Slashdot Mirror
Newt Gingrich Says Visiting An ISIS Or Al Qaeda Website Should Be A Felony (techdirt.com)
flopsquad writes: Following the July 14th terror attack in Nice, France, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for U.S. Muslims to be tested for their belief in Sharia law, and if so, deported: "Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in Sharia they should be deported," Gingrich said in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. While the cleverest few might try to defeat such a test by answering "No," Mr. Gingrich laid out additional steps to shore up the plan: "The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they're doing on the internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you're not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke." Gingrich also opined that "Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail. No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals, nor on where Gingrich plans to deport U.S. citizens who fail his Sharia test. Gingrich went on to say: "Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon. It should be closed down immediately. Our forces should be used to systematically destroy every internet based source..." Mike Masnick from Techdirt writes: "Merely visiting a website should put you in jail? What if you're a journalist? Or a politician? Or a researcher trying to understand ISIS? That should be a felony? That's not how it works. This also assumes, idiotically, that merely reading a website about ISIS will make people side with ISIS. It's also not, at all, how the law works. Same with the second part about it being a felony to host such content."
What a retard. How do these people even get into government?
Jesus Newt, you can take off your crazy pants now. Trump didzn't pick you as his running mate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I always find it interesting when I see someone complaining about Sharia law, and the person doing the complaining has no problems at all with the idea of shoving Christian law on everyone.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
See here for more info.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Now that he's no longer in the running for Veep he's gonna use the bump to sell as many of his books & merchant to frightened old people as he can. As for how extreme his nonsense is, it's kinda like when the Nigerian scammers write nonsense about long lost princes. You want to weed out the less bat shit crazies so you don't waste you're time with anyone who isn't a mark.
/. pointed out that for the rest of the world thinking about the country with the most nukes/largest military tolerating this much crazy is unnerving...
The sad thing is a major half of American politics revolves around this. I forgot who but somebody on
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Doing nothing is preferable to lashing out like a scared toddler.
Just don't give them visas, green cards and all that. If we don't let them come to the US legally except under strict regulations, no one's rights get violated. Not ours, not theirs because foreigners have no right to enter our country. Discriminatory? Sure, but I don't see any mainstream party in the Islamic world batting an eye at the policy of Saudi Arabia of "No Jews, period."
If he had put it in these terms there would be a lot less complaining.
...nor on where Gingrich plans to deport U.S. citizens who fail his Sharia test.
Concentration camps of course. Like the Japanese citizens during WWII.
Probably need to declare some martial law as well.
Queue the malware that redirects to ISIS websites. Then they will point and laugh as all of us "infidels" jail, try, and execute ourselves.
No, he's actually intelligent. He is not saying this because it would be a smart thing to do, he is saying it to get press coverage and help with some strategic goal for his personal brand or for one of his current projects.
Real lawyers write in C++
How easily the lessons of history are lost upon the ignorant. When you threaten to imprison people for:
1. Having certain thoughts
2. Belonging to a specific ethnic, religious, or social group
3. Viewing, possessing, or accessing information
This is exactly the sort of thing that leads to totalitarianism and genocide. That is not to say that the dissemination of certain ideas are not dangerous (e.g. incitement to mass murder), or that certain forms of information/content should not be illegal to possess or distribute (e.g., child pornography). Yes, ISIS materials and websites that promote terrorism are awful, but merely *accessing* these, in of themselves, should not and cannot be regarded as criminal, since you would not only criminalize their supporters and sympathizers, but you'd criminalize anyone attempting to investigate them for the purposes of covert surveillance or academic research.
Terrorism, by its nature, is not the incitement of terror in a society for its own sake; no. Terrorism is a strategy by which individuals seek to overthrow a state by attacking its civilians; who, in their fear, appeal to the state to protect them through ever-increasingly draconian policies, such as those proposed by Mr. Gingrich. The state, whose interests are not to protect the people but to consolidate power and wealth into its own hands, makes the deliberate choice to restrict freedoms, until the people become so oppressed that they overthrow the government. This is how terrorism wins.
If the world wants to defeat ISIS and the like, the solution is to prevent their ideas from having any appeal. By threatening the same people that ISIS is trying to attract, all in the name of "national security," those who run the government are sending a very clear signal to anyone with a brain that in fact, they are not interested in stopping terrorism, but are all too happy to leverage fear as a way to gain power.
This might as well be a fucking "nerd tabloid" at this point; posting the ostensibly insane ramblings of an old man is nothing but click bait. Encouraging discussion of something so irrelevant is offensive, especially for your audience. This is vapid content, for vapid people.
What ever happened to the "stuff that matters" part of Slashdot?
"Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail
Who's going to be the first person to create some malware that visits ISIS and Al-Qaeda websites, and deploy that malware to members of Congress?
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
ISIS' goal with the attacks in the West is to provoke reactions against moderate Muslims in the West, causing radicalization and eventually open war between any Muslim and the West.
Gingrich plays right into their agenda.
---- Sig. gone.
Doing nothing is preferable to lashing out like a scared toddler.
Not if you're a politician, people will vote for a leader that takes resolute action over someone that shrugs and says live with it any day. Whether it actually helps doesn't matter, that's why you see security theater and such.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
People are dying. Mass murder has been made popular by ISIS and there have been several in just the last few weeks.
And there will be more.
Ok, so you don't like what Newt has to say. What is your solution?
Or is your solution to do nothing and ignore it?
I'm about as anti-ISIS as you can get, and a Republican. I also have a lot of respect for Newt for the way he reigned in the budget in the 90's, for which Bill Clinton gets a lot of credit. I'm completely fine with investigating ISIS sympathizers or those who identify as actual members, so long as it's not a witch hunt just because of someone's religion or country of origin, and based on actual leads. ISIS is a known terrorist and criminal organization, and I'm pretty sure there are laws on the books against aiding and abetting criminals or enemies of your country.
But what the fuck... A felony for looking at a pro-ISIS website? Does he not see the irony in adopting the same sort of tactics that a member of ISIS might propose - meting out punishment for anti-Islamic behavior or speech? Aren't we supposed to be better than that?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Look up "IRA, Terror Campaign, History of". Also a few reference to mass- and targeted murders by members of certain sects of the Christian religion in the last 10 years. OK, so you don't like what I have to say. What is your solution?
Or is your solution to do nothing and ignore human history and the US Constitution?
sPh
Newt gets stupider by the minute.
Don't forget- this is the guy who was having an affair while his wife was sick cancer, and who had her served divorce papers while she in the hospital recovering from surgery to remove a tumor. What a sweetheart.
