Terrorists Used False DMCA Claims To Get Personal Data of Anti-Islamic Youtuber 389
An anonymous reader writes German newspaper FAZ reports (google translated version) that, after facing false DMCA claims by "FirstCrist, Copyright" and threatened by YouTube with takedown, a youtuber running the German version of Islam-critic Al Hayat TV had to disclose their identity in order to get the channel back online. Later, the channel staff got a mail containing a death threat by "FirstCrist, Copyright", containing: "thank you for your personal data. [...] take care your house gets police protection!" Employee names are now on Al Qaeda black lists.
Yay, humans! (Score:5, Insightful)
The species and its imaginary friends are full of entertainment.
Lol! (Score:5, Interesting)
There must be some massive cognitive dissonance going on in media circles at the moment..
Re:Lol! (Score:5, Insightful)
There must be some massive cognitive dissonance going on in media circles at the moment..
That's assuming that these laws weren't intended to be bad from the beginning. Never assume and all that, sure, but just look at 'em.
I thought the DMCA is American Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I thought the DMCA is American Law (Score:5, Insightful)
How does American Law apply to Europeans and people in Germany --- or do US companies carry the American flag with them when they provide services in Europe and such?
By treaty.
Re:I thought the DMCA is American Law (Score:5, Informative)
Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... [wikipedia.org]
The DMCA is the US's implementation of the WIPO treaty. WIPO is the treaty that all signing parties agreed to, the DMCA is the law that enforces it in the US. Each signing party would have their own law to enforce the treaty. You'd have to look at individual laws in the member-states of the EU to know which particular law enforces the treaty there.
And now you know... and knowing is half the battle!
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to referencevthe same thing. WIPO actually existed before the DMCA in casse anyone wants to blame the US for forcing its laws on the rest of the world and is the reason all these other countries try to pass DMCA style laws from time to time.
Re:I thought the DMCA is American Law (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still blaming the US though, as they were the main party pushing for anti-circumvention and notice-and-takedown provisions to be included in the treaty.
Re: (Score:3)
Ehh.. i don't know. I'm not aware of any detailed accounts from the treaty's development process. I do know that Europe signed and ratified it before the US did. In fact, most all US copyright laws changed after 1930 something (i forget the exact date but remember it started right around WWII time frame) was at the behest of Europe and to comply with treaties we joined. Even the sonny bono act was to satisfy a treaty with Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, it's a US law so doesn't apply to me. If they want to come to my country and file a claim under my country's laws they are welcome to, but fortunately things like reverse engineering for compatibility are not crimes here.
Re: (Score:2)
But the DMCA itself is quite applicable to youtube.com, an American company primarily operating within US borders.
I suppose EU member state citizens can post their videos on video sites outside of US-hosted ones, but if they choose to play in the DMCA's playground, they can't be surprised when they turn out to be susceptible to DMCA bullying.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but in this case the terrorists were not in the US, and the victim was not in the US, so why did they even let them make a DMCA request? I can't make DMCA requests against US companies because I'm not in the US. If I could I'd send billions of them, because not being in the US there is no possible punishment for making bogus claims.
Re:I thought the DMCA is American Law (Score:4, Interesting)
European companies get a lot of legal threats from the US, especially DMCA take-downs. It's got so bad I set up dmca@ my domains to automatically reply with "wrong country fuckwad", just in case any of them are not coming from bots. I get various threats to sue me too... Well, good luck with that. Even if your stupid court decides to try and grab jurisdiction the ruling will have no meaning to me, and I never wanted to visit your stupid country anyway.
It's incredible to think how much money these people pissed away on lawyers without even bothering to figure out if I was in the same country as them.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a US company, so they have to abide by requirements under US law in order to benefit from some protections against lawsuits over activities by any users, even EU users.
However, now that it has been made a matter of life and death; I wonder, if this doesn't represent an opportunity for the public to express outrage over the DMCA counternotice requirements.
Re:Lol! (Score:5, Insightful)
They were intended to have a low burden of proof, and little penalty for claimants in order to facilitate copyright holders protecting their profits.
By design, us little people are expected to obediently comply so that our corporate copyright overlords can protect their interests.
In this case, " bad " is in the eye of the beholder ... so all of us who watched this crap happen to the world, thought it was bad at the time, because it was so badly written.
The copyright cartel and politicians who did this on their behalf (and got generous bribes/'contributions') ... they were having none about how their badly written laws were one-sided, unfair, and required far too little proof. To them, they were 'good' laws, because they entrenched protection for corporate profits.
