of violence and intimidation have become the rhetoric of their view of democracy.

    It is not enough to say it. Now is the time where action has to take place. Why should any islamic organisation of any kind that hates free speech and liberty be allowed to have any. They have created the rule base of their own reality. Now let them live it.

    Unleash the dogs of war.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
    1. Re:Back to roots by hattable · · Score: 2

      That's because every time you think of "Anonymous" as a group you fail to understand it at all. If any of the same people are involved in the latest 'anonymous' adventure that were involved in the previous ops that is a coincidence of them wanting to do it again. Full cycle every. single. time.

      --
      OMG facts!
    2. Re:Back to roots by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Anonymous" never was an organization, and you don't seem to know much about them. It started on the chans, and "Anonymous" is just a name for the collective mass of chan kiddies from about ~2006-2010, on the various chans, who don't enter a name, so the server renders the name as "Anonymous".

      They trolled people and did some pranks, and hacked some facebooks, and even made some media and art depicting the "Anonymous" personified, but it was never a real organization. While anyone can use the name "Anonymous", its pretty well understood they were "chan people", specificly '/b/-tards'. Their first stint in the mainstream was FOX NEWS around 2009 publishing its infamous "Hackers on Steriods" bit. In those days, their motto was "Some Men Want to Watch the World Burn". In those days, they were just a bunch of trolls.

      Their first instance of activism was against Scientology, and the first time they tried being the "good" guy, fighting for justice. After Scientology, many of them, suspected to be mostly new members, but no one really knows, decided to fight for other moralist causes. Meanwhile, another faction known as the "hatefags" derried the new found "moralfags", on their social justice leanings.(back then, it was customary for all Anonymous to refer to themselves as "faggots" or "fags", and sometimes even "niggers"). Of course they take many targets, some of them in the US Government, and many of the moralfags get arrested, and eventually it goes quiet, with the chans carrying on, without raids on anything mostly, and eventual seperation between chans and Anonymous. All the real hardcore ones are most likely in jail right about now serving long sentances.

      Who is still in Anonymous now, or who their members are, I haven't really kept track.

    3. Re:Back to roots by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be "unleash the doges of war?"

  15. Cowards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These scum are. Cowards.

  16. snarky thought by cellocgw · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I don't suppose they'd like to include the CONUS websites which espouse Christian Fundie values as well?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:snarky thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose they'd like to include the CONUS websites which espouse Christian Fundie values as well?

      If the CONUS website is used to incite and organize actual terror attacks, then they should.

  17. blunt force is boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hopefully their response is more creative than just taking down accounts. Wouldn't it be more interesting to see those accounts flooded with images of the prophet?

    1. Re:blunt force is boring by marsu_k · · Score: 1

      It certainly sounds more creative, if we are to expect a "massive frontal reaction". Fighting terrorism with a boner seems quite novel to me.

  18. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

    A fatwa was declared? By whom? You? Who are you? A fatwa is required to be issued by a qualified mufti to be considered remotely legit, and unless it's someone REALLY important like an important Ayatollah (and I'm not talking about some of the self proclaimed dickheads we find all over the west now but someone who EARNED that title!) you better have a muftiate to back it up! A fatwa is something pretty big and I don't really think any mufti would look kindly upon it if some noname of zero importance like you tried to pose as if he could issue one.

    You are a little trolling kid. Not unlike a lot of the rest of the religious nuts. They noticed that people tremble in fear the moment someone throws about "Muslim words". Something that pisses off devout Muslims the most, btw. It's like people waving about guns to make themselves feel big and powerful, which makes all (responsible) gun owners look like loose cannons because some of those dickheads that wave it about as a penis substitute ARE loose cannons or simply act irrationally. Or are simply stupid beyond belief.

    It's not much different with the nuts that use religion as a weapon of shock and awe.

    After the school shootings kids learned that they can get respect and fear from the others around them if they pose like they'd go and start shooting up shit as well if "provoked some more". Guess what, all it accomplished was that these kids were grounded. As is befitting to punk ass kids.

    And this is little else.

    "Uhhh, watch out, I'm going all jihad on your ass now"

    Yeah, sure, shut up and troll somewhere else, kid.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Quote by Karl Popper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

    In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

    From The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper.

    1. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...use of their fists or pistols.

      That's the clincher that nobody will address. There are absolutely no words that can justify the use of force. We should have absolutely no tolerance for censorship.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting
      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not precisely. Any intolerant philosophy can be countered by rational argument, but first you have to get the person to actually start listening. In the case of terrorists (foreign or domestic, religious or otherwise), that doesn't work because the second part can't be done for various reasons. However, in the case of people thinking about joining a terrorist group, that can work to some degree, because they haven't yet closed themselves off to argument.