And, to top it off, he was having the affair while he was trying to impeach Bill Clinton for.....having an affair. No hypocrisy there, no siree.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Why are we paying attention to him? He's been discredited as a hypocrite, with bigger moral failings than those he was accusing of not being of good character. He should be all rights be a non-entity at this point and doing nothing more political than talking at the local Oddfellows club.
Rejecting someone based on belief in Sharia is stupid. Sharia does not mean someone believes in overthrowing the US, or in violence, or anything like that. No one practicing Sharia in the US is cutting off the hands of thieves. It's just a religious set of rules, vague and fuzzy rules too as no one is in agreement on them anyway. If you're Muslim then you hold to at least some parts of Sharia (like not eating pork). And there are dozens of varieties of Islam.
In the extremist evangelican community there's been myths spread around that Sharia is replacing US laws in some place, which is ridiculous. We have many faiths in the US where the members may follow additional laws and rules and codes; for instance a legal divorce granted by a court of law is not considered binding in many faiths (Roman Catholics may need to get an additional annullment, some Orthodox Jewish groups need to get a specific "get", etc). Many religions and sects will want you to resolve disputes within their group rather than within the courts. None of those laws nullify US law though. And likewise, no one is trying to replace US law with Sharia law.
Having your own rules about what foods to eat or when to fast, whether or not to pay/receive interest, how much to give to charities, or what to wear, should never disqualify someone from being a citizen or resident of the US.
If you deport someone because of belief in Sharia then where do you deport them do if they are native born citizens of with multiple generations in this country? This is just hysterical pandering and fear mongering by someone known to have poor judgement.
Don't bring us a problem, we have enough of those. Bring us a solution.
So you happily want to throw out the first amendment?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Step 1: Stop recruiting for ISIS by giving them these convenient sound bites that can use to "prove" the west is in all out war to eradicate all muslims.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Ok, so you don't like what Newt has to say.
Nothing wrong in pointing out that Newt is a retard for suggesting something unconstitutional. And that doesn't mean that the OP has to come up with a solution that satisfies you.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
If we required them to stitch gold stars on their clothing (or pink triangles, Red triangles, blue triangles, purple triangles or black triangles) they could be easily identified. I mean who are they trying to assimilate to the culture they are living in.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
How about we propose that anyone visiting Newt Gingrich's website should be charged with a felony? It's just as harmful.
His proposal does just as much to undermine the Constitution of the United States as any AQ or ISIS propaganda. Let's all be glad he no longer holds public office, and hope he never does again.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Many people don't remember the 90's when the news was full of whatever vomit spewed from this man's mouth. When he cashed in his all his political favors for the millions of dollars that he was given by big corporations after serving in office, I thought we had heard the last of him. Makes sense that the worse of the worse would come crawling out of the woodwork. Thanks Trump.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
That makes just about as much sense, but - then again - hypocritical Bible-thumpers are just Christian Ayatollahs with a different God, and so why would anyone expect anything less from such a mind(less)-set.
Dear Newt: the sick and the tired need to get out of government.
Please hand over the matches and head for the nearest exit, and don't get cranky if security decides to perform a strip search.
Just a question. What's Arabic for "glasnost?"
What a pansy liberal option! Execute *everyone* who doesn't vote the right way, just to be sure.
Fine Newt. So what is the penalty for THIS?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Here, have some saltwater.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
How about making it a felony to suggest stupid, unenforceable or simply outright impossible to uphold laws? Every time a politician suggests a law that can easily be shown to be beyond idiotic by someone who, unlike said politician, knows something about the subject the politician wants to regulate, the politicians collects 30 days of jail time.
I swear, by the end of a 4 year term the average congressmen is in for life. And then some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Kind of surprised to see something along the lines of an insightful discussion on today's slashdot, so I'll give a shot to answering the question (since I haven't found such an answer yet). It's actually an economic model that could be of interest to slashdot, insofar as slashdot is some sort of journalistic enterprise.
Solution: STOP supporting the terrorists with FREE publicity. I'm not saying that the journalists shouldn't report the terrorist incidents, but they need to stop using deliberate publicity-seeking disaster porn as part of their business model. The never-ending quest for more eyeballs to sell more ads is giving the advantage to the terrorists. The more outrageous the terrorist act, the more free publicity and the HARDER the mass media works to give the terrorists more free publicity. In case you haven't noticed, it is NOT discouraging the terrorists from trying to devise ever more horrendous attacks.
Instead, ALL of the responsible mainstream media sources should agree NOT to compete for eyeballs with disaster porn produced by terrorists. The reports of terrorist incidents should be unified and limited. They should form a special consortium to prepare the reports on terrorists incidents, and all of the media sources would only broadcast the SAME stories about the terrorist acts. The stories would avoid sensationalism and simply report the terrible facts. Each media source could use all of the reports, or some of them, but it would not be a competition for eyeballs for terrorists. Actually, the incentives would now be reversed, and all of the media sources would be motivated to produce more news about other stories so they can compete for those precious eyeballs--but without helping or encouraging the terrorists.
Free publicity is an oxymoron. It is incredibly valuable. Just ask the Donald.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
..and yet he was right about the marxist fifth columns.. They've managed to infest society in a way that makes it very difficult to discuss reality.
still just trying to get invited to the front of the plane.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Per my longer suggestion in an earlier reply, we can protect the First Amendment without playing the game on the terrorists' rules. The responsible and mainstream mass media should agree to stop competing for eyeballs by giving the terrorists free publicity. Instead, they will only report the same standard stories about the terrorists, and therefore have no economic incentive to help the terrorists. Instead the economic incentive will actually be reversed in favor of real news rather than fake news created by terrorists only for the sake of getting the free publicity.
(See the longer reply for more about one way this could be done.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
So ISIS's goal is the same as the Republicans. Provoke a war, then capitalize on it.
Learn to love Alaska
Right. "Malware" like TinyURL.com, Bit.ly...need I go on?
I come here for the love
Being Newt Gingrich should be a felony
Dunno about you, but I was stupid enough to vote for Reagan *both* times. The one thing I've learnt about these assholes in the intervening years, is that they only care about making government smaller when they aren't the ones in charge.
C|N>K
Indeed. As always, the solution to speech with which you disagree is free speech of your own.Make a website pointing out why ISIS is bad and how it tries to lure people in. That's going to do far more to prevent people from joining ISIS than trying to make it a crime to view a website.
