Islamist Hackers Shut Down Egyptology Research Journal 564
An anonymous reader writes "Radical Islamist hackers have been harassing Egyptologist Kate Phizackerley's online journal Egyptological and her blog KV64. Phizackerley and her team finally got tired of it and shut their online work down. As blogger Roger Pearse says, 'A bunch of violent scumbags... who never have contributed in any way to the web, have successfully interfered with the scientific effort of the entire human race... Next year there will be more.' How do we route around damage like this?"
This makes me happy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Muslims want to destroy all non-Muslim artifacts (Score:4, Interesting)
Just as they have already destroyed those Buddhist statues, and many other such artifacts.
They even want to destroy the pyrimids in Egypt.
IMO: Muslims are even more anti-science than Christians.
Re:Heh... Radical...Islamists...redundant... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, except mainstream Christians stopped killing people who disagreed with them hundreds of years ago. Mainstream Islam still does.
Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any evidence whatsoever that it was "Islamist Hackers" that shut down the journal? What happened to the "negotiations with the hacker"?
Why was the blog hosted by Blogger shut down? Surely it wasn't being hacked was it?
Something seems out of place...
Re:Route around damage (Score:1, Interesting)
No, you route the damage to the attacker. A predator drone should do nicely.
Do you have the same response when the hackers' cause is fighting against government corruption? The crimes are the same, aren't they? Even if the philosophies behind them are very different.
Re:Heh... Radical...Islamists...redundant... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only "compassionate" thing about Islam is that in the all-out war against infidels you are allowed to merely lie, cheat and use "stratagems" when you have no chances of a direct victory by force (Taqiyya), and that, if strategy demands so, you may enter a temporary truce with "people of the book" but must be prepared to stab them in the back and resume the all-out war the moment "Allah giveth command" (2:109). Yes, the very line that says "forgive and be indulgent" continues with "until".
Unlike Bible, the Koran contains very few contradictions, and it's message is clear. And I really dislike what it says.
Re:Heh... Radical...Islamists...redundant... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Heh... Radical...Islamists...redundant... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Qur'an and the history of Islam generally expresses great tolerance towards other religions. People of the Book
Ie, they are allowed a brief despite during the forced conversion, being merely considered a lower class of beings and forced to pay tribute for being allowed to be left alive -- then they need to be put to sword and fire once Allah gives a command to continue extermination (unless they convert to Islam). Yes, quite a stellar example of "great tolerance".
As someone who's not a "person of the Book", and thus has to be slain immediately, especially if I dare to express my views, I think I'll pass praising such a great religion of peace.
Re:Heh... Radical...Islamists...redundant... (Score:4, Interesting)
We need people like that medicated or even committed, not protected because of the particular brand of vitriol they spew.
Why stop with the religious? There are plenty of other belief systems that seem kooky or outright insane to many of our compatriots. I for one would start with Marxism and Objectivism, but even more mainstream views get plenty of vitriol - I'm pretty sure there's a bumper sticker that says "Liberalism is a mental disorder". Considering all of the gridlock and bad policy that results from having such a diverse range of views, our species clearly needs to medicate or commit anyone whose views do not mesh well with the "majority" viewpoint, however that's defined.
I think I'll stick to our current anarchic system, thank you. A state that declares the overtly religious to be mentally ill and deprives them of basic civil rights can do the same to me or anyone else who gets in the way. Not unlike most Islamist regimes, ironically.
Re:You start by acknowledging Islam as a threat (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to claim that mainstream Muslims go around killing people who disagree with their religion.
They don't, but by the same token, they don't as much as raise their voice against it, because that would be un-Islamic. In a way, they silently condone it.