While there was most likely some religious aspects to the society, as there was in pretty much every society of the time, the civil laws would have existed long before anything recognizable as an organized religion.
Your belief that civil laws existed before religion is similar to Christians and Jews believing God was with Adam and Eve. Neither can be proved and both require faith.
Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.
With this definition of "reasonable network management" an ISP would be required to determine the content of packets rather than the type of packets sent. If a user was to send any image it must be determined if that image violates copyright law or whether it is child pornography, etc. The same thing applies audio and video files and streams. Typically that level of spying on customers has not been implemented and could be very costly. And, what will they do about encrypted transmission? Unless the ISP decrypts transmissions how can they know that the "transfer of unlawful content" has not occurred. This has obvious privacy concerns.
There's a PDF link on the Wired site to the 107 page FCC Proposal. Looking at the PDF table of contents you will notice that there should be 185+ pages. Sections IV F forward are missing and I can not find the document on FCC.gov site. Can anyone find the complete document? I would be interested in reading...
F. Reasonable Network Management, Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and Homeland and National Security pg 133
1. Reasonable Network Management pg 135
2. Law Enforcement pg 142
3. Public Safety and Homeland and National Security pg 145
I think people would be more comfortably with Net Neutrality if it did not contain these Patriot Act type things in it.
35mm? Wow, I was only thinking of a 20mm radar guided phalanx gun. You could cut their ship in half with a short burst of 20mm, but no, that's not good enough for you! lol
I was over at the news site boards and various people stated that the IT office was set up by the county several years ago with "letters of understanding" between agencies (fact). i.e. the county didn't hijack his box and the IT folks in charge had the proper authorizations for the crime database. This sheriff has been in charge forever and HIS name would have signed off, so it should have been legal. Why would he suddenly change his mind?
I did not dispute who was running the computers and you do concede that the Sheriff's department was in charge of the computers, excellent.
Why did change his mind? I'm not sure I can read the Sheriff's mind, or anyone's, for you. Hopefully this information will become available.
yes, the sheriff filed an investigation (fact) as he does whenever anybody tries to investigate him? He was told by the courts he couldn't have the information until the court decides (fact).
This is very interesting. The court rules that the Sheriff's department can not do its duty. Is that a valid legal position? It sounds similar to me saying, "You can't drive your car to work until I decide it is OK." You would tell me where to go, right? Don't like that analogy? How about.. You loan me your car and when you want it back, I say no. Even that isn't quiet right because, unlike both of us, the police have the authority to go get their car.
The IT department is being downsized and the sheriff is concerned unqualified IT staff MIGHT access the data, although at this point in time there are no unauthorized access by IT staff and no knowledge that any IT staff MIGHT be doing something they shouldn't be. (fact)
The logical outcome from such a fact is to verify what is happening with the servers. There's no other way to accomplish it without physical access.
In spite of all that, they decided to rush the law abiding, properly background checked IT staff, with guns, in their office of a public building to "secure" this one computer system. (facts as claimed by the sheriff) The room also contains the computer systems of the other county departments (fact) The deputies demanded (how many?) passwords from the IT staff for (which?) systems, at "gunpoint" under fear of going to gulag. (fact that the jail is degrading and dangerous and honest people die there)
You don't like the standard way police enter a building to secure an area, I get that. Maybe you've never seen an episode of Cops but that's how it's done. They do not rush in with pillows and comfy chairs, this isn't a Monty Python skit. They treat everyone as a threat until the area is secure. Contact any police department you want to confirm what I'm saying.
I'll be waiting to see how many " "honest" people die [in jail]", that is a serious accusation to make. Please send your evidence to the FBI immediately.
Substitute "My opinion is" for "Fact is" in the following two paragraphs and you're good to go.
Fact is that this guy declared war on honest, hardworking IT staff just to get at their bosses, and even admitted there was no known wrongdoing (subject to change now that police have drawn gun on them and they'll be filing suit of course!). Drew weapons on them to illegally obtain access to data pending judg[e]ment he was told he couldn't have.