Not only is this a bad idea on principle, but it's so easily abused and impossible to enforce. It would take all of about five seconds after it has been passed for some mischievous person, likely outside U.S. jurisdiction to start sending links to pro-ISIS websites to millions of unsuspecting people. Never mind things like web forums where anyone can post a pro-ISIS message, making potential criminals out of anyone who visits that particular thread or the site owner for not removing it in a timely manner.
to fight theocracy.
The goal of ISIS is to provoke the US into essentially "declaring war" on Muslims. Doing so will bolster their ranks as other Muslims will join ISIS's cause when the US has taken an aggressive stance against their entire religion. It will also give ISIS a legitimacy it craves since "war" is something that states declare on other states, and ISIS wants to be thought of as a legitimate state rather than what they actually are: a wacko cult group.
Declaring war (figuratively or literally) is probably the worst thing that could happen. Imagine a repeat of Vietnam except that it takes place all over the globe. The US cannot win through military action against an opponent that uses asymmetric warfare. We've been there, done that TOO MANY times. The only way to "win" this conflict is to avoid it, ideally doing so through a fight of ideas using the tactics and psychology you would use to take apart a cult. We should show our support for each other, present an unflinching front, and not tolerate any compromise to our ethics and way of life. Once the US starts down the path of compromising it's freedom and compromising it's way of life "because terrorists," we have given ISIS exactly what they want, and they will take more. Arguably we've already started down that path. It needs to stop now.
I'm completely fine with investigating ISIS sympathizers
How do you identify ISIS sympathizers without violating people's rights? Or do you just take the route a disturbing number of politicians have and legislate away annoying things like the Fourth Amendment, and put everyone under mass surveillance? And then, even if you do find someone who sympathizes with ISIS (perhaps even through an open confession), what would you do about it?
There's no law against having dangerous or stupid opinions (as evidenced by the "presumptive Republican presidential nominee", a phrase I'm getting all to tired of hearing). As long as someone doesn't take action themselves, or encourage others to do so, they're free to tell the world they think ISIS is just peachy keen and doin' Allah's work.
Regardless, this stale bullshit Newt is spewing is just another step on the road to the Thought Police. Reading something, even batshit religious propaganda, should never be a crime, no matter how long we've been at war with Eurasia.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
It's slightly worse than that. ISIS are actively trying to usher in the apocalypse. They believe they are the/a key component in the end of the world.
Hopefully the desire to usher in the apocalypse is not shared by mainstream Republicans.
---- Sig. gone.
Any organization which hosts such a website should be engaged in a felon
Engaged "in a felon?" How does that compare to being engaged to a woman while your ex-wife dies of cancer, after you've told her she isn't young enough or pretty enough to be a First Lady? Ah, the party of family values. Newt Gingrich is an unrepentant piece of shit of a human being and nobody should be paying any attention to what he suggests.
"If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
You should visit the states sometime.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Far more americans are murdered by Americans. Want to make a difference, vote for gun control, it works a damn sight better than Prayers. This yelling and screaming about terrorists is a diversion, its there to stop americans looking at how much the US is falling apart. Wages have not rising since the 70's in real terms Paved roads are being ripped up because states can not longer afford to maintain them Dams, Bridges and other infrastructure is having its life expectancy extended because no one can afford to replace it. The education system is worsening Meanwhile you are slowly loosing more of your freedoms....
Solution: STOP supporting the terrorists with FREE publicity. I'm not saying that the journalists shouldn't report the terrorist incidents, but they need to stop using deliberate publicity-seeking disaster porn as part of their business model.
I know where you're coming from, but what about the reporting of the latest attack in Nice, France was "disaster porn"? The reporting I've seen didn't seem sensationalist, but then, I suspect the sensationalism is directly proportional to which news source one consumes. But I fear you're asking for the impossible for *everyone* to show reasonable restraint, and what's more, you're implicitly putting partial blame on the media, not the barbarians who incite others to attack innocent people or support them through funding, training, or other support - and I'm not sure that's really fair.
No one likes to hear that there simply isn't a reasonably way of preventing all such attacks in a free society while still remaining free. Our law enforcement agencies will simply have to do the best they can under the constraints we ALL have to live with to root out these monsters and keep us as safe as possible. And our job is to not let terror attacks do what they're intended to do, which is to intimidate and terrorize us.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
The US and the EU have a bet going to see who can pass the dumbest ideas on Earth :|
I'll see your ban on encryption and raise you a felony just to look upon words ! :|
Anyone who reads a book or watches TV depicting criminal behavior should be charged with said behavior. A service that provides support or hosts a site that is pro ISIS should be guilty of a felony ?? How about they be notified and asked or told under some valid law or jurisdiction to take down such a site first.
She turned me into a Newt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
He did not say "visiting an ISIS or Al Qaeda website should be a felony". You actually have to visit and "favor" ISIS.
I still think Newt is wrong, and you should have to prove that you gave significant aid to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but it makes what he said less bad.
Is that your problem? "Marxist fifth columns" is who you're blaming for your inability to discuss reality?
Dude, I liked you better when you were blaming ADD.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How do you identify ISIS sympathizers without violating people's rights?
The same way one would identify links to organized crime, perhaps? I'm not a police investigator, but I'd imagine it would probably start by investigating known associates of ISIS criminals, following money or funding trails to or from those organizations, and so on. I'm not advocating blanket fishing expeditions - that's explicitly what I'm arguing against.
Or do you just take the route a disturbing number of politicians have and legislate away annoying things like the Fourth Amendment, and put everyone under mass surveillance?
Apparently you didn't read to this point in my post, or you purposefully chose to ignore it: "so long as it's not a witch hunt just because of someone's religion or country of origin, and based on actual leads."
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
You seem to be forgetting this little snippet of the 1st amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
My first reaction is to think "what an idiot!" My second reaction is to think "Wait, this got somebody (I didn't care to hear from in the first place) into the news... is he mimicking Trump's approach?!"
Listen up United States! This is what happens when you award crackpots and morons with press. You end up with those willing to say anything getting elected. You get the government you deserve and heaven help those of us who just haven't yet built up the necessary disillusionment to emigrate.
Newt's ideas would violate the Constitution in astonishingly egregious ways. They would almost certainly be thrown out by the Supreme Court, and it's doubtful that Congress would even pass them to begin with. They are the ramblings of a man desperate for a bit more attention after Trump temporarily resuscitated the dead corpse that was his reputation.