Lawmakers no longer care about if a law is 'good' or 'bad', or even some of the bad consequences which can be envisioned. All they care about is keeping their corporate overlords happy.
So, in that regard ... mission accomplished!
Shitty laws, passed by incompetent people, written by industry lobbyists, and then foisted on the rest of the world by the US government in order to protect the interests of multi-national corporations, to the detriment of everyone else on the planet.
Thanks, America ... this really is your fault.
I really hope that this is a wake up call about just how terrible some of these laws actually are. Because most of them are so one sided as to be laughable (if it wasn't so draconian).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You had me until this:
By blaming the malice or incompetence of the rest of the world's governments on the dirty stinking Americans, you absolve everybody else of responsibility for their actions. Bad American laws are internalized by other countries (especially OECD members) because their lawmakers have the same goals.
Re:Lol! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's the whole US threatening trade retaliations to countries which didn't.
Yes, those other countries passed the laws.
But, yes, the US government applied pressure on those governments to more or less force them to pass into law things which had been written by industry representatives.
So, yes, I do blame US foreign policy, and the fact that your government is so beholden to the copyright cartel that you more or less shoved this crap down the throat of the rest of the world.
America has hitched their cart to IP, and has been trying to ensure the world does the same. The badly written, one-sided laws which favor corporations, and don't require proof or accountability ... that was pretty much the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Sir you misunderstood the article, its about how bad people abuse anything they can. Now you aren't saying guns are bad just because Al Qaeda uses them or food is bad, bad people eat food to stay alive There... cognitive dissonance resolved.
Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:5, Informative)
What in the actual fuck?
Re:Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:5, Insightful)
Youtube and other service providers have to accept it whenever they don't have proof if they want to be safe. I am pretty sure youtube actually did everything they were required to do by law here and nothing more. Which just tells you how fucking awful the DMCA is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Youtube and other service providers have to accept it whenever they don't have proof if they want to be safe. I am pretty sure youtube actually did everything they were required to do by law here and nothing more.
That assumes that there always is an option that doesn't violate any laws. Considering that Germany has pretty strict privacy laws I'm guessing that they are violating laws no matter what they do here.
They decided to go with the variant where they screw over the little guy rather than show the finger to the copyright industry because it is the path of least resistance. As a result they provided Al Qaeda with a useful tool.
There is of course a way to follow the laws. Instead of having an automated service th
Re: (Score:3)
There is of course a way to follow the laws. Instead of having an automated service they could do the work necessary to validate copyright claims. They chose not to because profits are more important than not hurting people or following the laws.
That's easy to say. But YouTube make not be able to provide that service and comply in the way you describe. It's worth remembering here that profits are more important than providing the service. The whole reason YouTube exists in the first place is because they expect to turn a profit now or later. It's not that hard to destroy a low margin service by requiring expensive costs like elimination of automation to comply with your rules.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What in the actual fuck?
The idea of imaginary property is so frail that it needs massive legal edifices erected around it, and those create security risks for both person and real property.
But, ya know, profits above all, right? Let's get some of that back to the campaigns, eh?
Re:Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:4, Interesting)
This is precisely the stance of the US on such things, and why they've been pushing other countries to adopt IP laws which are even stricter than they've been able to pass domestically.
So, yes, profit above all is precisely why we have terribly written laws, with low evidentiary threshold, very little recourse when companies use it incompetently/maliciously, and which more or less say "if you comply, we won't grind you into dust ... if we're morons or lying, there's no penalty for us".
While nobody saw these laws being used by terrorists, at least not that I'm aware, the holes in these laws you could drive fleets of trucks through have been known from the start.
But the copyright cartels have bought and paid the politicians who created these laws, and foisted them on the world. Because the entire process around copyright has made lawmakers beholden to corporate profits, and protecting them before people.
So, yes, if the mere threat of a DMCA(/whatever treaty in your country) causes companies to take action with ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROOF and NO RECOURSE ... this is exactly what you get.
The laws weren't written with the intent of being challenged, or with any proof required on behalf of the claimant. Everything presumes that all of us are guilty, and that the copyright people would be able to legally skirt around the niceties because it was convenient for them. False claims are nothing more than an "oops".
Welcome to the global oligarchy, my friend. The loopholes they paid to have put in for themselves are exploitable by someone else who knows the secret to navigating around them.