FACT is if you work for public IT and handle law enforcement data get out now! No matter what clearances you have, your still a "civi" and are expendable as not "one of the blue".
All employees are replaceable. I've been replaced by others in my IT career, even when I had intimate knowledge and experience of the working systems. They called it "cost reduction enhancements". In this economy we are lucky to get jobs and even luckier to keep them. Hopefully, Congress and our administration will stop "fixing" the economy so we can recover.
The first paragraph is all assumptions. The second paragraph isn't much better. If the Sheriff's department is in charge of the security for the computers, they have the law on their side.
The only facts we know in this case are 1) the security for the computers is the responsibility of the Sheriff's department, 2) the Sheriff's department exercised their authority in the matter, 3) the Sheriff himself has called for federal investigation, and 4) you made a bunch of assumptions to support your argument.
You're going to have to let this play out to find out all of the facts. It is possible that some of your assumptions may be proven valid in the future. If that happens send me a message with the appropriate links and I'll send you a note of congratulations.
The Sheriff's department was responsible for the security of the computers. The Sheriff's department enforces the law. They enforced the law. As far as I can tell, you can't tell the police that they can't access their own computers that they have responsibility for. LOL
The lawyers get involved when the prosecution for County people starts. I say let the investigation begin and the Sheriff has called for a federal one already.
It appears that enforcing the law is becoming more and more unpopular as the propaganda of the original article indicates. The other side of the story was completely left out, which is a form of lying by way of omission. See Arpaio wants feds to investigate county. It turns out that the security for the computers is the responsibility of the Sheriff's department and they were denied access. Oops, looks the it was the County trying a power grab, not the Sheriff's department.
You have to wonder why people think they can get away with this type of propaganda when just about everybody has a search engine at their finger tips.
Found out part of the information, see Arpaio wants feds to investigate county. Apparently the Sheriff's department is responsible for security of the computer systems but was denied access to them. So this was a power grab that the Sheriff's department corrected. That's a rather HUGE omission in the facts of the article and similar articles are all over the web. It's almost like propaganda.
Where's the rest of the story? Why did the Sheriff's office attempt this action? Why was the information left out? If you answer those questions, then you'll have a decent story.
Let's take it a step further. Why not have the DoD make DoD Linux SS (super secret) version and DoD Linux RE (regular edition) with the specific packages they want. Lots of people roll their own, why not the DoD? Then the DoD posts the links to their new distros on DistroWatch.org.
You sent me that wonderful PDF with stats. 10 percent like terrorism on page 11. If that number carries to the major Muslim populations which are 1.62 billion to 1.88 billion it equates to roughly 620 million on the low end. Say the number is off by half and it's really only 5%, that's 310 million. So "millions" is correct, but hundreds of millions would be more accurate.
I made a mistake, 10 percent of 1.62 billion is 162 million, not 620 million. 5 percent is 81 million, not 310 million. So, hundreds of millions would not be accurate until their population increases. With and 8 to 1 growth rate it shouldn't take too long.
We should continue this in email before the comment section of this article closes. For my gmail account name is the same as my slashdot account name.
Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."
If you read what I said, there's conditionals like "if", "bet", etc. I don't know their culture at all, and I don't feel like taking the time to learn it. The difference between you and I is that I assume there is more context because in my experience with old mythologies you need to learn what life is like for the people who practice a religion, or it won't make any sense why they do the things that they do. Unlike me, you assume that there is no cultural context to add to the quote. However, like me, you aren't taking the time to verify 100%.
That is a very long way to say you don't know. And, I don't really want to comment on the culture.
You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing [blogspot.com] carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.
I was hoping you would. I do agree with your general view that they seem to place excess blame on outsiders.
