Who was commanding these people ? Who gave the orders to capture these women and -at least passively- allowed them to be raped. You are really stretching there. Obviously mohamed was in charge - the whole bit about "allah's messenger" made that quite clear - you think that's a mystery? Homer doh!
But here's the thing - the hadith you quoted isn't about rape, muslims only believe the strong hadith are definitive about what mohamed said or did or at most what he allowed to occur in his presence, not about what anyone else did. No muslim will read that quote and take it as supporting the rape of prisoners because as you cited it, the only thing that happened in his presence was being asked about pulling out. It wasn't some big prisoner orgy where the guy actually pulled his dick out, looked over at mohamed getting his freak on with another prisoner and asked him if he should stick it back in or not.
You clearly want to say that because mohamed was commander of this army, he was responsible for everything anyone did while under his command and thus everything anyone did while in mohamed's army is fair game for any muslim to do. Get real, that's not how it works.
So... let's hear the answer, and this time without ad-hominems if you please. Oh poor little PuRpleDoRK wants me to be political correct.
Dude, you are a brainwashed fool completely incapable of thinking critically, just like the hordes of dhimmi-wannabes. You are soooo tiresome, and somewhat incoherent (but that's par for the course when you are a dhimmi-wannabe), so I'm getting my jollies where I find them. Peanut Butter Be Upon You.
Forget the pain in the ass nature of the kit. Consider the legality of it. The NSA cannot legally own copyright. Anything they produce is in the public domain. Therefore they cannot legally develop code that is under any license. They can let contractors own it - happens all the time as a form of corporate socialism. They can also release to the public domain and let it be incorporated into the kernel - the GPL is compatible with the public domain. I really don't know what the NSA has done in this case, but licenses do not have to be an impediment here.
There's no point arguing with people who choose to get their morality from fanciful thousand year old bullshit mythology, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or whatever. See, here's the thing. I'm an atheist born and ignored, I get my morality from thinking things through. Its people like olePuRpLeDoRK who are unable to reason, who want to demonize large groups of people - to believe that they are somehow less than human. People like that have a giant cognitive achilles heel, which he just showed us -- as I knew he would.
A dhimmi-wannabe is someone who desperately wants islam to be an evil, world-conquering force hell-bent on subjugating themselves and everyone else. They are like those fools who are constantly predicting the end of the world - they warn of this great disaster but deep down inside they crave it. Their entire world-view is based on the disaster being a real threat such that that all critical thinking goes out the window and any evidence to the contrary induces massive cognitive dissonance.
As for your bitch that my response was content-free, go read the other fork where I nailed the dhimmi-wannabe to the wall with his best shot. It was a perfect example of his inability to read critically, he surely found that quote on one of the dhimmi-wannabe websites like jihadwatch or its ilk and couldn't apply even an ounce of skepticism.
Is that the best you can do? This evil religion, so vile that you can't even find one quote from their primary text - the quran - to hold up as evil? What happened to the quotes from the quran that you just posted? Lost your faith in them?
Really brought your A-game, didn't you?
Here's the quotation you linked to, I'm not even going to bother looking for the other english translations because even this one is obvious:
Chapter 22: AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born So, first, here's the context - the Mustaliq tribe have been arming up to try to take Mecca back from the muslims (they were part of the group that broke treaties with the muslims and done similar attacks in the past). So Mo and his gang go out to stop them and meet them half way at some oasis in the middle of nowhere. Mo's gang kicks their ass and takes prisoners.
Now the quote itself -- some of the gang are too horny for their own good and decide to rape some of the prisoners. But they don't want to get them pregnant because, apparently this Mustaliq tribe won't pay as much to get back an impregnated woman as they would if the woman had been unmolested, so these rapists decide to "pull out."
At this point OlEoLePuRpLeDoRk is all wetting himself because raping prisoners, that's pretty shitty. But that shit happens all the time in war and is not the subject of this quote. Reading further along, these guys ask Mohamed if "pulling out" is a sin and he says no.