      Unfortunately, most governments don't even try. For example, the U.S. government's war on terror primarily fans the flames rather than countering the philosophy. They fight unnecessary wars that kill innocent people, thus turning those innocents' friends and relatives against them, resulting in a steady stream of people who are angry at the western world, who are then prime targets for radicalization. They lock innocent people up for decades without a trial, thus giving people even more reason to hate them. Then, when they find out that someone might be becoming radicalized, they monitor them, often going so far as to encourage them to commit fake crimes so that they'll get caught and can spend the rest of their lives in prison, rather than attacking the rot of hate by countering it with rational argument. All of these things make people hate the West even more.

      In short, I'm pretty sure the U.S. government is doing almost everything it possibly can to encourage extremist behavior. What I don't understand is why. Are they trying to bring about the end of the world, or are they really that clueless?

      Just to be clear, I'm not trying to justify the horrible actions of people who use bombs to try to kill as many people as possible, most of whom likely had little or nothing to do with whatever they're angry about, many of whom might even agree with them, at least in principle. I'm just saying that many of the attacks are undeniably at least partially the fault of the western world for fomenting hatred among the people of the Middle East and for failing to take even the slightest actions to counter that hatred among people that it knew were heading down that path. It's a bit like not locking your doors and then wondering why your insurance company won't pay for your missing widescreen TV....

      The only true way to fight hate is to face it head on, by teaching people not to hate. If you manage to do that—if the very idea of hating others becomes so antithetical to everyone's core beliefs that nobody joins hate groups—then eventually they'll go away by attrition.

      Just saying.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      ...use of their fists or pistols.

      That's the clincher that nobody will address. There are absolutely no words that can justify the use of force. We should have absolutely no tolerance for censorship.

      That's the problem with absolutes - they're always flawed. Man with gun to your head says "I'm going to shoot you at the count of three. 1 ... 2 ..." You'd be hoping that someone would act on his words and take him out rather than wait until he puts a bullet to your head to prove it wasn't just words.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The situation we are discussing involves no immediacy. We cannot allow censorship. A man with a gun to your head is not engaging in speech.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      You wrote "absolutely no words that can justify the use of force." Not "engaging in speech."

      But another counter-example - words on paper. A bank robber hands over a note saying he has a gun and will shoot if you don't fill up the bag. The teller fills up the bag while pushing the silent alarm. Cops come and shoot him. The written threat - words - justified the use of force.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by khallow · · Score: 1

      So how do those words justify the bank robber's use of force?

    8. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Ha ha. They justify the police's use of force.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well hell, if you're going to throw a guy in jail for writing a note, what's the point? He may as well come in shooting everybody first. Why scream 'fire' when you can light one?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by khallow · · Score: 1

      The bank robber's words were a credible threat, a credible statement of intent to do harm. A credible threat is a use of force.

    11. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Try writing a death threat to someone ... those are "just words on a note", but they cannot be viewed in isolation, and it would be negligent not to take action, unless it was obvious that nothing would come of it (like threats from morons to morons on twitter or facebook).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      A credible threat is only a credible threat - no force has been employed at that point.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    13. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      There are absolutely no words that can justify the use of force.

      You're missing one critical factor. There are absolutely no words that can justify the initiation of force. Using force to defend yourself once someone has used force against you is perfectly justified.

    14. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      In short, I'm pretty sure the U.S. government is doing almost everything it possibly can to encourage extremist behavior. What I don't understand is why.

      I'll tell you why... Weapons sales. Basically, that. Then Cheney's old buddies at Halliburton were given all the contracts to provide troop-support services and rebuilding contracts.

      Are they trying to bring about the end of the world, or are they really that clueless?

      I'd not say clueless, but shrewd. Since the inception of 'central banks', it's been the mission of the moneylenders to own every government they can. They finance both sides of an election. Those paid-for politicians are just talking heads that spew corporate FUD anywhere they can with talk of nameless, faceless people who will wage a continual war on Western nations. Who cares about the world when you have the modern-day's equivalent to 'bread and circuses'... Cheetos and YouTube.

      It's pretty easy to fulfill 'prophecy' (all that end-of-the-world crap) if you already have a roadmap written out for you!

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    15. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by khallow · · Score: 1

      A credible threat is only a credible threat - no force has been employed at that point.

      That is just wrong. Threats are instead the usual way that force and coercion exerted on others manifests. Do this or we'll make bad things happen to you.

    16. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      A credible threat is only a credible threat - no force has been employed at that point.

      That is just wrong. Threats are instead the usual way that force and coercion exerted on others manifests. Do this or we'll make bad things happen to you.

      The "bad things" are the force. Threats are just attempts at gaining leverage.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    17. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by khallow · · Score: 1

      Threats are just attempts at gaining leverage

      In other words, "attempts at gaining leverage" is a use. Semantics just isn't working for you today.