However, it's less crazy than you think, especially when you consider the tawdry past of the United States' interference in other countries' business. It takes more than one hand to count the number of times that the US has engaged in "regime change" in other countries. In fact, we've already done it to Iran before. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
So Obama has fake police and fake protesters (outsiders) shooting at each other in total chaos. Your right, the U.S. has tried regime change before, I'm sure they would do it just this way. Obama has been on an apology tour for months now and was quite clear he really didn't care about the protesters. They are still trying to make a date with Iran.
I didn't really care for much of whatever else this guy said, because I tend to think that anyone who is trying to place blame on others probably deserves a share of it himself. The Iranian leadership was internally treating their own people pretty brutally, and it's sad that they don't acknowledge it. But the media were making a circus of their protest, just like they made a circus of Iraq, and it was not helping their cause.
The only point I was really interested in was how a Muslim "preacher" manages to deal with his unbeliever brother. It's pointing out how trivial it is to "go find someone who says something on the Internet" - you find one that says kill unbelievers and I find one that says leave unbelievers alone. Who is right, then?
I found two, not one and both were on prominent TV networks. Neither of them are guys doing basement webcasts, they were on major TV networks first. Do you want me to find more? This Death to America Rally from the Islamic Republic of Iran is good. Starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he's one of those crazies you describe, right? I can find more because I've seen them before. I promise only to find prominent leaders.
I wonder, if we asked all the Muslims one by one, whether they should kill unbelievers, what would be their answer? This concurrent poll (pdf) taken in 2006 doesn't ask exactly that, but it does discover - among other amazing revelations - that Americans are twice as likely to justify attacking innocent people as are Iranians (page 10)
And there is this...
Three out of four Iranians (74%) had an unfavorable attitude toward Osama bin Laden, including 68 percent very unfavorable. Only 10 percent saw him in a favorab
I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.
They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.
That's all the context there is.
That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.
Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."
He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."
That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."
The full quote is: "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother."
Sorry but the phrase was so similar to the British Mullah's I ignored the context, my mistake.
You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.
RIZVI: What about the reported bombing of Ayatollah Khomeini's tomb? Do you think that this was also carried out by people planted from outside Iran? Could Mousavi's supporters have done this?
HASAN: See, this is what I'm telling you. This is not the kind of thing that Mousavi's supporters could have done. They may have had minor grievances with the other side, like the disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, but these incidents of bombings and destruction are all being done by people outside Iran that have been planted by foreign powers. They were showing on TV here that these are people who were given training in Iraq and then were sent over here to do these things. These people have been hired and paid.
RIZVI: Well, over here, because of the ban on foreign journalists covering the events in Tehran, a lot of the major media outlets have started to broadcast web-based images and videos that are being sent in by people on the ground in Iran. There are literally hundreds of videos and pictures that have come in this way showing large numbers of people protesting, and many of them show brutal violence, home invasions, and so on. There is one particularly gruesome video of a woman named Neda who was shot and killed on camera by paramilitary forces, and it has evoked widespread reaction. Are you familiar with these kinds of events?
HASAN: Look, in Iran, we have a few sources. We have two TV channels, radio, and then we have the newspapers, which are particularly popular among Iranians. Now, we also have the internet, and yes, we are familiar with these videos showing the murders of these people and the violence against them. I can tell you the impression of the people here... they believe that it is the people who are damaging and vandalizing, these planted forces from outside, that are committing these murders. This is what people believe in Iran.
Who are these "outsiders"? Where did they come from? Surely some must have been rounded up. Isn't it much more likely that the Iranians were unhappy that their votes were not counted at all? Four hours to count 39 million paper votes. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not that gullible. Of course there's the math to prove it is possible...
HASAN: Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very sma
When I read 2.190-2.193, the impression I get is "you can kill people who try to kill you,", especially given 2.192. That seems like a reasonable thing, and certainly not "go kill people who aren't Muslims".
I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.
If you listen to the British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri when asked if he supports the actions of his brothers to kill innocents, he indicates that he will always stand with his brothers no matter what their position is.