There's no particularly easy way to deal with Jihadism, because, in reality, it isn't a single phenomenon at all. When you have everything from terror cells launching relatively sophisticated attacks like 9-11 to lone wolves like the Nice attacker, you're not dealing with some discrete homogeneous entity like the Mafia. And in reality, what you're often seeing in the lone wolf attacks is people who tend to be rather shitty Muslims, drug abusers, petty criminals, people who up until the moment they suddenly found God, were most notable for being pretty damned bad Muslims. ISIS has recruited all sorts of these people, Westerners of Middle Eastern heritage and even non-Middle Eastern origins who know fuck all about Islam.
Now I think Islam is utter rubbish. But then again, I think Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Scientology, Judaism, and the whole long list of religions to be a bunch of garbage. Maybe there's a nice or decent message here and there, but it's stacked full of ritualistic and mythical nonsense for the most part. But that being said, there's nothing in the Qu'ran as far as violence, misogyny and plain old fashioned wickedness, and certainly there were strains of Christianity that were every bit as vile as anything the extremist Muslims can produce today. In fact, there are still some pretty bloody awful groups claiming to be Christian, and some of them, like the KKK, within the living memory of many people, waged terror campaigns.
Frankly, as far as lone wolfs go, there are no real solutions. If they are not identified in time, whether they be Jihadist, white supremacist, anarchist, or whatever particular brand of lunatic fringe ideology, they can be so successful precisely because they're not really affiliated with any larger group.
I'm afraid, in a nation that believes in Liberty, you just have to accept some risks. The US and most European countries are hardly strangers to various forms of destructive violent radicalism, long before Jihadism was making the 5 o'clock news.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
what is this nazi germany 2016? and is the next move put all Muslims into Internment Camps? trump is not that extreme.
Because knowledge and freedom means imprisoning and removing the legal rights from those who's belief system differs. Well done Newt... Sieg Heil!!
The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries, is to annihilate Islam root and branch. Turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland would be a good start.
Congratulations, you've just become an ISIS propaganda poster.
Deport them to Bikini Atoll.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Don't bring us a problem, we have enough of those. Bring us a solution.
So you happily want to throw out the first amendment?
All of them! How can we defend the constitution if we have to follow it?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
French intelligence have been monitoring its own mosques for a while. Extremists know that and recruit outside of mosques.
... goddam Constitution in the ass?
Neuter Newt.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Mass murder is becoming common because of ISIS. You don't like Newt's ideas.
What are your ideas?
Don't bring us a problem, we have enough of those. Bring us a solution.
The Orlando massacre, while tragic, would have to occur daily to crack the top 5 causes of death. Even then, I'm not sure it would. If you took the combined global death tolls of every terrorist act in the last two decades and condensed them into a single quarter, then put it on repeat, it still wouldn't make the top 5 annual US deaths.
Terrorism is vastly overblown as a threat to any of us. Far more damage is done to our daily lives in the name of stopping terrorism than has ever been done in the name of it.
So, I agree the best solution is not to do nothing - the best solution is to dismantle all the somethings people have done in the last two decades under the guise of protecting us from terrorism.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
sometimes a person can end up on an unintended site. this man is a moron and a threat to America when given a soapbox.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Sure takes Rick Rolling to a new, dark level.
They might tag someone like me with such a law. I never deliberately go to any Daesh-run sites, but I do follow the news on Syria closely, and some of the videos, reports, etc posted of various attacks, defenses, status reports, etc from various groups in various locations are posted to social media. And when I go to a random video, I have no clue whether a particular account who posted or shared a video or report is linked with some particular "prohibited" entity. And there are so many small entities that sometimes switch alliances, one entity might be "fine" at some point but then no longer "fine" later. And then there's the collaborative groups. For example, Nusra is part of Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest). Most of JaF isn't considered terrorist groups, but Nusra is linked with al-Qaeda and is (even though they're bitter enemies with Daesh, who is enemy #1... crazy, this war....). So, if JaF puts out a drone video of an assault on south Aleppo and I watch it, am I in trouble? What's the dividing line? Whether the person who filmed it is from al-Nusra? Whether the drone pilot is from al-Nusra? Whether the video editor was from al-Nusra? Whether the guy running the twitter account is a member in al-Nusra, even if it's not a "Nusra account"? Am I supposed to somehow be able to know these things?
Then there's outright mistagging - Youtube takes stuff down without really paying close attention to it. For example, they took down a video I saw once which started out looking like one of those horrific Daesh execution videos - prisoners in jumpsuits, marched out by people with knives, lined up in a row, the knives lifted up in the air in unison. Except that the video wasn't from Daesh; it was from a FSA group from North Aleppo (Azaz pocket). The prisoners were Daesh soldiers. And they weren't executed; the knives were used to cut their bindings. Then an imam came in and gave the prisoners a sermon about how murder is wrong and so forth, and then the prisoners were walked to a holding facility. But clearly whoever had the video deleted paid no attention to who posted it, nor watched more than just the beginning.
Hourglass says she knows a kid in Iowa who grows up to be president.
I think he was assuming you had common sense.... Looking at a website is not the same as subscribing or actively participating in the activities, supporting the cause and providing comfort to the enemy. Imagine people "visiting" NAZI or Imperial Japanese websites in 1940 and that is what he is trying to convey.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
No word on the First and Fourth Amendment implications of his proposals
Get a clue. The Bill of Rights is no longer in effect and much of the rest of the Constitution is or soon will be dead. How the hell can we defeat the enemies of freedom unless we take away all American's rights, assume they are guilty unless proven innocent, and deport everyone who doesn't accept the Truth of the One Christian God? (Including the split personality disorder and the zombiesm.) The enemies of this country have a paranoid hatred of us and we must defeat them by proving them right.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I didn't say anything about Congress in this reply or the earlier one, so it's really hard to regard your response as sincere or in good faith, but I'll go ahead and pretend for a bit that there is some potential for a civil discussion today's slashdot.
If you want to raise the NEW question of legislative mandate, I would say it could fit under the "public good" idea that was part of the licensing of the airwaves by AM radio stations way back when. It was explicitly required that they serve the public good in exchange for being granted what were essentially monopoly rights for the use of certain frequencies. I think that was actually a good thing and probably contributed to some good things in America in more democratic days. More "politically representative" days if you have been indoctrinated to hate the other word.
What I am suggesting would basically be an agreement among the major news broadcasters NOT to compete for eyeballs by using disaster porn that was created for that purpose. All of them would agree to use the SAME coverage. If a news story was classified as "artificial disaster porn seeking free publicity", then that story would be handed over to a special group of reporters who would cover the story on behalf of ALL of the responsible news organizations. Because they would have access to the same coverage, they would not be competing for eyeballs on that story, and they would not have the incentive to make it bigger and better, which is exactly what the terrorists want.