    18. Re:Quote by Karl Popper by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The cause is that the people mandating these actions are unaffected by their consequences. They don't regularly go to places normal people frequent and when they do, it is with armed escort. They are in effect, using the general populace as a shield for their activities.

      They are not living above the law (they cannot, as they wrote the laws) so much as they are living above the consequences of their activities. And they don't give a rat's ass about anybody else, so long as they can continue their lifestyle, or even better it. That's the nature of the beast you're staring down.

      If many of these Muslim countries didn't have the world's biggest share of the most valuable natural resource currently, radicalization would not be an issue today. This is the modern form of colonization, one that doesn't involve planting a flag and sending people to make war, but instead having the natives make war on themselves while you profit directly and indirectly off it. The important thing to understand is that the best way of exploiting somebody is by destabilizing their life, then recreating stability via a system sympathetic to your intentions. Destabilization can be done directly (Iran in the 70's, Iraq in the 00's) or by proxy (everywhere else, e.g. Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and one can argue Israel serves that purpose as well).

      Radicalization is a response to all of this meddling, and it is directed towards the West because it is the Western countries that have (historically and currently) been the most aggressive colonizers. Don't get me wrong; there are terrorists in Russia and China and other Asian countries too (Tamil Tigers, anybody?), but those countries are engaged in territorial takeover, i.e. the first method of colonization (the one that created the United States). Thus there is no need for radicalization.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  20. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While a fatwa must be issued by a qualified mufti, it's less clear how one becomes a qualified mufti. There are quite a lot of them, and they routinely issue contradictory fatwas and declare their rivals to be heretics.

  21. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Amazing how similar religions can be...

    But back on topic, I guess we may be fairly sure that this kid ain't one.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Promises Promises by genner · · Score: 1

    I'll believe it when it happens.

  23. Re:Back to roots? by retroworks · · Score: 2

    Gee, however would a leaderless, anonymous, unorganized chatroom ever "lose its way"? And how would it find its way "back to its roots?" I imagine Anonymous kind of like a Slashdot commentary completely responded to by Anonymous Cowards... How would we possibly keep the bullfrogs all in the wheelbarrow?

    --
    Gently reply
  24. @All aspiring suicide bombers and their controlers by burni2 · · Score: 1

    You should use authentification and encryption NOW!

    On your remote switch* or we will see many islamists detonating in their training camps, instead detonating at a market square.

    Actually then the term suicide bomber would be appropriate - because it's not essentially suicide but essentially it's murder, suicide is just a byproduct

    *Suicide bombers have their paket often equiped with a fail over switch if the bomber rethinks pressing the button, it will be pressed remotely.

  25. ironic, then by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    ...that the thing Anonymous is claiming to be defending in its actions is the very thing it is attacking!

    Fuck me.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  26. Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They've overstayed their welcome in liberal Western democracies.

    It's time for them to go.

    I'm not really upset about these wacky radical folks who commit such atrocities . . . but I am angry about the larger "moderate" Muslim communities that tolerate them. Look, back in High School, every kid knew who was dealing drugs, or up to other mischief. Every member of the Muslim community in your backyard knows who the radicals are. But, do they turn them in, to the authorities . . . ?

    No, because they silently agree with them.

    Muslims want the prosperity of liberal democracies, but wish for the draconian theocracy of the appropriately named "Islamic State". Let them go there.

    When the USA was trying to form a liberal democracy Iraq and Afghanistan, what happened? A bunch of insurgencies with attacks with homemade bombs on the troops. Have you seen any such attacks in the Islamic State?

    No, because the people there are Muslims, and that is what then want.

    These Muslim problems can not be solved by outsiders. Only Muslims themselves could do that.

    And until now, they have not managed to step up to the plate, and any statements from Muslim leaders have looked frighteningly apologetic.

    It's up to you Muslims . . . it's your move. The rest of society have put up with enough of your shenanigans.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I think you mean: When the US (and allies) were trying to impose THEIR idea of how to live.

      Actually, I agree with you 100%! The US should not doing any military action in the Islamic State. The rich Muslim countries should decide to do this, if they want.

      I need to quote you again,

      trying to impose THEIR idea of how to live

      . . . which is exactly what Muslims are trying to do to us today, in OUR countries!

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

      ". . . which is exactly what Muslims are trying to do to us today, in OUR countries!"
      There is some truth in this, though they're just the 3rd Abrahamic religion to try it. They won't touch us Pagans!

    3. Re:Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The scenario that you describe, is more or less already taking place . . . in the Islamic State. Ask a few Kurdish women how they have been handled by the Islamic State soldiers . . . whoops! They have all been sold off into sex slavery.

      Since you made an oblique reference to what happened in Nazi Germany, I will respond to that. The Germans are rather intelligent folks, and it was very difficult for them to come to terms that they were following an evil ideology.