As far as the other quote, I'm not sure there's enough context to properly judge the sentiment there.
That's all the context there is. The Quran is like that in many places. 4.89 seems to indicate that you are in the same position as we are because you are rejecting their Jihad against us. To the "true" believers you appear to "desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved," in 4.89. This is a dangerous position.
But I remember reading an interview with an Iranian cleric whose brother is secular. His reply was lengthy and surprisingly rational; here's an excerpt.
We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.
I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.
However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other.
He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother." Yikes, that can not right. What if your brother flies a plane into large buildings? How does that get justified? Answer: I've heard Mullahs say that there are no innocents so it's perfectly ok to take these actions. Therefore, we must be "those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings," otherwise they wouldn't attack us.
I'm assuming you're not one who would be happy at the thought of killing Muslims, but I assure you there are plenty of folks in the US who think Muslims are a pretty awful bunch; my own father says they are like pitbulls - the pitbulls are bred to fight and the Muslims are bred to hate America. Like those who would call us the Great Satan, Islamophobes are just confused sheep who listened to the wrong person when forming an opinion.
I'm just listening to Mullahs and they are very clear in their statements, which seem to agree with the scriptures. The bottom line is that they are at war with us, millions shout "Death to America." School children write essays on the subject and are raised to be the "pitbulls" you describe above. If you disagree with them they will eventually come for you.
You'll either have to take back your religion and concentrate on the Great Jihad, the struggle of self. Or, fight them.
You won't find "kill infidel" in the Quran and I didn't put it in quotes. You will find this though...
The Cow: [2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
2.191 is why weapons are stored in Mosques, I'm guessing. 2.190 says there are limits but not what they are. The only thing that is certain is 2.193, that "religion should be only for Allah". So as long as people don't convert there's going to be trouble because of 2.191. Here is Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Nafisi illustrating these principles.
The Women: [4.88] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
4.89 indicates what should happen to a believer who rejects the faith. Is a person who rejects Islam an infidel?
Your comment above seems to indicate that you will disagree with my interpretation and would reject Professor Abdallah Nafisi statements in the video. I'm also assuming you wouldn't attend the Death to America rallies and wouldn't have danced in the street with the Palestinians on 9/11. But I would point out that there are millions of people who would and still do, and I live in what they call the Great Satan.
They are in the U.S., check the link supplied in my message above. So far the killing has been limited to college campuses and recruitment centers. The other attacks were thwarted.
Fundamental not "extremists" follow the teachings of Mohammed in the Quran. We are infidels and should be killed, as per the Quran, if we will not convert. Don't believe me? then read it for yourself. Search it for infidel or unbeliever.
...because it's usually the extremists who feel obliged to ignore things like "thou shalt not kill", of which I'm pretty sure there's an Islamic equivalent.
Read the Quran, do some research, or you'll end up writing something totally false like the above statement. Ignore the threat if you want to it makes no difference to me.
I agree, would rather see a cross platform standards compliant <video> tag. Mostly because there is no Direct/Active X in any of my boxes and partly because it would be better for all web sites to work the same with all browsers. That's probably too much to hope for.
5) There are 1.62 billion to 1.82 billion (2009) Muslims world wide. They have a growth rate over 8 whereas the U.S. has a growth rate of 2.11 including immigrants and illegals. If 10% are fundamental Muslims, that follow the literal teachings of Mohammed, that makes up a sizeable force. Camps are already on U.S. soil.
Slashdot Mirror
While there was most likely some religious aspects to the society, as there was in pretty much every society of the time, the civil laws would have existed long before anything recognizable as an organized religion.
Your belief that civil laws existed before religion is similar to Christians and Jews believing God was with Adam and Eve. Neither can be proved and both require faith.
And, how would it ever stop the accusations of despots around the world?
Check this out. Wired has an article on Net Neutrality.