How to staff the special group is a good question. I think that there should be a special pool of experienced reporters assigned from all of the news organizations. However, it might make good sense to have some of them be permanent employees of the special pool.
Still don't see any need for government involvement, though it might make sense to reward the media organizations that participate with a special tax credit, or put a special terrorist-support surtax on the media organizations that refuse to participate.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's common script used by unscrupulous bastards for millennia.
Play Command HQ online
One key difference is that ISIS isn't capable of ushering the apocalypse but Republicans can.
Play Command HQ online
Newt isn't retarded, he just doesn't care about the constitution.
Play Command HQ online
It's slightly worse than that. ISIS are actively trying to usher in the apocalypse. They believe they are the/a key component in the end of the world. Hopefully the desire to usher in the apocalypse is not shared by mainstream Republicans.
The central distinguishing characteristic of Evangelicals, compared to other Christians, is the belief that the Apocalypse is near at hand, and that is a wonderful, wonderful, thing! It is God's ultimate plan for the entire world! The wicked will be smitten and the righteous (themselves, that is) will be rewarded!
Evangelicals constituted more than 40% of all votes that Romney got in the last election.
So, nearly half of Republicans do ardently hope for the Apocalypse.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
"The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries."
That's correct. That's also true of Christianity. Should we annihilate that religion too?
Play Command HQ online
That's a bingo!
Place something witty here
The President pretty much summed it up when he said "Heck, I couldn't even pass that test!"
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I feel like I'm being unclear. I am absolutely NOT saying that the criminals are not heinous monsters. I am saying we should NOT play the game by the monsters' preferred rules. We can change the rules against them.
Let me try to reword it:
If a story is classified as "disaster porn created for free publicity" (which would include almost every terrorist attack), then that news story would be transferred to a special pool of reporters. They would produce unified reports that would be shared with all responsible news organizations. There would be no additional free coverage for the terrorists, and no competition for eyeballs, since that story would be reported in the same way everywhere. Some news organizations might choose to give it less time, but that would be their decision.
Rather than trying to make money from supporting the terrorists, the news organizations would be incentivized to compete on everything else. Only the fake news deliberately created for free publicity would be subject to "equalization".
I don't want to go too far into speculative details, but I think the special pool should be staffed by experienced reporters from all of the news organizations, probably serving on relatively short rotations. I also think there should be a protest mechanism, if some of the news organizations feel that a news story or some aspects of a news story should not be limited to the special "disaster porn" pool.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The rhetoric sounds good but simply has no basis in reality. 30% of the Muslim population average across the globe wants Sharia law to be the rule of their Government. If you believe the statistic 1.5 Billion Muslims that is 500 million people that want you dead if you are not a Muslim (go read up on what Sharia law is). 50% believe that anyone leaving the Muslim faith should get the death penalty. More than half say that it's okay for a guy to hit his wife (as long as she deserved it), and that the death penalty is fine for adultery. Adultery almost always applies to women since a woman's testimony is worth 1/4th a mans, so if a woman gets raped it's her own fault and she should be killed for it.
Sorry that facts don't back the common rhetoric, but if we can't admit what's real we can't begin to contemplate a solution.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Apocalypse - .any of a class of Jewish or Christian writings that appeared from about 200 b.c. to a.d. 350 and were assumed to make revelations of the ultimate divine purpose.
1
2. a prophetic revelation, especially concerning a cataclysm in which the forces of good permanently triumph over the forces of evil.
3. any revelation or prophecy.
I think you mean Armageddon.
1. the place where the final battle will be fought between the forces of good and evil (probably so called in reference to the battlefield of Megiddo. Rev. 16:16).
2. the last and completely destructive battle:
The arms race can lead to Armageddon.
3. any great and crucial conflict.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You were extremely dishonest, as I will illustrate momentarily.
NEVER quote individual sentences from any book. Not the Bible, and not the Koran. Treat ALL books as "books".
Bible sentences are numbered as a form of scholarly navigation in a pre-standard-book-printing world where a particular sentance could be on different spots of different pages depending on the shape and size of the paper and the hand lettering or printing, not because they are individual stabnd-alone fortune cookie sayings. It allowed a bit of text to be found by saying "the book of Mark, Chapter 2, verse 3" and so forth, enabling different people with Bbiles in different form factors to refer to the same text. Christian scholars originally numbered sentences for navigation, and average Christians are raised using numbered verses and thus used to doing it, but it is sloppy and leads to bad things as people can easliy get very bad ideas without the context, as you could with any book.
When you read the entire Bible, IN FULL CONTEXT, you get a consistent book. The Bible DOES NOT advocate ANY violence. It recounts certain specific historical violent events in the past, and predicts certain violent events in some indefinite future moment, but NEVER advocates for violence and NEVER tells Chrsitians to try to bring about any of the dark future events. There is NO basis for any claim that Jesus taught his followers to do any violence. This is VERY different from the Koran, where the Prophet Mohammed is labelled "the perfect man" and his followers are taught to emulate him - and he is a violent warloard who rapes and murders and advocates peacefully converting people to Islam where possible, coexisting with non-Muslims when necessary, and forcibly converting or killing non-believers when possible.
Now to your dishonesty:
I would not normally quote the Bible on Slashdot, as this is a tech site, not a religious one, but you have so twisted things in an obvious deceit that I must to expose it. I will quote enough for the minimal proper context:
Chapter 10 of the book of Matthew is Jesus speaking to his 12 apostles. He is instructing them to go out into the world and TEACH his message with words and deeds of peace and to simply peacefully leave places that reject them. He then explains that he is not there to, as we would now say "muddy the waters" or "blur the lines" but rather to draw strong distinctions, separating some from others. He is warning them that they will not always be well recieved and that his words will cause some people to be draw TO the apostles and that others would be hostile and turn away from them. In THIS way Jesus says he is like a sword separating things. To get the full context, you need to read the entire Book, but this is Slashdot,so I will only quote enough to out your deception enough that those who care can see it and do more reading on their own to see just how deceptive you have been.
Beginning at verse (sentence 16) Jesus, speaking to his apostles, warns about the environment he is sending them into and how they ought to behave saying:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."
Then he further warns about things they will face and that, as his servants, they will be treated worse than he (as their master) is treated:
"And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all
... is he mimicking Trump's approach?!"