      The same thing applies to Islam. It's just plain evil. It needs to be banned like Naziism. Just turn on your TV, and see what Islam is doing to the world today.

      The West has been handling Muslims with kid gloves. It's time drop the gloves.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re: Muslims? by ben2027 · · Score: 2

      You, sir, are an idiot. The types setting the IEDs are the types who fight for Islam. There could be reasons why the Muslim community doesn't turn in the nutjobs. One is fear of those same nutjobs, but there are plenty of other reasons - including the assumption that idiots like yourself make that all Muslims share those beliefs. The IRA were Christians, and there was plenty of Religious fuelled murder in Belfast (not Catholic? Sucks to be you). Given that Christianity espouses spreading the belief, should we assume then that all Christians support killing those with different beliefs. What I'm trying to say is you need to pull your head out of your arse and realise that judging a large group by the actions of a relative few is nuts

    5. Re:Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      ". . . which is exactly what Muslims are trying to do to us today, in OUR countries!" There is some truth in this, though they're just the 3rd Abrahamic religion to try it. They won't touch us Pagans!

      This is why I don't believe that any political system should be based on a pile of Jewish Fairy Tales, that have been manipulated down the ages to control the general populace.

      Most folks in Europe are beyond this religion thing. I remember reading that the average man in Denmark goes to church three times in his life: 1) When he gets born and baptized, 2) When he gets married, 3) When he dies, for his funeral.

      I'm happy that many more folks in Europe impressed by works like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      . . . as opposed to a dogma out of the Middle Ages . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Muslims? by houghi · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam who was elected has overstayed his welcome? And about the 'Muslim leaders', could you tell me who they are? There are Imams who do not even agree with each other and the HUGE majority is against what happend.
      #NotInMyName images.

      So they do NOT silently agree with them.

      And the USofA forming something in another country. If Russia or China would overtrow the corrupt political situation in the USofA, what would you think would happen? People aplauding them for their effort?
      But I am sure they are thanking you for pouring some more oil on the fire, because THTA is what the lunatics want.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      If Russia or China would overtrow the corrupt political situation in the USofA, what would you think would happen?

      Hey, what are they waiting for?!?!? Bring it on!!!!

      People aplauding them for their effort?

      Well, it would certainly break pay for view records, if it was offered!

      But I am sure they are thanking you for pouring some more oil on the fire, because THTA is what the lunatics want.

      No, I'm just getting tired of turning the other cheek, and being told that Islamic Terrorism is somehow my fault

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re: Muslims? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Exactly so.

      The failure to control a minority is visited upon the entire population.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re:Muslims? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Then the Dane goes two times too many.

      One might justify the baptism as simply a risk management fail of unintended presence.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:Muslims? by bazorg · · Score: 1

      I tend to agree with this. Until now, I have not seen any good reason to think of the islamic state of Iraq and Syria to be better or worse that the islamic state of Pakistan, or IS of Saudi Arabia or any other I'm not even aware of... It looks like there are important conflicts between being a devout muslim and a law-abiding citizen in a western Europe secular country. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack, this Amjed Choudary cleric chap explained things with little room for error - he is defined by media as "radical", but who's got a way of benchmarking a moderate religious guy?

      Where I'm getting is that it might not be that worse to treat the IS of Iraq and Syria as a country rather than a ... place where there are terrorists? ISIL seems to have strong appeal to some of the most undesirable Europe-based muslims, to the extent they actually pack up and go live there. Recognizing ISIL as a country would certainly have many effects I can't predict, but with optimism I'd say it would give some clarity about muslim's world view, while giving those unhappy to live in secular Europe a place to live according to the rules of their sect of Islam. Maybe the great power of having a new country would also give them the feeling of responsibility not to live in permanent war with Shia/Sunni/infidel neighbours.

    11. Re:Muslims? by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      The same thing applies to Islam. It's just plain evil. It needs to be banned like Naziism. Just turn on your TV, and see what Islam is doing to the world today.

      Or try turning off your TV and actually meet some of the 1.6 billion muslims and you'll find that you're completely wrong.

      If you really think the solution to a few nutjobs is to wage existential war on 16% of the world population, you're a crazy as they are.

      Insightful, my arse.

    12. Re:Muslims? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Or try turning off your TV and actually meet some of the 1.6 billion muslims and you'll find that you're completely wrong.

      I work with with a lot folks who have the Islam faith . . . but none of them would describes themselves as "Muslims". Hatice and Reha would tell you that they are Turkish, Karim will tell you that he is from Egypt, and Ali will tell you in better German then mine, that he was born in Germany.

      None of them will tell you that they are "Muslim" . . . despite that their is their faith.

      Insightful, my arse.

      You should maybe pay more attention to your "arse" . . . it might have more intelligence than your brain . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  27. Saudi Arabia by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they have the resources to attack someone, it should be the cash-rich Saudis who fund these terror cells. If you want to hurt jihadists, cut off their money.