Reasonable network management consists of: (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service concerns; (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful; (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and (b) other reasonable network management practices.
With this definition of "reasonable network management" an ISP would be required to determine the content of packets rather than the type of packets sent. If a user was to send any image it must be determined if that image violates copyright law or whether it is child pornography, etc. The same thing applies audio and video files and streams. Typically that level of spying on customers has not been implemented and could be very costly. And, what will they do about encrypted transmission? Unless the ISP decrypts transmissions how can they know that the "transfer of unlawful content" has not occurred. This has obvious privacy concerns.
There's a PDF link on the Wired site to the 107 page FCC Proposal. Looking at the PDF table of contents you will notice that there should be 185+ pages. Sections IV F forward are missing and I can not find the document on FCC.gov site. Can anyone find the complete document? I would be interested in reading...
F. Reasonable Network Management, Law Enforcement, Public Safety, and Homeland and National Security pg 133
1. Reasonable Network Management pg 135
2. Law Enforcement pg 142
3. Public Safety and Homeland and National Security pg 145
I think people would be more comfortably with Net Neutrality if it did not contain these Patriot Act type things in it.
Does this exchange have GPS coordinates?
35mm? Wow, I was only thinking of a 20mm radar guided phalanx gun. You could cut their ship in half with a short burst of 20mm, but no, that's not good enough for you! lol
I was over at the news site boards and various people stated that the IT office was set up by the county several years ago with "letters of understanding" between agencies (fact). i.e. the county didn't hijack his box and the IT folks in charge had the proper authorizations for the crime database. This sheriff has been in charge forever and HIS name would have signed off, so it should have been legal. Why would he suddenly change his mind?
I did not dispute who was running the computers and you do concede that the Sheriff's department was in charge of the computers, excellent.
Why did change his mind? I'm not sure I can read the Sheriff's mind, or anyone's, for you. Hopefully this information will become available.
yes, the sheriff filed an investigation (fact) as he does whenever anybody tries to investigate him? He was told by the courts he couldn't have the information until the court decides (fact).
This is very interesting. The court rules that the Sheriff's department can not do its duty. Is that a valid legal position? It sounds similar to me saying, "You can't drive your car to work until I decide it is OK." You would tell me where to go, right? Don't like that analogy? How about.. You loan me your car and when you want it back, I say no. Even that isn't quiet right because, unlike both of us, the police have the authority to go get their car.
The IT department is being downsized and the sheriff is concerned unqualified IT staff MIGHT access the data, although at this point in time there are no unauthorized access by IT staff and no knowledge that any IT staff MIGHT be doing something they shouldn't be. (fact)
The logical outcome from such a fact is to verify what is happening with the servers. There's no other way to accomplish it without physical access.
In spite of all that, they decided to rush the law abiding, properly background checked IT staff, with guns, in their office of a public building to "secure" this one computer system. (facts as claimed by the sheriff) The room also contains the computer systems of the other county departments (fact) The deputies demanded (how many?) passwords from the IT staff for (which?) systems, at "gunpoint" under fear of going to gulag. (fact that the jail is degrading and dangerous and honest people die there)
You don't like the standard way police enter a building to secure an area, I get that. Maybe you've never seen an episode of Cops but that's how it's done. They do not rush in with pillows and comfy chairs, this isn't a Monty Python skit. They treat everyone as a threat until the area is secure. Contact any police department you want to confirm what I'm saying.
I'll be waiting to see how many " "honest" people die [in jail]", that is a serious accusation to make. Please send your evidence to the FBI immediately.
Substitute "My opinion is" for "Fact is" in the following two paragraphs and you're good to go.
Fact is that this guy declared war on honest, hardworking IT staff just to get at their bosses, and even admitted there was no known wrongdoing (subject to change now that police have drawn gun on them and they'll be filing suit of course!). Drew weapons on them to illegally obtain access to data pending judg[e]ment he was told he couldn't have.
