Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Is Not Legally Responsible For The Rise of ISIS, Rules California District Court (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: A lawsuit accusing Twitter of providing material support to ISIS has been dismissed by a California District Court. First filed in January, the lawsuit argued ISIS's persistent presence on Twitter constituted material support for the terror group, and sought to hold Twitter responsible for an ISIS-linked attack on that basis. Filed by the family of an American contractor named Lloyd Fields, the lawsuit sought damages from an ISIS-linked attack in Jordan that claimed Fields' life. The plaintiff's initial complaint alleged widespread fundraising and recruitment through the platform, attributing 30,000 foreign actors recruited through ISIS Twitter accounts in 2015 alone. The judge assigned to the case was ultimately not swayed by that reasoning, finding that the plaintiffs had not offered a convincing argument for holding Twitter liable. The plaintiff will have the chance to submit a modified version of the complaint within 20 days of the order, the second such modification ordered by the judge. The report adds: "Apart from the private nature of Direct Messaging, plaintiffs identify no other way in which their Direct Messaging theory seeks to treat Twitter as anything other than a publisher of information provided by another information content provider," the ruling reads. At the same time, even the private nature of Twitter's Direct Messaging feature "does not remove the transmission of such messages from the scope of publishing activity under section 230(c)(1)."
This guy is a police instructor, and goes to Jordan to train police in a part of the world that's not exactly known for being all rainbows and unicorn turds.
Well after there have already been many "green on blue" attacks where instructees have shot up the (American) instructors in the name of extremist Islam, it happens to him and he gets killed in just such an event.
His family doesn't go after the Jordanian police for not checking background information sufficiently, or taking other measures to watch for this kind of problem.
His family doesn't go after the contracting company that he worked for, for not protecting him sufficiently while there.
His family goes after...Twitter? Wow...let me JUST TAKE A WILD FUCKING GUESS why they went after Twitter...no, wait, I think I got it...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
While Bush & Obama both share the blame - Bush for toppling Saddam, who was busy curbing Shi'ites, and Obama for joining w/ the Sunni powers - the Saudis, the Turks, the Qataris in trying to topple Assad, the real responsibility for ISIS rise is in one place - Sunnis of both Iraq and Syria.
As I have mentioned on quite a few occasions, a country's main Islamizing forces come from the majority Muslim sect in that country. Which is Shi'ites in Iraq, and Sunnites in Syria. In Syria, the Sunnis previously rallied behind the Muslim Brotherhood, and after the civil war started, they rallied behind the various Sunnite militias that arose, be it the FSA, Khorasan Group, Ansar al Shariah... In Iraq, the Sunnis, who were previously content to rally behind Saddam, now had to rally behind someone given the rise of an Iran backed Shi'ite regime in Baghdad. That force was previously Zarqawi, and after his death, ISIS.
The thing to note about Islam is that it's not a 'live & let live' religion: everybody is expected to make everybody else follow 'true Islam', or whatever they think it is. So it's not enough to let all Muslims of different sects in any country co-exist happily - be it in Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, et al. They have to make everybody else acknowledge that fact, and hence, one has not just the bloodletting in Syria & Iraq, but also Sunnite on Shi'ite violence in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al. So after Iraq gets a 'democratically elected' government, the Shi'ites who dominate it have to enable their militias like the Mahdi Army and get into bed w/ Iran. On the other side, the Sunnis fight not merely for the right not to be persecuted by al Haidari or Assad, but to dominate the entire ummah, or Islamic world.
The end result is that what started as a movement for the persecuted Sunnites in Syria and later Iraq is now a worldwide Jihadist campaign to restore the caliphate. While any number of Muslims can curse them all they like, fact remains that ISIS as a caliphate resembles caliphates of the past, like the Abbasids. In the 9th and 10th centuries, when the Abbasids were the caliphate in Baghdad, Muslim contenders for power in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkestan, et al would lobby to get the Caliph to recognize each of them, and who the Caliph endorsed actually mattered. Compare that to just now. Different Jihadist movements, like Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, Jemiah Islamiah in Indonesia, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, affiliate groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Boko Haram in North Africa all swear allegiance to ISIS. That's exactly how a Caliphate was supposed to work - a central group somewhere, and different Muslim armies worldwide doing everything they did in the name of Islam, and getting the official Islamic seal of approval from that central group.