    1. Re:Saudi Arabia by BlackPignouf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1000
      Whole Europe is selling football clubs, museums and car manufacturers to those double-face assholes (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, ...), because they're in need of their precious oil.
      Cut the dependency on oil, and you'll solve peak oil, global warming and islamic terror at the same time.

  28. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    Just like anyone in America can become a preacher. While more traditional religious approaches may include a more scholarly approach to understanding one's professed religion, we can tell by the zillions of self-taught American preachers that zealous bigots with big voices are the religious figures who make the news, either by blaming hurricanes on God's anger at gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina_as_divine_retribution) or by humping preachers in motels without discretion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Swaggart). I suspect radicalized elements of the Islamic faith are no different, and engage in all kinds of sin, just like their Protestant brothers.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  29. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed. The mufti system worked back when there was a caliphate, much like when the Catholic church was the only Christian game in town (Well, no-one cared about the Orthodox). There was a clear chain of command and structure of authority to decide who gets to be a priest and who doesn't, and set rules as to what areas priests may have authority over with procedures for dispute resolution. If there was a disagreement over what the religion is supposed to mean, you just go up the chain until someone is willing to resolve it, and you can disregard anyone who claims to be a religious teacher but isn't recognised by the dominant authority. Then the protestant reformation comes along, or the caliphate ends, and there's no more power structure. You get one priest screaming that infidels must die, and another screaming that they must be allowed to live in peace and receive preaching in the hope they will one day convert freely, and another screaming that they may live but need to demonstrate subservient status, and another saying believers should have no contact with them at all - and there is nothing at all to say the opinion of any is more valid than another, so in the end the most charismatic personality with the largest band of followers wins.

  30. Best attack possible: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just deface their twitter/blogs/Facebook accounts and fill them with images on "The Prophet" getting ass rapped.

    End these people bigotry please.

  31. Re:@All aspiring suicide bombers and their control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    just ringing all cellphones in the country at random times might just do the trick. annoying for everyone, perhaps unexpected detonation for some.

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm not really a big proponent of organized religion (to me it's a bit like UFO nuts pretending to be scientific because they band together and some of them found out how to take real science out of context). But in this special case, you can't help but think the Roman Catholics have something going right by requiring someone to study theology for a while before being allowed to claim they're a priest.

    Of course you do have the same shit in Islam. For the same reasons. These people don't give half a shit about Muhammad, Jesus or whoever else is actually important in the religion they abuse. To them, it's about power. If I was a religious man, I'd be happy with them getting what they deserve in their afterlife 'cause religions are usually quite unambiguous when it comes to what's waiting for those that pretend to be some kind of prophet or other person allowed to interpret the scriptures but aren't. Hint for those that don't know: The big buddy in the sky doesn't really like being used as a power tool.

    But I'm not a religious person. So I tend to want to see them being dealt with by temporal powers rather than celestial ones.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Erh... ok, there is actually something missing between first and second paragraph (I should proofread after doing some copy/pasting in my texts). The "same shit" refers to self proclaimed preachers.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You still have muftis with more and muftis with less "street cred" about. Just like with the various churches. If the pope says something, even people who are not Roman Catholics will listen. When Pope Francis said that according to him the whole evolution and big bang and 15 billion years and all that probably holds a lot more water than Creationism, you didn't see creationists go "fuck him, who gives a shit?" but they felt the pressing urge to comment on it. On the other hand, I kinda doubt that the Vatican would have bothered to even comment on it when some creationist preacher yells at the top of his lungs about how evolution is wrong.

    This is the difference between someone who is deemed important, and someone who simply isn't.

    Maybe important on a small scale. Said preacher is probably important in his parish where people actually bother to listen. But certainly not on a global scale.

    You have the same deal with Islam. There are a few people or congregations of people whose opinion is of global importance to Muslims, whether they follow that particular creed or not, whether they agree or not. They may not like it, but they can't simply dismiss it as bullshit said by someone who doesn't count.

    That does of course not mean that you won't find your radical splinter group that gathers around some charismatic leader who abuses the religion as a tool to gain power. But it also does not mean that this megalomaniac idiot has any more meaning to Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church has to Christianity.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. bla bla bla.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are these the same wimps that backed down when facing the Zetas? Yeah, fuck them...

  37. Re:never understood this cyberwar thing by dugancent · · Score: 1

    Anonymous is as influential as the bulletin board at my local grocery store.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  38. Inflational use of the term "war". by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it not? ... I wish people - especially those with enough brain-power to put computers and networks to creative use - would use more precise and less inflative wording.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  39. Re: What bullshit by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    If the purp0se of the website is to recruit suicide bombers and bloodthirsty killers to attack innocent 3rd parties, then you can consider it part of the infrastructure of a hostile army, and a first class target for anyone wanting to interrupt such monsters.