FACT is if you work for public IT and handle law enforcement data get out now! No matter what clearances you have, your still a "civi" and are expendable as not "one of the blue".
All employees are replaceable. I've been replaced by others in my IT career, even when I had intimate knowledge and experience of the working systems. They called it "cost reduction enhancements". In this economy we are lucky to get jobs and even luckier to keep them. Hopefully, Congress and our administration will stop "fixing" the economy so we can recover.
This guy seem[s] to be revered by "law e
The first paragraph is all assumptions. The second paragraph isn't much better. If the Sheriff's department is in charge of the security for the computers, they have the law on their side.
The only facts we know in this case are 1) the security for the computers is the responsibility of the Sheriff's department, 2) the Sheriff's department exercised their authority in the matter, 3) the Sheriff himself has called for federal investigation, and 4) you made a bunch of assumptions to support your argument.
You're going to have to let this play out to find out all of the facts. It is possible that some of your assumptions may be proven valid in the future. If that happens send me a message with the appropriate links and I'll send you a note of congratulations.
The Sheriff's department was responsible for the security of the computers. The Sheriff's department enforces the law. They enforced the law. As far as I can tell, you can't tell the police that they can't access their own computers that they have responsibility for. LOL
The lawyers get involved when the prosecution for County people starts. I say let the investigation begin and the Sheriff has called for a federal one already.
It appears that enforcing the law is becoming more and more unpopular as the propaganda of the original article indicates. The other side of the story was completely left out, which is a form of lying by way of omission. See Arpaio wants feds to investigate county. It turns out that the security for the computers is the responsibility of the Sheriff's department and they were denied access. Oops, looks the it was the County trying a power grab, not the Sheriff's department.
You have to wonder why people think they can get away with this type of propaganda when just about everybody has a search engine at their finger tips.
Found out part of the information, see Arpaio wants feds to investigate county. Apparently the Sheriff's department is responsible for security of the computer systems but was denied access to them. So this was a power grab that the Sheriff's department corrected. That's a rather HUGE omission in the facts of the article and similar articles are all over the web. It's almost like propaganda.
Where's the rest of the story? Why did the Sheriff's office attempt this action? Why was the information left out? If you answer those questions, then you'll have a decent story.
Let's take it a step further. Why not have the DoD make DoD Linux SS (super secret) version and DoD Linux RE (regular edition) with the specific packages they want. Lots of people roll their own, why not the DoD? Then the DoD posts the links to their new distros on DistroWatch.org.
Numbers Correction:
You sent me that wonderful PDF with stats. 10 percent like terrorism on page 11. If that number carries to the major Muslim populations which are 1.62 billion to 1.88 billion it equates to roughly 620 million on the low end. Say the number is off by half and it's really only 5%, that's 310 million. So "millions" is correct, but hundreds of millions would be more accurate.
I made a mistake, 10 percent of 1.62 billion is 162 million, not 620 million. 5 percent is 81 million, not 310 million. So, hundreds of millions would not be accurate until their population increases. With and 8 to 1 growth rate it shouldn't take too long.
We should continue this in email before the comment section of this article closes. For my gmail account name is the same as my slashdot account name.
Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."
If you read what I said, there's conditionals like "if", "bet", etc. I don't know their culture at all, and I don't feel like taking the time to learn it. The difference between you and I is that I assume there is more context because in my experience with old mythologies you need to learn what life is like for the people who practice a religion, or it won't make any sense why they do the things that they do. Unlike me, you assume that there is no cultural context to add to the quote. However, like me, you aren't taking the time to verify 100%.
That is a very long way to say you don't know. And, I don't really want to comment on the culture.
You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing [blogspot.com] carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.
I was hoping you would. I do agree with your general view that they seem to place excess blame on outsiders.