Pay attention purple-dork - Mohamed was not asked if raping prisoners was OK. Nor does it say he participated, condoned or knew about it. Hell, Mo even ended up formally marrying one of the women captured in this particular battle - not something a guy does to someone he has treated like shit unless he's eeeeeeeeeeevil, right purple-dork?
So, the best you've got is that Mohamed said that pulling-out as a form of contraception is down with God because, basically, God's omnipotent so any soul he wants created is going to be created anyway no matter what a mere man does.
That's your big-ole display of the evil of islam, eh?
Ok,so OeLeWaPpErKe gave eight consecutive clauses. Rather than naysay him, provide instead context which proves him wrong.
This is getting interesting... His list of quotes are a standard list distributed by the dhimmi-wannabes. Twice now in the last year I've taken on other posters on slashdot who have posted the same list and debunked each one of them. But I'm such a lazy ass I never bookmark my own posts.
So this time I'm letting the little dhimmi-wannabe take his best shot, pick the quote that is the most evil of evils and I'll just knock that single one down because frankly, this shit gets old real fast. Anyone who really cares can plug the verse numbers into google and find the full story, half the time all you gotta do is go read the couple of verses before and after the cited verse to learn the actual context.
The fact these dhimmi-wannabes are too lazy to even do that and instead just parrot what they hear from other dhimmi-wannabes in a big echo chamber ought to be proof enough that they don't know jack shit about what they are talking about.
Oh wait, you also insinuated that I am evil for doing so. No, just a lazy ass who wants to hate rather than understand.
Here's how this is going to work. You pick one of those quotes, any one of them, and I will shred your interpretation to shit.
Pick the one you think is strongest and most indicative of just how evil a religion islam is. If you are not as lazy as I think you are, you will do some due diligence on your quotes and you might actually discover just how weak an argument you've put forth. If you are really motivated you'll do enough background checking on every quote and discover that your argument holds no water at all and that not a single one of your quotes can withstand scrutiny.
Either way you are going to lose this argument. Put up or shut up.
Explain to me how you can believe this to be the literal word of god, and not commit acts of religious violence, because this is something I do not get at all. Explain to us how YOU can believe that those quotes, some of them mistranslated and all of them completely out of context, have any meaning at all except to provide you with a shovel to dig yourself deeper and deeper.
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
have members that have it coming to them, such as people whose sexual orientation is toward... animals, You know, that's fucked up.
Its A-OK to keep millions of them confined for years in overcrowded conditions, such that they would not survive if they weren't pumped full of anti-biotics and other drugs only to slaughter them.
But some weirdo wants to stick his dick in one and he is the bad guy.
Since it's being patented before it *could* be made, it never will be made. This is a very common, very ridiculous occurrence. You just have to understand their goals... They pre-patented the "guardian angel in your cell phone" because they don't want them to be made. Notice, they did not patent the "rat fink in your cell phone" - so that's what we have to look forward to.
When I worked there they found that if they shrunk our cubes by a couple of feet they could get X more programmers in the building. I had a client that did that.
They got in trouble with the local building codes because they could not do the same to the parking spaces and the local codes required them to maintain a certain proportion between desks (actually regular employees) in the building and parking spaces adjacent to the building.
I think they finally bribed the right people and got a waiver.
Stop arguing in bad faith. Badda-bing! You might as well have never posted in the first place since your posts are rife with semantic nitpicking.
I wasn't cherry-picking, that definition is the only one the OED contains Lol! You must have the abridged version.
The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion: a person's right to privacy. Gee, the state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion goes away when you are in a public area? Papers please!
There is no "nuance" here. "Public" and "private" are opposites. You can't twist one around to include the other. You keep on saying that, but even your own cherry-picked dictionary definitions disagree binary boy.
Not due to privacy concerns. Again, not due to privacy concerns. Once more, not due to privacy conerns. Total bullshit. They are ALL privacy concerns.