    Bullshit. Speech is speech. No matter how offensive you find it, you only have the right to use words against them, absolutely nothing else. Your reasoning is the same thing they use to force their women to cover up. If speech can incite violence then clothing can incite rape.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  40. the stink of mobile by lucm · · Score: 1

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

    when someone posts a link that points to the mobile version of a website, I always wonder if they did it while taking a shit.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:the stink of mobile by bigkahunah · · Score: 1

      Well thanks for calling me out on my shit...

  41. Re:Favorite Pastime for Muslims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Uh, no! The death of Abu Baqr was immediately followed by Muslim invasions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Persia and then rest of the region - from Spain to India. In all these places, locals were persecuted and subjugated under dhimmi status, until they embraced Islam. As a result, most people converted to Islam, while the people who resisted - primarily those in India - were subjected to a holocaust that would make Adolf Eichmann blush. Somewhere between 100-200M Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were slaughtered in India by various Muslim rulers over the last 1000 years.

  42. Anonymous: Cowards by Snufu · · Score: 1

    What a surprise.

  43. hopefully, they will out them by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it would be nice for them to out their network and point out ppl in the west who are working with AQ and/or ISIS.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:hopefully, they will out them by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So you're hoping script kiddies create, say, an FBI/CIA/NSA?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re: hopefully, they will out them by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I have not seen cia/FBI/nsa out possible suspects. So are you suggesting that they now do that?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re: hopefully, they will out them by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Why would I suggest anybody out possible suspects?

      The fucking target is web pages .

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  44. really? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Where do we see your bulletin board hitting front pages let alone any media?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:really? by dugancent · · Score: 1

      The local graffiti artist sometimes make the front page; doesn't mean they are influential.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  45. Re:Back to roots? by AdmV0rl0n · · Score: 1

    It did lose its way. It clobbered Scientology - but since then its wandered a hit and miss road in terms of what it understands or recognises as good or bad, targetable, or not.

    --
    We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
  46. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by davydagger · · Score: 2
    at the same time, when the catholic church had power, pre-reformation, they where hideiously corrupt, it didn't stop spliter sects, encouraged and fought wars.

    Whatever petty bickering the protestants have done it is nothing compared to the holy mess catholicism has done.

  47. Re:Reshaped as a tool. Good by davydagger · · Score: 2

    its mostly because all the real hardcore anti-government Anons are in jail or flipped. Isn't that obvious?

  48. Re:@All aspiring suicide bombers and their control by davydagger · · Score: 1

    dude, my cell phone does ring randomly, at random times. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  49. Don't tell us what you're going to do ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... tell us what you did.

    Anonymous is lame.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  50. Re:Reshaped as a tool. Good by Tetetrasaurus · · Score: 1

    Obvious comment about obviousness is obvious.

  51. Re:what are the terrorists responding to though? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Did you miss the French connection?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  52. Re:Reshaped as a tool. Good by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    This.

    Anonymous isn't, so much.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  53. Re:@All aspiring suicide bombers and their control by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Contrails and telemarketers, huh?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  54. Pure bullshit ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    What are Christians doing to shut down the Westboro church?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Pure bullshit ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      What are Christians doing to shut down the Westboro church?

      If you look at the business plan of the Westboro church . . . it was not even a church at all. It was a scam organization run by lawyers. They would come out and bother you, and if you tried to do anything about it, they would sue you.

      A lot of folks, Christians or whatever, were trying to do something about them. And the law enforcement knew everything about them.

      But, when push comes to shove, those Westboro Wackos didn't take their AK-47s out for a romp, which Muslims are tending to do today.

      If Westboro had done anything violent, the law enforcement would have taken them out. Not any "Christians". That's not their job.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Pure bullshit ... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      They are met at the funerals they protest at with superior numbers of an opposition belief set.

      But no, we don't firebomb their alternative viewpoint, as foul as we find it to be.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Pure bullshit ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your point about degrees of offense is well-taken. Only the authorities, given probable cause, and the courts applying due process, can stop Westboro church.

      That doesn't serve the point here.

      Again, what are CHRISTIANS going to do to shut down the Westboro church?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:Pure bullshit ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Again, what are CHRISTIANS going to do to shut down the Westboro church?

      Like I said, if Westboro, had started shooting up folks, instead of just being bow-heads, some American folks would have turned them in to the police.

      Regardless of their religion.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Pure bullshit ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, the Christians are doing nothing about Westboro church.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:Pure bullshit ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So what, exactly, do you want Muslims to do about terrorists who hijack the Muslim religion?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Pure bullshit ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The Christians were not doing anything about the Wesboro Church . . . be cause the Wesboro Church was not breaking any laws. They were annoying people.