However, it's less crazy than you think, especially when you consider the tawdry past of the United States' interference in other countries' business. It takes more than one hand to count the number of times that the US has engaged in "regime change" in other countries. In fact, we've already done it to Iran before. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
So Obama has fake police and fake protesters (outsiders) shooting at each other in total chaos. Your right, the U.S. has tried regime change before, I'm sure they would do it just this way. Obama has been on an apology tour for months now and was quite clear he really didn't care about the protesters. They are still trying to make a date with Iran.
I didn't really care for much of whatever else this guy said, because I tend to think that anyone who is trying to place blame on others probably deserves a share of it himself. The Iranian leadership was internally treating their own people pretty brutally, and it's sad that they don't acknowledge it. But the media were making a circus of their protest, just like they made a circus of Iraq, and it was not helping their cause.
The only point I was really interested in was how a Muslim "preacher" manages to deal with his unbeliever brother. It's pointing out how trivial it is to "go find someone who says something on the Internet" - you find one that says kill unbelievers and I find one that says leave unbelievers alone. Who is right, then?
I found two, not one and both were on prominent TV networks. Neither of them are guys doing basement webcasts, they were on major TV networks first. Do you want me to find more? This Death to America Rally from the Islamic Republic of Iran is good. Starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he's one of those crazies you describe, right? I can find more because I've seen them before. I promise only to find prominent leaders.
I wonder, if we asked all the Muslims one by one, whether they should kill unbelievers, what would be their answer? This concurrent poll (pdf) taken in 2006 doesn't ask exactly that, but it does discover - among other amazing revelations - that Americans are twice as likely to justify attacking innocent people as are Iranians (page 10)
And there is this...
Three out of four Iranians (74%) had an unfavorable attitude toward Osama bin Laden, including 68 percent very unfavorable. Only 10 percent saw him in a favorab
I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.
They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.
That's all the context there is.
That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.
Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."
He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."
That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."
The full quote is: "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother."
Sorry but the phrase was so similar to the British Mullah's I ignored the context, my mistake.
You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.
RIZVI: What about the reported bombing of Ayatollah Khomeini's tomb? Do you think that this was also carried out by people planted from outside Iran? Could Mousavi's supporters have done this?
HASAN: See, this is what I'm telling you. This is not the kind of thing that Mousavi's supporters could have done. They may have had minor grievances with the other side, like the disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, but these incidents of bombings and destruction are all being done by people outside Iran that have been planted by foreign powers. They were showing on TV here that these are people who were given training in Iraq and then were sent over here to do these things. These people have been hired and paid.
RIZVI: Well, over here, because of the ban on foreign journalists covering the events in Tehran, a lot of the major media outlets have started to broadcast web-based images and videos that are being sent in by people on the ground in Iran. There are literally hundreds of videos and pictures that have come in this way showing large numbers of people protesting, and many of them show brutal violence, home invasions, and so on. There is one particularly gruesome video of a woman named Neda who was shot and killed on camera by paramilitary forces, and it has evoked widespread reaction. Are you familiar with these kinds of events?
HASAN: Look, in Iran, we have a few sources. We have two TV channels, radio, and then we have the newspapers, which are particularly popular among Iranians. Now, we also have the internet, and yes, we are familiar with these videos showing the murders of these people and the violence against them. I can tell you the impression of the people here... they believe that it is the people who are damaging and vandalizing, these planted forces from outside, that are committing these murders. This is what people believe in Iran.
Who are these "outsiders"? Where did they come from? Surely some must have been rounded up. Isn't it much more likely that the Iranians were unhappy that their votes were not counted at all? Four hours to count 39 million paper votes. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not that gullible. Of course there's the math to prove it is possible...
HASAN: Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very sma
Response got attached as 2863935, sorry.
Response got attached to wrong message. See below for response.
When I read 2.190-2.193, the impression I get is "you can kill people who try to kill you,", especially given 2.192. That seems like a reasonable thing, and certainly not "go kill people who aren't Muslims".
I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.
If you listen to the British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri when asked if he supports the actions of his brothers to kill innocents, he indicates that he will always stand with his brothers no matter what their position is.