To take the simplest and most obvious case - photo releases are NOT required of public figures because they are considered to have given up that expectation of privacy by virtue of becoming public figures, but they are required for regular joes who have not given up that right simply by being in a public space.
Only a nut attempts to argue that black is white. Good thing I'm not. But so far all you have done is misread definitions, misunderstand public policy and repeat the simplistic ideas of the sheep who haven't bothered to give it a critical thought. Useful idiots like yourself only serve to reinforce the propaganda of the war on privacy.
No, really it's you. Your first hint should be the fact that you want privacy in public. They are antonyms FFS! No, really it's you. Your first hint should be the fact that you are claiming that a state of being and a location can be antonyms FFS!
Your second hint should be the fact that you cite a single definition from the OED cherry-picked to support your argument and ignore the paragraphs of other definitions that contradict your argument. Anyone who thinks that citing simplified dictionary definitions is a valid means of arguing a nuanced point doesn't even belong at the debate.
* Being alone - nope, you don't have that right in public
* Undisturbed - nope, you don't have that right in public
* free from public attention - nope, you don't have that right in public
* seclusion - nope, you don't have that right in public
* freedom from interference or intrusion - nope, you don't have that right in public None of your examples are absolutes. Being alone and undisturbed in public - restraining orders can and do enforce that right all the time. free from public attention - ever hear of a photo release? Ever watch a reality show where someone's face was blurred out? freedom from interference or intrusion - restraining orders again, as well as laws against disorderly conduct can all protect a person who is in public from interference and intrusion
I'm actually a strong privacy advocate, and people like you make the rest of us look like nuts when you start ranting about the right to privacy in a public place. You are actually just ignorant. Only a nut believes the world is binary and your ranting about private vs public being absolutes just plays into the hands of the people who are whittling away our right to privacy.
You are deeply confused about what privacy is. You don't have privacy when you are walking down the street in a public place. Everybody can see you. People can follow you around and watch what you do if they wish. Cameras don't take away anything, you never had privacy in a public place to begin with. No, you are deeply confused about what privacy is.
Privacy is NOT a black and white, either you have it or you don't, sort of thing. There are many gradations of privacy - where being in your home with the lights off and no one else around is one extreme and the other extreme is having every movement you make recorded, archived and cataloged in a database for anyone with enough power, money or general sneakiness to peruse at will.
Until recently the scale never really went past a sort of middling-grey. Out in public anyone could see you and you could see them. If someone wanted a record of your movements, they had to put at least one other person on the job of tailing you. Nowadays we are about 70-80% of the way to total privacy loss - automated systems mean no more chance for you to see someone who sees you and everyone is now recorded regardless of any current interest in their movements or not.
We are rapidly approaching a 100% loss of privacy with all of your 'public' information recorded and correlated in new and fascinating ways to dig up and expose your 'private' information too - like the fact that you started buying condoms a few weeks ago being used by your health insurance to raise your rates because if you are buying condoms you are probably having sex and now have both a higher risk of STDs and of having children - both costs for a insurance company.
There's plenty of profit in "public good" if it means the bottom line isn't crippled by solicitor's fees. I think that someone at Skype has realized that they are in a commodity market. Thus there is no profit in the "public good" for Skype if that public good means giving any advantage at all to their competitors. They probably think the price of the lawyers is totally worth the benefit of denying anyone else in the VOIP market access to the software changes they have made.
Unless they are selling the handsets at below cost, I can't see that reasoning really being true. But I'm not one of the skype managers who have decided that lawyers are worth the price.
This restriction isn't just in the burner, though - on either DVD-R or DVD+R media (can't remember which), the key area is physically unusable. Which makes it unplayable in a standard player. But not as a mounted iso image since all parts of an image file are writeable.
This whole drama seems manufactured to get attention for another *yawn* codec. Yeah, I tend to agree - CoreAVC is becoming less important by the day. A system running a modern CPU doesn't really need CoreAVC - on the windows front FFDShow works fine and its counterpart on linux should be just as good.