      Muslims going out and killing people, just for fun, are breaking laws in a lot of countries.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  55. western tech by teknosapien · · Score: 2

    For a culture that hates everything western society has and states that technology is evil and the hand of satan. they sure take advantage of the modern developments that have their root in said culture.

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  56. Not this ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... terrorists are not hurt if you draw a cartoon of them.

    Most of the people who died in France were not terrorists.

    It's not good to piss off the Pope.

    Thanks for playing, though and stuff.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  57. Anonymous is the Wrong Tool for the Job by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    Al Qaeda, ISIS and their ilk aren't centralized organizations and can't be easily doxxed, DDoS'd or fought in an electronic manner. Bear in mind that the average terrorist has a less than average IQ and a higher than average belief in religion with a strong tendency toward violence. Their use of computers is at the same level as your typical non-technical user: Facebook, twitter, chat and email. So while Anonymous might cause them some hassle, it will ultimately require putting a gun to these people's heads and pulling the trigger.

  58. Re:Stupid Idea by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    What's the problem with taking down the websites that they use for recruitment purposes? They're not using those websites as their internal communications systems.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  59. Re: What bullshit by budgenator · · Score: 1

    That train left the station when hate speech became illegal.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  60. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by AlexSasha · · Score: 1

    This is actually a great point. Back in the day when the Ottomans ran most of the Middle East, the religious institutions were tightly controlled and becoming a qualified mufti was a process not too dissimiliar to that of the medical school of today. In other words, mufti were few and they basically stuck with the rather traditionalist interpretations of the Koran. Not too surprisingly, their messages were far from the extremes of today. However, once the British and the French took over in the 1920s, the process of forming religious schools became more open, and as a consequence we now have all sorts of crazy shiat being preached by anyone with any kind of mental disorder.

  61. Re: What bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about "fixing" their faqs to ensure that would be terrorists and bombers bring about their own deaths? A few adjustments to the bomb making instructions might cause at least some of them to blow themselves up first.

  62. Go after them is you must, but... by ikhider · · Score: 1

    When picking battles, it usually helps to know context of why things occur the way they do. The Charlie Hebdo attack did not come out of the ether, there is a long historical narrative behind it. This article will help. As usual, these things have less to do with religion and more to do with exercises in power and oppression. http://www.independent.co.uk/v...

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  63. Killing Muzzies too doesn't imply non-Islamic goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The fact that Muslims - Sunni Muslims - are slaughtered in great numbers by the jihadis shows it's about something other than defending Islam or Muslims.

    That's neither here nor there. Islam - as in Qur'an/Sunnah/Tafseers - does allow the killing of Muslims who don't support the Jihad. As a famous Islamic saying states: "Disbelief (in Islam) is worse than slaughter"

    Besides, one thing one needs to know about Muslims killing Muslims: that's actually a doctrine called Taqfeer. It's the declaration of one group of Muslims as apostates by another, and justifies any punishment for the latter. This, combined with the sectarianism within Islam, allows for what you describe.

    In any Muslim land, 'Islam' is defined by whatever sect the majority of that place is. In other words, in Saudi Arabia, it's the Wahabis - the followers of the Hanbali school of Islamic Jurisprudence, and out there, what the Shiites or Sufis or others do is strictly considered unIslamic. Whereas in Iran, since the Shiites are the majority there, Sunnis are the ones considered unIslamic. This also explains why in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, despite being a devout Muslim himself (getting the Qur'an written in his blood, putting 'Allahu Akbar' on the Iraqi flag), Iraq wasn't declared an Islamic republic. Had it been, Shiite Islam would have been the majority, and Sunnis would have been effectively declared Murtads (apostates).

    This persecution is not limited to just followers of rival sects, but is extended to sympathizers of those sects, even among followers of the loyal sect. In other words, Sunni Muslims who oppose ISIS/al Qaeda/Hamas/Sipah e Shehaba et al, are roadblocks in the advancement of Islam, and are thereby legitimate targets, as per the Sunnah. Same would work for Shiites who oppose the Iranian regime or Hizbullah. And so on.

    So the fact that Muslims too are killed by Jihadi groups does not contradict their stated goals about establishing Islamic states. Sometimes, Muslims who may simply oppose Jihad group A and support Jihad group B may be slaughtered by militias of A, but that doesn't mean that A is not out to establish Islam, or Shariah, even if it be their version. (And versions are usually Sunnite/Shiite or divisions within it, like Hanafi/Hanbali/Shafii/Maliki for Sunnis, or Jaafari/Khomenii for Shiites and so on).

  64. Re:Back to roots? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    If it's taking on Islam, it's found a good cause that will probably keep it busy for a while. No question of losing its way, unless and until Islam becomes as extinct at least as Nazism

  65. Why does anyone care about Anonymous anymore? by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

    I keep hearing about Anonymous "declaring war" and making threats every now and then, but rarely do I ever see anything come of it. At most they'll deface or DOS a website for a couple hours, maybe a day if they're lucky. How terrifying... And that's on the occasion they manage to actually pull off anything at all.