As far as the other quote, I'm not sure there's enough context to properly judge the sentiment there.
That's all the context there is. The Quran is like that in many places. 4.89 seems to indicate that you are in the same position as we are because you are rejecting their Jihad against us. To the "true" believers you appear to "desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved," in 4.89. This is a dangerous position.
But I remember reading an interview with an Iranian cleric whose brother is secular. His reply was lengthy and surprisingly rational; here's an excerpt.
We will only fight those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings.
I believe that as human beings, we should worship and praise our creator. But this service to God shouldn't be of the kind that harms others. For example, you can say that you're secular, that you don't believe in a god, and you don't believe in worship. You don't think it's required of you. So your ideology is different. But based on this, we will never clash with each other. Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother.
However, if someone's ideology says that I am a lesser person, that he rules over me, or he's my boss, we will probably clash with each other.
He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother." Yikes, that can not right. What if your brother flies a plane into large buildings? How does that get justified? Answer: I've heard Mullahs say that there are no innocents so it's perfectly ok to take these actions. Therefore, we must be "those who are enemies of humanity, those who humiliate others, abuse them, make mental and physical slaves of them, or think of them as lesser beings," otherwise they wouldn't attack us.
I'm assuming you're not one who would be happy at the thought of killing Muslims, but I assure you there are plenty of folks in the US who think Muslims are a pretty awful bunch; my own father says they are like pitbulls - the pitbulls are bred to fight and the Muslims are bred to hate America. Like those who would call us the Great Satan, Islamophobes are just confused sheep who listened to the wrong person when forming an opinion.
I'm just listening to Mullahs and they are very clear in their statements, which seem to agree with the scriptures. The bottom line is that they are at war with us, millions shout "Death to America." School children write essays on the subject and are raised to be the "pitbulls" you describe above. If you disagree with them they will eventually come for you.
You'll either have to take back your religion and concentrate on the Great Jihad, the struggle of self. Or, fight them.
You won't find "kill infidel" in the Quran and I didn't put it in quotes. You will find this though...
2.191 is why weapons are stored in Mosques, I'm guessing. 2.190 says there are limits but not what they are. The only thing that is certain is 2.193, that "religion should be only for Allah". So as long as people don't convert there's going to be trouble because of 2.191. Here is Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Nafisi illustrating these principles.
4.89 indicates what should happen to a believer who rejects the faith. Is a person who rejects Islam an infidel?
Your comment above seems to indicate that you will disagree with my interpretation and would reject Professor Abdallah Nafisi statements in the video. I'm also assuming you wouldn't attend the Death to America rallies and wouldn't have danced in the street with the Palestinians on 9/11. But I would point out that there are millions of people who would and still do, and I live in what they call the Great Satan.
They are in the U.S., check the link supplied in my message above. So far the killing has been limited to college campuses and recruitment centers. The other attacks were thwarted.
Fundamental not "extremists" follow the teachings of Mohammed in the Quran. We are infidels and should be killed, as per the Quran, if we will not convert. Don't believe me? then read it for yourself. Search it for infidel or unbeliever.
...because it's usually the extremists who feel obliged to ignore things like "thou shalt not kill", of which I'm pretty sure there's an Islamic equivalent.
Read the Quran, do some research, or you'll end up writing something totally false like the above statement. Ignore the threat if you want to it makes no difference to me.
I agree, would rather see a cross platform standards compliant <video> tag. Mostly because there is no Direct/Active X in any of my boxes and partly because it would be better for all web sites to work the same with all browsers. That's probably too much to hope for.
5) There are 1.62 billion to 1.82 billion (2009) Muslims world wide. They have a growth rate over 8 whereas the U.S. has a growth rate of 2.11 including immigrants and illegals. If 10% are fundamental Muslims, that follow the literal teachings of Mohammed, that makes up a sizeable force. Camps are already on U.S. soil.