But these weaknesses have pretty much been built into them by design. Because the people who bought them wanted it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly what happens. It's not just baddies, corporations do it thousands of times a day. Until DMCA takedown requests are required to submit proof of ownership and have escalating penalties for false/fraudulent claims, this situation will only get worse.
People also lose their accounts. Google won't even tell the people why their Youtube channels have been deleted. You'll get a vague "broke terms", but the reality is people hiding in their corporations do it daily.
And before any of you wankers say "it's a free service, who gives a shit", please GFYS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, someone submitted a false DMCA and legally forced Youtube to shutdown the channel. Do you really expect Youtube to be able correctly verify al or even any copyright claims? If they make a single false move they're liable. YouTube has no want to know if the parties have personal licensing agreements. The person controlling the channel responded to the claim which Youtube forwarded to the submitter just like they say they do. Youtube can't get in the way. They say 'here, you two work it out.' The l
Re:Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say YouTube faces a hefty compensation, a fine and a criminal investigation. For disclosing personal information, possibly leading to attempted murder, and breaching privacy laws. But. Somehow they cannot trace the accounts posting videos of atrocities.
Re:Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, EU privacy laws make this kind of disclosure a very serious matter. At best they should be looking at a massive fine, at worst they could have their permission to store personal data revoked and be forced to delete all personal data held about Europeans.
Re:Trying to wrap my head around this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When a company like YouTube is served with a DMCA, they have two courses of action: 1) Take down the content or 2) Fight the DMCA and be liable for copyright infringement. Many times, companies will just blindly take down content since they can't judge the legality of all DMCA requests. Once the content is taken down, the uploader is informed and can either accept the take down or can counter that the DMCA wasn't valid (because they are the copyright owner, because the content is in public domain, because
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose the DMCA notice issuer identify the uploader without collaboration from the service provider?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are against copyright, you want the terrorists to win. Please don't try wrapping your head around this yourself: highly skilled congress members are already wrapping their hands around this for you.
This posting was paid for by the RIAA and MPAA.
I assume you're joking here, because that is literally the dumbest remark about copyright and terrorism that I've ever heard.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Solution- DMCA Permit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that these islamists have very deep coffers. They could even lose 1 million dollar buying 1 license to make a statement against one other anti-islamist...
I would add that making a license cost prohibitive will block little content producer from submit a rightful DMCA notice :(
Problem not solved :(
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This will never happen. The DMCA was written specifically to allow fraudulent take-down notices to be issued. The perjury provisions in the law apply only to whether the filer is an authorized agent of the person he claims to represent.
If I claim to be sony I would commit perjury. But if I work for sony, I can claim that any video violates sony's copyright without it being perjury.
Re:Solution- DMCA Permit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This makes no sense. I am a part-time musician. I don't make but a few hundred bucks a year on arrangements and what not. If some company decides to use one of my compositions for a YouTube commercial, you really think I should have to pay $1000 to ask them to knock it off?
Apply it only to registered copyrights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then people won't be able to DMCA Disney when Disney rips off their work. The DMCA will become a tool that only rich individuals and corporations can use.
Just get rid of it. It's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Include it with the copr. registration (Score:2)
Make it cost prohibitive to get a license
I'd have it scale with the number of works that a copyright owner seeks to claim in notices of claimed infringement, such as 35 USD [copyright.gov] for a copyright registration [copyright.gov] on a work or a set of works published in a collection. This way both small-time individual authors and big-time work-made-for-hire publishers pay appropriate fees.
Re: (Score:2)
not only will it all but prohibit all potentially legitimate use, it will not stop illegitimate requests like this, or even patent trolls, as they will have funds to pay.
Here is the solution. (Score:2)
If I were going to start such a channel. I would create a Nom De Plume (fake name). I would go to store and buy a burner phone that doesn't require a name. I would then create my channel using Nom De Plume and that phone number. Done deal!
Remember what this tells us about the terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I like that word. Kinetic has such a nice ring to it.
So DMCA has helped terrorists (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem is elsewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Google isn't the problem here, they did exactly what was expected of them. The law itself ("safe harbor") isn't really a problem either. The problem is that there's no meaningfull check and balance. It's a very one-sided thing. The law wasn't written by all parties invoved, it was written singlehadedly with one side's interests in mind.
If someone cries "rape!" and gets a man arrested, and then we find out that it was just a girl scorned that didn't like her BF had cheated on her, SHE is now up for legal charges "filing a false statement" as well as a target for a civil suit.