Newt was on Donald's short list for VP. Donald just announced today that Mike Pence was selected, but it looks like Newt made these remarks when he still thought he was in the running. Supposedly Donald's political advisors (i.e. his family) have been debating whether to choose a serious person as VP, or "another pirate". Unfortunately for Newt, they went with the former. Mike Pence has many flaws, but he is not a circus clown like Newt.
http://www.isis-products.com.t...
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Can you not recognize a trial balloon? More common in the UK, where someone less senior (_NOT_ the big cheese) throws out details for an established theme to see reaction. Easily deniable if excessively opposed, easily co-opted if insufficiently opposed. Look for a payoff as an Ambassadorship or Cabinet post.
As for legality, please show me the Feds care. They certainly did not when Senator Joe McCarthy abused subpoena power. Both before and since, the Feds have lawyers who will argue that zero is one.
Bear spray creates a cloud which is appropriate for running bears off but Is not as appropriate for self defense against people, especially indoors. I think you would be better served using regular Mace.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
And how exactly will you take a significant number of guns out of the streets (including the ones that the criminals carry) without turning the country into an orwellian distopia?
Or having a competing company plant something on the competitions website to get their business shut down.
Oh the litigation...
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
So we should put the public dissemination of information concerning such events firmly and exclusively into the hands of an arbitrary group that's not actually accountable to anyone? Smart.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"Arm the citizens with those, give them a fighting chance without endangering the community"
You think spraying a closed cabin of a speeding truck would be better than the >50 full metal jacketed bullets that actually hit the cabin?
"So ISIS's goal is the same as the Republicans. Provoke a war, then capitalize on it."
Unfortunately Reps have more Raytheon stocks than Isis.
"Well, one thing that's different about Nice is that, at least to my knowledge, no one has been given credit yet."
Nowadays credit is taken, not given and yes, Isis already took it.
How are they going to know?
Think about that part, that's what they want. "Hey, we are just obeying the law by keeping you from ISIS by tracking everything you do online.
Don't pay us any mind.
Because the Great Firewall of China worked so well and nothing could possibly be abused in Totalitarian Government style. What could possibly go wrong?
We'll make great pets
Ah yes, the hoary "moderate muslim" theory. There aren't any "moderate muslims". Never were, never will be. The koran and the "teachings" of the child molester mohammed are works of evil and hate. If you don't subscribe to the evil and hate, you're not a muslim at all. You might be paying it lip service, and following through the prayer exhibitory bullshit, but you're faking it.
Earth to pussies: treading on tiptoe because you're all afraid and quaking in your boots that "they might get mad" is not a winning strategy. I have more respect for christian dogma - turning the other cheek not from fear, but from inner strength and resoluteness.
I'm gonna guess you are too young to remember when Newt was speaker of the house.
He has always been this way. Not only that, but he is probably the one politician who bears the most responsibility for turning the republican party into the party of Trump.
Back in 1978, when I first came to AEI, Tom Mann and I set up a series of small, off the record dinners with some new members of Congress. And one of them, Newt Gingrich, stood out right away. As a brand new member of the House, he had a full-blown theory of how Republicans could break out of their seemingly permanent minority, and build a majority.
And over the next 16 years, he put that plan into action. He delegitimized the Congress and the Democratic leadership, convincing people that they were arrogant and corrupt and that the process was so bad that anything would be better than this. He tribalized the political process. He went out and recruited the candidates, and gave them the language to use about how disgusting and despicable and horrible and immoral and unpatriotic the Democrats were. That swept in the Republican majority in 1994.
The problem is that all the people he recruited to come in really believed that shit. They all came in believing that Washington was a cesspool. So what followed has been a very deliberate attempt to blow up and delegitimize government, not just the president but the actions of government itself in Washington.
And Republican leaders, like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, were complicit in this. I think when Republicans had their stunning victory in 2010, Cantor et al thought they could now co-opt these people. Instead, they were co-opted themselves.
-- Norm Orenstein author It's Even Worse Than It Looks
Don't fall for the tired old "witch hunt" narrative. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows there is NO SUCH THING as a "witch". Trying to root out communist subversives in the US in the 1950s, on the other hand, was operating against real enemies in a target rich environment.
Absolutely agreed that visiting a web site as felony is a concept that is way beyond crazy. Sadly, there is precedent. Bumping into a single FAKE image that is not even "child porn", but merely a cartoon that suggests it, for example - bumping into that while web surfing constitutes a felony because you are now in "possession" (in your browser cache) of what has been defined by idiots to be "child porn".
Are you high, or just ignorant? How about:
"kill them wherever you find them"
"fighting is prescribed for you"
"soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"
"those who believe fight in the cause of allah"
"and be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy"
"and fight them until there is no more fitna and religion is all for allah"
"Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands"
and on, and on, and on.
They poor guy still thinks he is in the running to be Trump's sidekick in the upcoming circus. Someone better break the bad news to him gently.
There are lots of moderate Muslims in the US and Europe.
There's few in the cities in large Muslim countries, and basically none in rural areas.
Moderates are a small group of the overall Muslim word, but in the West most Muslim are moderate. This has can be traced back to where and why they emigrated to the west.
This could / will change when / if refugees from more rural areas without higher education makes out a larger part of the Muslim population in the West.
---- Sig. gone.
Hopefully the desire to usher in the apocalypse is not shared by mainstream Republicans.
I'm having trouble figuring out if you're joking, or you're just unfamiliar with the contents the the book of Revelations. In case of the latter, some of the pre-requisites for the apocalypse are that the Jewish people gain control back over Jerusalem, and then Satan will summon up his armies against Jerusalem which will trigger the second coming.
its obvious that the whole of Washington DC has a desperate need to be in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (and while we are at it lets review the Bill of Rights).
as any member of the armed forces has to say " I must disagree with what you are saying but I WILL DIE TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT"
(now i would personally leave the sites up but have logs of who goes and what they download/view while there)
"Not for tax payers it hasn't"
Not for the *average* tax payer it hasn't.
The Orange Man chose Mr Pence, not Mr Gingrich, as his running mate.
"It should be banned outright as fascism"
As your comment should?
That moron Newt ...
The Nice attacker "... did not seem overtly religious. Locals said he was often seen drinking beer and never attended the small mosque near his block of flats. ... had been in trouble with police between 2010 and 2016 for threatening behaviour, violence and petty theft. ... "
In March, a court in Nice convicted him of assaulting a motorist with an improvised weapon - a wooden pallet
Source: BBC.
The Paris attackers (the two Abdeslam brothers, one who blew up himself, and the other one who was arrested) owned a bar serving alcohol and were not religious either. They did not attend a mosque. There were drugs in that bar too, and neighbours complained.