I've played a lot of HD-DVD and BLU-RAY h264 movies on my PC and the only time FFDShow on a 3GHz cpu was not sufficient was some whacked out DTS demo disk - don't ask me why an audio demo disc had intense video (just logos flying around) but its been the only disk out of hundreds that FFDShow could not handle.
Just delicense them and watch them shiver. Yeah right.
More like, just delicense them and watch them deliver the silver to their pet politicians who will quickly see that they are reinstated while the issue is settled in a decade-long court battle. By the time all delays and appeals have been exhausted, the issue will be moot and the corp will have extracted as much revenue from the abused resource as they possibly can and a whole new crew of lawyers will own mansions in the Bahamas.
Sun's internal politics is not a valid justification for a division of sun to step out of line with the CEO's stated direction. It may be the cause but it is not some sort of coherent plan, just a sign of bad management.
Just admit it, it was a bullshit excuse from the minute Mickos posted it and if you had applied a little critical thinking you would have never repeated it.
Try that, then come back and spout your ignorance. If you don't like the working conditions, then fucking quit. Don't use it as an excuse to take your frustrations out on people.
You came out of nowhere in this thread and asked me... ooooh, nowhere. You got me, I am the phantom and thus everything I say is to be questioned. Unlike Sun.
Again, you just keep parroting Mickos, an employee of Sun.
I don't see how people like you keep trying to attribute this to Sun when it seems like Sun has is trying to convince Mickos to do what the community wants. Lol, Sun owns Mickos. There is no 'trying to convince' -- there is only allowing him to stray from the corporate direction.
Maybe you should be asking someone at Sun or MySQL these questions. Oh Jessuz christ! YOU are the one who trotted the excuse out. If you don't understand it, why are you parroting it?
My point is that Sun isn't doing anything really different from what MySQL AB was doing. You've just restated your original premise and completely failed to answer my question which I will restate for you:
Sun acquired MySQL AB not the other way around. So why is it that the former MySQL AB's policies wrt Open Source override Sun's current stated policies?
Slashdot Mirror
But here's the thing - the hadith you quoted isn't about rape, muslims only believe the strong hadith are definitive about what mohamed said or did or at most what he allowed to occur in his presence, not about what anyone else did. No muslim will read that quote and take it as supporting the rape of prisoners because as you cited it, the only thing that happened in his presence was being asked about pulling out. It wasn't some big prisoner orgy where the guy actually pulled his dick out, looked over at mohamed getting his freak on with another prisoner and asked him if he should stick it back in or not.
You clearly want to say that because mohamed was commander of this army, he was responsible for everything anyone did while under his command and thus everything anyone did while in mohamed's army is fair game for any muslim to do. Get real, that's not how it works. So
Dude, you are a brainwashed fool completely incapable of thinking critically, just like the hordes of dhimmi-wannabes. You are soooo tiresome, and somewhat incoherent (but that's par for the course when you are a dhimmi-wannabe), so I'm getting my jollies where I find them. Peanut Butter Be Upon You.
A dhimmi-wannabe is someone who desperately wants islam to be an evil, world-conquering force hell-bent on subjugating themselves and everyone else. They are like those fools who are constantly predicting the end of the world - they warn of this great disaster but deep down inside they crave it. Their entire world-view is based on the disaster being a real threat such that that all critical thinking goes out the window and any evidence to the contrary induces massive cognitive dissonance.
As for your bitch that my response was content-free, go read the other fork where I nailed the dhimmi-wannabe to the wall with his best shot. It was a perfect example of his inability to read critically, he surely found that quote on one of the dhimmi-wannabe websites like jihadwatch or its ilk and couldn't apply even an ounce of skepticism.
This evil religion, so vile that you can't even find one quote from their primary text - the quran - to hold up as evil? What happened to the quotes from the quran that you just posted? Lost your faith in them?
Really brought your A-game, didn't you?