    They're just a bunch of attention-seeking wannabe activists who talk a lot of shit and try hijacking every major news story of unrest to convince the world that they're somehow relevant.

  66. ... just for fun ...???? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    Go away.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:... just for fun ...???? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Go away.

      Well, you, CaptianDork, are personally invited to travel to Syria or Irak to join the Islamic State or ISIS forces and join in their terrorist forces. They will be happy to "conform to the norm" of your opinions. Have fun! Don't let the door hi on your way out.

      You will not be missed here!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:... just for fun ...???? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, but where is "here?"

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:... just for fun ...???? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Bullshit, but where is "here?"

      If it was up your ass, you'd know . . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:... just for fun ...???? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You are dismissed.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:... just for fun ...???? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      You are dismissed.

      No, actually, I've just been promoted :-)

      I live in Europe and need to deal with these Muslim Troubles each day . . . I am really not looking forward to what the new on the TV will bring for me tomorrow.

      Oh, a bunch of European leaders going to Paris? Take a quick glance at the security advises on CNN . . . the thing will be a Turkey Shoot for the Muslims!

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  67. Re:Took them long enough by myid · · Score: 1

    Why did it take the murder of these people when thousands have died already and they stood by and did nothing.

    Exactly. Like this attack, which might have killed 2,000 people. From the article:

    In an interview with the BBC, district leader Musa Alhaji Bukar also estimated that 2,000 residents of Baga and 16 nearby towns had been killed by the Islamist terror group, and that Baga was now “virtually nonexistent ...”

    I guess Anonymous is getting involved now, because of the issue of freedom of speech. However, if Boko Haram, ISIS or Al-Qaeda kills you for not agreeing with their religious beliefs, that's a free speech issue also.

  68. Re: Favorite Pastime for Muslims by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

    How does blatant stupidity get marked informative? Mughal rule of India was not marked by excessive or significant strife. Nor was there any significant conversions , forced or otherwise. Its why the country try is dominantly Hindu. If 200 million Hindus had been killed, there would hardly be any left

  69. Shouting fire... Re:So they are doing what? by Fubari · · Score: 1

    just fyi: you can shout "Fire!" in a theater, crowded or otherwise, if there is in fact a fire.

  70. better check with experts first by kwbauer · · Score: 1

    Anonymous may want to check with /. user Cardoor (3488091) as he seems to be convinced that the Paris perpetrators were the agents of western governments. We wouldn't want Anonymous to go off against the wrong target.

  71. Following orders by phorm · · Score: 1

    Absolutely. There's no reason for me to follow a nutbag leader, and I wouldn't, but that guy over there, well so long as there are nutbag leaders out there, there will also be nutbag followers. Remove the leaders, and there will still be some remnants, but they'll lack coordination or cohesion.

    It's not that these people *have* to follow orders, it's that there are people giving them who will always be able to find orders. Also - for some - following orders may seem like the lesser evil, e.g. "kill these people you've never met or we will gang-rape your wife and young daughter, then kill them". It's not like the wingnuts in charge have any scruples against doing nearly anything to keep in control/power.

  72. Re:And in the name of Jihadists... by bidule · · Score: 1

    There was a clear chain of command and structure of authority to decide who gets to be a priest and who doesn't, and set rules as to what areas priests may have authority over with procedures for dispute resolution.

    Simony was a big problem in the Middle Ages. HRE Henry IV fought against Pope Gregory VII over who would name the bishops. There was still only 2 players who could name priests, which kept it relatively safe.

    And there were Cathars and Bogomils who got written off as heresy by the victors. Much closer to us (10-20 years or so), there were some (swiss?) traditionalist priests who got excommunicated for saying the mass in latin.

    All that does not stop some random Westboro Church or fake Caliphate from sprouting, but it might keep them from surviving a century or two.

    --
    ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  73. No by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    web pages and sites will be used to gather information. Yes, some of anonymous are SKs and they will simply deface a few sites. BUT, they might find more.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:No by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      BUT, they might find more.

      Maybe if they are North Korean.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  74. Re: Killing Muzzies too doesn't imply non-Islamic by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that the Christian* sects took their turn at this too. The Protestant/Catholic wars wreaked havoc across Medieval Europe until the Renaissance and mass education. *waves hands over a thousand years of history*

    Science. Education. Freedom. Opportunity.

    Support these enough and the rest will eventually take care of itself. Sure, violence still pops up on occasion (e.g. abortion clinic bombings), but it's far less than the indiscriminate and organized slaughter that existed back then.

    * I don't mean to imply it was only these two religions. Who can forget the horrible Amish incursions that nearly decimated Pennsylvania in the 70's!

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!