Source: Business Insider.
Other attackers also got in trouble with the law, petty crime, drug dealing, ...etc.
This seems like a recurring theme with Islamic State now. They don't recruit from religiously observant people, like Al-Qaeda used to do. They recruit ex-criminals, apparently seeking salvation by committing a 'martyrdom act'.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Agreed:
"Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/n...
"Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS"
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/0...
Example:
Do NOT click on this URL: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/
On the other hand, this is a perfectly safe Mickey Mouse cartoon site: http://heavy.com/tag/isis/
How many times have YOU been misdirected to a website to which you had no intention of going? And that idiot wants it to be illegal?
If you visit a child porn site and view images, are you not guilty of a felony?
Will they not try to put you in jail if they can find you?
Will the operators of the site not be prosecuted for felonies?
The precedent is set. They question is now, do you view the wanton murder of innocents, the advocating for such, etc. to be as egregious as child abuse?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
...Newt would find himself arrested, having clicked the link to review his lost package or overdue library book, etc. If you don't understand the Internet then you shouldn't opine on how it should be regulated. One watering hole attack later, the entire populace of United States would be under indictment. Think FaceBook injection...
Hopefully the desire to usher in the apocalypse is not shared by mainstream Republicans.
Unfortunately the same desire is shared by more than a few republicans, they call it "the rapture". Their christian god lifts them to heaven while everyone else burns, apparently the same god told muslims a different story.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Indeed ISIS have lost 2/3 of their territory in the last 2yrs thanks mainly to US/Russia. They will barely rate a mention in our grandchildren's history books.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This is not a hard game to play. Education is as as simple as a goddamn web search and attempt to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sharia deals with many topics, including crime, politics, marriage contracts, trade regulations, religious prescriptions, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting. Adherence to sharia has served as one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Muslim faith historically.[5] In its strictest definition, sharia is considered in Islam as the infallible law of God.[6][not in citation given]
It is ILLEGAL under SHARIA to be Gay! It is ILLEGAL under SHARIA to ignore Muslim religious requirements. You can be Christian but you better face East and Pray when they do, or you are a criminal.
Saudi Arabia lives under Sharia Law, which is why you can not freely travel to that country and do so at your own risk by US Law. Show us how peaceful the Religion is by paying a visit and publicly announcing you are a gay. Even better, go publicly announce your Jewish faith and read some Torah in the public square. You are a feckless lying twat who would do no such thing because you know you would be beheaded by those "peaceful" Muslims following their Sharia Law.
I have facts to back my statements, not bullshit. Where are your facts exactly? Oh yeah, those things are bad.
I just proved your statements false, and further repeated attempts at lying are going to be ignored. Not because you are Anonymous, but because you are a liar attempting to hide behind anonymity.
Here is the poll I mentioned. Not that a lying liar like you would read any such inconvenient facts but the bystander may.
Feckless and dishonest, quote the resume you sport.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So ISIS's goal is the same as the Republicans. Provoke a war, then capitalize on it.
It's worked as an economic stimulous plan for years.
War is expensive on many levels, including economic. But on its face, it is not an "economic stimulus plan." When you drop a bomb on someone, you don't send them a bill.
To be sure, war efforts have spurred the creation of many technologies more rapidly than they might have been created otherwise. But I'm not sure it's worth it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Too Stupid; Didn't Read
Known racist asshole says racist asshole things. Film at 11.
My mother-in-law spouts out with stuff like this. What's funny, is that I've driven up and down and across the US quite a bit in the last few years, and I have yet to see all the gross examples of crumbling infrastructure that are supposedly out there. I have also seen my entire family, getting by on USDA food surplus cheese, powdered milk, and eggs in the 1970s, achieve reasonable levels of living, with their own homes, vehicles, and no more welfare/food stamps etc.
Ironic that you push for people to vote for gun control (which we already have plenty of), then talk about people slowly loosing more of their freedoms. How about we encourage people to be civil and respectful to each other, everyone all together. That might work better.
I prefer doing nothing to doing something because something must be done, because "doing something" can be used as justification for doing *anything*.
Something similar is in "Yes Minister", IIRC.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So ISIS's goal is the same as the Republicans. Provoke a war, then capitalize on it.
It's worked as an economic stimulous plan for years.
War is expensive on many levels, including economic. But on its face, it is not an "economic stimulus plan." When you drop a bomb on someone, you don't send them a bill.
Of course it is, corporations make those destructive devices, and with wars being financed on the emergency appropriation plan, it makes for those jobs. Yes, it does double duty as identical to running the printing presses overtime to make new fake money, but there is profit to be made before the crash.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, that is not what I said at all. Either you are intellectually dishonest or you have a reading disability. I feel sorry for you in either case, but you have convinced me there is no reason to continue this conversation. Congratulations.
Now THAT is more like today's worthless slashdot as I have come to expect it.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
This is why the religious right is so pro-Israel. They don't love the Jewish people. In fact, they're perpetually puzzled as to why we won't mass-convert over to Christianity. (They keep telling us to worship Jesus or burn in hell and yet we STILL don't fall in line. What's wrong with us?) However, if the Jewish people have a state and, specifically, control Jerusalem, then Revelations is one step closer to coming into being.
It's also why they don't actually want peace in the Middle East. Imagine if tomorrow some master statesman arose who convinced everyone in the Middle East to stop fighting and just get along. (We'll ignore exactly how the guy's supposed to do this and just assume for the moment that he can do this.) What does this mean for Revelations? Suddenly, Israel doesn't have a whole log of enemies surrounding them. No enemies means no armies marching on Jerusalem which means no Second Coming.
They don't want Israel to be destroyed but neither do they want it to exist in peace. As long as Israel remains in existence and surrounded by enemies, their end-of-the-world story has a chance of coming true. (An extremely tiny chance, but it's good enough for them.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
He also called for re-opening the House Un-American Activities Committee. Combine these two proposals and you'll see political foes of whoever is in charge of the new committee being suddenly "discovered" as ISIS sympathizers. Oh, sure, they'll protest but there will be highly convincing proof - classified, but we'll be assured that it's highly convincing. People will know that it's a farce but won't speak up for fear of being targeted next.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Many, if not most, of the communists "rooted out" in the 1950's were political opponents of Joseph McCarthy. He read from an empty list and ruined people's lives by branding them "Communist." The same will happen here if we let it and people won't speak up for fear of being brought before the new House Un-American Activities Committee under suspicion of being pro-ISIS.
And as far as visiting an ISIS website being a felony, take a look at this URL: http://tinyurl.com/j49fjhw.