Here's the quotation you linked to, I'm not even going to bother looking for the other english translations because even this one is obvious: Chapter 22: AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS
Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born So, first, here's the context - the Mustaliq tribe have been arming up to try to take Mecca back from the muslims (they were part of the group that broke treaties with the muslims and done similar attacks in the past). So Mo and his gang go out to stop them and meet them half way at some oasis in the middle of nowhere. Mo's gang kicks their ass and takes prisoners.
Now the quote itself -- some of the gang are too horny for their own good and decide to rape some of the prisoners. But they don't want to get them pregnant because, apparently this Mustaliq tribe won't pay as much to get back an impregnated woman as they would if the woman had been unmolested, so these rapists decide to "pull out."
At this point OlEoLePuRpLeDoRk is all wetting himself because raping prisoners, that's pretty shitty. But that shit happens all the time in war and is not the subject of this quote. Reading further along, these guys ask Mohamed if "pulling out" is a sin and he says no.
Pay attention purple-dork - Mohamed was not asked if raping prisoners was OK. Nor does it say he participated, condoned or knew about it. Hell, Mo even ended up formally marrying one of the women captured in this particular battle - not something a guy does to someone he has treated like shit unless he's eeeeeeeeeeevil, right purple-dork?
So, the best you've got is that Mohamed said that pulling-out as a form of contraception is down with God because, basically, God's omnipotent so any soul he wants created is going to be created anyway no matter what a mere man does.
That's your big-ole display of the evil of islam, eh?
This is getting interesting... His list of quotes are a standard list distributed by the dhimmi-wannabes. Twice now in the last year I've taken on other posters on slashdot who have posted the same list and debunked each one of them. But I'm such a lazy ass I never bookmark my own posts.
So this time I'm letting the little dhimmi-wannabe take his best shot, pick the quote that is the most evil of evils and I'll just knock that single one down because frankly, this shit gets old real fast. Anyone who really cares can plug the verse numbers into google and find the full story, half the time all you gotta do is go read the couple of verses before and after the cited verse to learn the actual context.
The fact these dhimmi-wannabes are too lazy to even do that and instead just parrot what they hear from other dhimmi-wannabes in a big echo chamber ought to be proof enough that they don't know jack shit about what they are talking about.
Here's how this is going to work.
You pick one of those quotes, any one of them, and I will shred your interpretation to shit.
Pick the one you think is strongest and most indicative of just how evil a religion islam is.
If you are not as lazy as I think you are, you will do some due diligence on your quotes and you might actually discover just how weak an argument you've put forth. If you are really motivated you'll do enough background checking on every quote and discover that your argument holds no water at all and that not a single one of your quotes can withstand scrutiny.
Either way you are going to lose this argument. Put up or shut up.
By the way, where is your defense of christianity? All I see is you jousting at windmills and setting up strawmen about islam.
Its A-OK to keep millions of them confined for years in overcrowded conditions, such that they would not survive if they weren't pumped full of anti-biotics and other drugs only to slaughter them.
But some weirdo wants to stick his dick in one and he is the bad guy.
They pre-patented the "guardian angel in your cell phone" because they don't want them to be made.
Notice, they did not patent the "rat fink in your cell phone" - so that's what we have to look forward to.
They got in trouble with the local building codes because they could not do the same to the parking spaces and the local codes required them to maintain a certain proportion between desks (actually regular employees) in the building and parking spaces adjacent to the building.
I think they finally bribed the right people and got a waiver.
Again, not due to privacy concerns.
Once more, not due to privacy conerns. Total bullshit. They are ALL privacy concerns.
To take the simplest and most obvious case - photo releases are NOT required of public figures because they are considered to have given up that expectation of privacy by virtue of becoming public figures, but they are required for regular joes who have not given up that right simply by being in a public space. Only a nut attempts to argue that black is white. Good thing I'm not. But so far all you have done is misread definitions, misunderstand public policy and repeat the simplistic ideas of the sheep who haven't bothered to give it a critical thought. Useful idiots like yourself only serve to reinforce the propaganda of the war on privacy.