The reason ISIS is where it is is b'cos there are enough Muslims in the entire population who take seriously Islamic injunctions to wage Jihad on Infidels. Whether they rally behind ISIS, al Qaeda, CAIR, HAMAS, al Quds, Taliban, et al or anyone else is really immaterial
Leon Panetta, who was Obama’s defense secretary from July 2011 to February 2013, wrote in his 2014 book, “Worthy Fights,” that as the deadline neared “it was clear to me — and many others — that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability” in Iraq. As a result, the Obama administration sought to keep 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq, as Sullivan said in his statement.
But negotiations with Iraq broke down in October 2011 over the issue of whether U.S. troops would be shielded from criminal prosecution by Iraqi authorities. Panetta wrote that Maliki insisted that a new agreement providing immunity to U.S. forces “would have to be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for its approval,” which Panetta said “made reaching agreement very difficult.”
Yes, Bush punted and Obama didn't want to take away all reconstruction aid to force Iraq to capitulate. But cut to the chase.... BUSH negotiated and signed the force agreement that mandated troops be removed, and while his people HOPED it could be renegotiated, that doesn't absolve him from negotiating and signing it.
There's a lot of worthless fucking partisans out there who want to "misremember" that Bush got us into this whole fucking mess a long time before Obama was even thinking about being on the scene. I can't tell sometimes if they're all just natural born fucking liars, or their simply too fucking stupid to use their brains.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Everything the other party does is BAD, and everything my party is GOOD! Even when those are the exact same things!
TAKE THAT, BUSH!
islam, the religion of peace, thats what i blame
https://www.thereligionofpeace...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
ISIS came from Al Qaeda In Iraq.
Al Qaeda In Iraq came to be because Bush The Lesser invaded Iraq and deposed its leader.
A leader who, while being a horrible person and general pile of evil, also tended to keep a lid on extremism in his country, albeit for self-serving reasons (they threated his own power).
The pull out came because of an agreement signed by Bush the Lesser's Administration, agreeing to pull out by a certain time in 2011.
The Obama administration actually tried to negotiate to stay longer , but was unable to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government.
This is because the Iraqi government wanted the American troops to be subject to Iraqi laws and law enforcement. .
The Obama Administration wisely said no to that condition, and therefore was compelled to adhere to the existing agreement, and pulled out.
The ensuing (actually it began before bush eevn left office) mismanagement of Iraq's defense and military btw is mostly due to the man installed in power by Bush the Lesser's administration, Maliki, started out as a moderate, but quickly became corrupt himself and began using his power (and the military) to silence or coerce his political rivals and enemies. He weakened the morale of the Iraqi troops we trained and armed, he misused them, and then when faced with an actual threat, the merging of elements in Syria with Al Qaeda In Iraq into what has become ISIS, they bailed.
Which has since causes the US to re-enter Iraq, with ever growing number of troops, begin bombing ISIS (for over 2 years now), and quite successfully. ISIS made some large initial gains because of momentum and the bailing of the Iraqi Army. However they have since been pushed back out of over half the territory they originally took.
So the point is this:
calling Obama the found of ISIS in the face of the campaign against ISIS, is like calling Obama a socialist at a time when the capitalist economy of the US has never been better: pure delusional BS. If Obama is a socialist, he is the worst socialist ever. Likewise, if he is the founder of ISIS, he is horrible at it, and was only made possible by the missteps and outright lies of the administration of Bush the Lesser, the man who actually is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The thing to note about Islam is that it's not a 'live & let live' religion: everybody is expected to make everybody else follow 'true Islam', ...
In Matth 28:19, all Christians are ordered to "go and make disciples of all nations, ..." - something that is thankfully shrugged off by most followers of Christianity, but it has in the past been taken as a carte blanche to go out and subdue ther rest of the world, from the innumerable, religious wars or trivia, the Crusades (the Christian term for Jihad), the European imperialism ("We have a duty to civilise the Heathens") etc etc. It is also well known to anybody with a moderately open mind, that by far the most Muslims are completely relaxed about whether other people follow other religions.
What we can learn from this is that religion is not what drives people to commit violence, terrorism or other atrocities; religion is merely the excuse. A way of explaining away why you don't feel guilt - a lie, in other words. And here you are, trying to convince yourself and others that religion is an excuse for treating other humans badly, simply because you don't like their faith.
To catch all kinds of euphemisms and hidden double entendres you'd need a native speaker who happens to have been in the area recently to pick up all neologisms too.
People like this aren't just expensive, they're simply near impossible to get.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.