Without clicking it, does that go to a legitimate news story, a video of kittens playing, an ISIS propaganda website complete with beheading videos, or a discussion forum? There's no way to tell. Someone could easily click that link thinking they are going to a funny video and end up on a pro-ISIS website. Then, if/when the authorities kick down their door, they'll discover pro-ISIS materials in the person's browser cache. (That link goes to this Slashdot story. Or does it? Try clicking it to find out!)
Then there's the possibility of computer infection. What if you're infected with a virus/worm/trojan and it downloads pro-ISIS materials onto your computer without you knowing. Are you to blame? Can you be sent to jail and/or fined for this?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Those standard stories should be written and approved by a government agency to ensure accuracy.
We can call it the Ministry of Truth!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No, that is not what I wrote, and if you were intellectually honest enough or sincere enough to ask me about it, then I would have told you why.
Instead, I'll just reciprocate your integrity and ask "Why do you support the terrorists?"
Feel free to respond, but I recommend against holding your breath pending a response. I'm interested in intellectual discussions.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries, is to annihilate Islam root and branch. Turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland would be a good start.
This is so late to the party that no one will read this, but anyway .
Isis are sunnis. Al-Qaeda are sunnis. The taliban are sunnis. The bulk of terrorist-producing segments of Muslims are Wahabist sunnis.
Do you know who are the traditional worst enemies of sunnis?
They are the shia Muslims.
Do you know what is the main stronghold of shianism?
It's Iran. Iran is the only major Muslim country that's shia and not sunni.
You are proposing solving the problem with Isis by nuking their worst enemies.
You are a fucking military genius.
Newt isn't doing this little piece of performance art for himself of for you, he's doing it for the people in our society that are too pig ignorant to comprehend why his statements are idiotic. The people that basically have a say on how everything's run, and are determined to fuck us all over. Because that's how our system here in the USA really works.
Your Beliefs Doesn't Make You A Better Person; Your Behavior Does;
Casteism
I know this comment comes way too late for anybody to read it... Anyway, I still feel it relevant to point out given the context that in France, legislation making browsing a "terrorist website" a felony (punishable by 2 years prison and/or 30,000EUR fine) already exists (as from the last June 4).
It is telling (on the levels to which Europe is de facto politically sinking), that France, with a "socialist" government, is actually already ahead of Newt Gingrich.
quoting from a hate group site.
nice.
the one thing that hate site doesn't do is list the quotes about love and tolerance which vastly outnumber the commands to do violence..
or their biblical counterparts. or the comparison that was done, wherein the bible's violent commands outnumber the Quran's.
so its not like theyre biased or anything.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
ISIS wants to enslave or kill anyone not a Muslim to their standards. Our appeasement strategy will not work no matter how ethical we are.
The only way to end the threat of Islamic takeover of the world, next year or in 20 centuries, is to annihilate Islam root and branch. Turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland would be a good start.
You say you don't want to appease ISIL, but then say we should nuke their main adversary, Iran. Sicne you're not an AC, I'll just assume you're clueless.
No, he's an entirely different kind of circus clown.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
This only works if you trust said group of journalists to provide unbiased reporting (and not to e.g. omit facts as "irrelevant"). I'm not sure whether such an agreement can be achieved. For example, many right-wing-oriented media outlets make it a point to underscore the religion and ethnicity of the attackers, while some left-wing-oriented outlets omit or obfuscate them. Can they agree on a single unified reporting standard? If they do, will the audiences be happy?
FYI, fascism isn't banned in the USA.
I agree with you that this would be extremely difficult, but I sort of imagine that this would be a kind of prestigious assignment, so they would be able to pick the pool from the best journalists, who might agree to take turns doing the videos or writing the final versions of the text articles. Even though there would be no competitive advantage between the news outlets, there would still be a lot of visibility to the individuals who handled these stories, nasty stories though they be.
Then again, the notion of "impartial journalism" is a kind of fantasy. I think it was mostly created by classical liberal delusions, but the reality before and after, and mostly during, too, was that journalists cannot be impartial, but only pretend to impartiality. Each of us has to have a viewpoint before viewing anything. Perhaps "fairness" was a more realistic objective, but I think FAUX "news" has buried that one pretty deep.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Impartial journalism is a fantasy. But with multiple sources, we can at least hope that their biases more or less cancel out. Even if it's not the case, at least as far as reporting (vs not reporting) on facts alone, various competing sources will offer a more complete picture, as well as pointing each others' inaccuracies - I can then piece the facts together myself to get something much closer to what's actually going on, and think for myself instead of relying on their analytics.
OTOH, with a single agency in charge of reporting on a particular topic, the only facts that I get is that which this agency chooses to report. I don't think I could ever trust such a thing to give me a sufficiently accurate picture, especially on a topic as political as that. There would also be extreme temptation for various power players (governments, wealthy private individuals and organizations etc) to try to shape the picture by influencing that agency behind the scenes. Again, they do it today with media outlets, but so long as they cannot do it with all of them at once on a particular topic, just one is enough to get some inconvenient facts out.
Well, let me just check that you understand my main point and the distinction that I am trying to make:
Case 1: There is a terrible earthquake and tsunami and 20,000 people are killed. All of the media outlets compete aggressively to provide the most interesting coverage. Some media sources win, get more eyeballs, and get to boost the prices for their advertising and the company has higher profits (or smaller losses, which is quite often the case notwithstanding).
Case 2: Terrorists strike and kill thousands of people. All the media outlets compete aggressively to provide the most interesting coverage. The terrorists are not fully satisfied with their free publicity and any amount of terror that they have created. They probably study the "winning" media sources to see how they can make their next terrorist attack even MORE "newsworthy".
I hate Case 2. I don't think the facts of the tragedy are in dispute. Perhaps it should be part of the filtering that the terrorists will hate that the members of the pool will have to reach consensus on EVERYTHING that they report. Or another way to say it is that the media is being manipulated as PART of the story--and the terrorists are especially happy when they can kill reporters, too.
If you do understand my main point, then I think you should explain why it isn't a problem. Alternatively, if you agree that it is a problem, can you come up with a better solution? I'm not saying that my idea is perfect, but I think we need to do something along those lines or the terrorists are going to win in the long run. Maybe they already are winning if Donald Trump can ride the terror they've created into the White House.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
One must always take the source into consideration, but facts are verifiable. Such as the doctrine of the Abrogator and the Abrogated, which islamist apologists always conveniently fail to mention when trying to quote Meccan suras to prove how benevolent islam is.