Your second hint should be the fact that you cite a single definition from the OED cherry-picked to support your argument and ignore the paragraphs of other definitions that contradict your argument. Anyone who thinks that citing simplified dictionary definitions is a valid means of arguing a nuanced point doesn't even belong at the debate. * Being alone - nope, you don't have that right in public
* Undisturbed - nope, you don't have that right in public
* free from public attention - nope, you don't have that right in public
* seclusion - nope, you don't have that right in public
* freedom from interference or intrusion - nope, you don't have that right in public None of your examples are absolutes.
Being alone and undisturbed in public - restraining orders can and do enforce that right all the time.
free from public attention - ever hear of a photo release? Ever watch a reality show where someone's face was blurred out?
freedom from interference or intrusion - restraining orders again, as well as laws against disorderly conduct can all protect a person who is in public from interference and intrusion I'm actually a strong privacy advocate, and people like you make the rest of us look like nuts when you start ranting about the right to privacy in a public place. You are actually just ignorant. Only a nut believes the world is binary and your ranting about private vs public being absolutes just plays into the hands of the people who are whittling away our right to privacy.
Privacy is NOT a black and white, either you have it or you don't, sort of thing. There are many gradations of privacy - where being in your home with the lights off and no one else around is one extreme and the other extreme is having every movement you make recorded, archived and cataloged in a database for anyone with enough power, money or general sneakiness to peruse at will.
Until recently the scale never really went past a sort of middling-grey. Out in public anyone could see you and you could see them. If someone wanted a record of your movements, they had to put at least one other person on the job of tailing you. Nowadays we are about 70-80% of the way to total privacy loss - automated systems mean no more chance for you to see someone who sees you and everyone is now recorded regardless of any current interest in their movements or not.
We are rapidly approaching a 100% loss of privacy with all of your 'public' information recorded and correlated in new and fascinating ways to dig up and expose your 'private' information too - like the fact that you started buying condoms a few weeks ago being used by your health insurance to raise your rates because if you are buying condoms you are probably having sex and now have both a higher risk of STDs and of having children - both costs for a insurance company.
How did you manage to get World of Warcraft to support your house?
Unless they are selling the handsets at below cost, I can't see that reasoning really being true. But I'm not one of the skype managers who have decided that lawyers are worth the price.
But not as a mounted iso image since all parts of an image file are writeable.
I've played a lot of HD-DVD and BLU-RAY h264 movies on my PC and the only time FFDShow on a 3GHz cpu was not sufficient was some whacked out DTS demo disk - don't ask me why an audio demo disc had intense video (just logos flying around) but its been the only disk out of hundreds that FFDShow could not handle.
More like, just delicense them and watch them deliver the silver to their pet politicians who will quickly see that they are reinstated while the issue is settled in a decade-long court battle. By the time all delays and appeals have been exhausted, the issue will be moot and the corp will have extracted as much revenue from the abused resource as they possibly can and a whole new crew of lawyers will own mansions in the Bahamas.
Missing the forest for the trees, you do it.
You are a riot. Great soap opera you dreamt up.
Sun's internal politics is not a valid justification for a division of sun to step out of line with the CEO's stated direction. It may be the cause but it is not some sort of coherent plan, just a sign of bad management.
Just admit it, it was a bullshit excuse from the minute Mickos posted it and if you had applied a little critical thinking you would have never repeated it.
Don't use it as an excuse to take your frustrations out on people.
Unlike Sun.
Again, you just keep parroting Mickos, an employee of Sun. I don't see how people like you keep trying to attribute this to Sun when it seems like Sun has is trying to convince Mickos to do what the community wants. Lol, Sun owns Mickos. There is no 'trying to convince' -- there is only allowing him to stray from the corporate direction.
Sun acquired MySQL AB not the other way around. So why is it that the former MySQL AB's policies wrt Open Source override Sun's current stated policies?