No such balance exists with DMCA. Anyone can file a DMCA claim, and the recipient is legally obligated to take action. They're not [i]required[/i] to take action, but if they don't, they accept legal responsibility if the DMCA filing was lawful. So it's not really "optional" for them, even though it may appear so.
Then, if the filing turns out to be iffy, inaccurate, or even deliberaly misleading, there are NO penalties or liabilities of any kind for the person that filed the fraudulent DMCA notice.
This has several effects, and only some of them are really noticed. First, the victim has no recourse. They have no legal basis to sue the filer. No law has been broken, so law enforcement has no teeth either. But it doesn't stop there. The victim's only possible relief is a civil suit against the middleman tha received the notice. (google in this case) They have a pretty good defense since they can argue (as above) that although not legally obligated, they actually WERE obligated, indirectly. Also, google has no recourse against the filer. If they have to stage a legal defense against the victim, it's on their nickel, they can't recover any of the costs from the filer because google acted "voluntarily".
The only way out of this for google is to do research before acting on the notice. This causes all sorts of problems because not promptly taking the material down forfeits their protection, and there will be a cost to this, which is unrecoverable, regardless of the outcome.
Provisions for accountability need to be added to the law. Not so much to protect the victim, but to protect the intermediary, so they can act in the victim's best interst instead of as the filer's whipping dog. Do that, and it would (A) reduce the number of false claims, (B) make people think more carefully about filing a claim, (C) give the intermediaries some teeth to go after fraudulent filings. Once that's in place, the back end of the process will only be activated when there's a much better change it's necessary and appropriate.
Looking to change the back end of this process just isn't productive. The changes need to be made in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, is there anything stopping us from creating and deploying tools that submit [fraudulent] DMCA notices for every single piece of content hosted on Youtube and similar sites, effectively crippling every part of the web hosts user-submitted content and provides an interface to submit DMCA claims? Wouldn't such blatant [legal] abuse of the DMCA be enough to attract
Re: (Score:2)
In theory someone could get charged with perjury.
In practice, all you have to do is say you acted in good faith and nothing at all happens.
The system really has no checks and balances, and starts from a presumption of "anybody saying this is a violation of their copyright is assumed to not be lying". There is no threshold they need to cross, they just make the claim.
Which is why or
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the problem is elsewhere (Score:4, Informative)
The law itself ("safe harbor") isn't really a problem either.
Actually the law is the problem here, USC 17512 [cornell.edu]:
(g)(3) Contents of counter-notification
(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, (...)
combined with (g)(2)(B):
(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification
There's no provision to keep your identity a secret, so anyone willing to commit DMCA fraud can reveal who their opponent is. Note that the DMCA only cares about the service provider's liability and their ability to recover costs from fraudulent notices. It it not a shield for the accuser, if you want to sue them for "filing a false statement" you can. But just like taking you to court and being wrong generally isn't a crime, neither is a wrongful DMCA notice unless you can prove it was deliberately false. At any rate it's unlikely it would help here, the courts would probably never manage to pursue it while they already got what they wanted.
The purpose of providing this counter-notice is that you now have a dispute (claimant and counter-claimant) that the courts would like to see settled outside of court. That part should have been optional and shouldn't need to involve revealing your identity though. I think it's reasonable that your personal information is part of your counter notice and kept in escrow at the service provider to avoid "Mickey Mouse" filing counter notices, but you should get one of three choices when it comes to passing it on:
a) Use your contact information as legal contact address, like today. Basically, you represent yourself.
b) Provide a legal contact address, basically your lawyer and a case ID but which doesn't reveal who you are.
c) Decline to provide a legal contact address, see you in court. They can subpoena your identity if they want.
As it is though, the DMCA makes this form of abuse of process essentially required for the parties involved.
European Data Protection (Score:2)
Under the European Data Protection Directive (EU LAW) [europa.eu] personal data is protected from unauthorised disclosure.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA effectively authorizes disclosure. Problem fucking solved.
Sorry, if it comes to a pissing match between EU law and US law for a US-based company hosting on US-based servers and infrastructure, EU law won't even come in second place.
I suspect that's by design. Sick and sad, but true nonetheless.
If you want your rights to be protected, don't use US-based services. You're just voluntarily surrendering all your rights if you do.
Not believable (Score:2)
Employee names are now on Al Qaeda black lists
This desperately needs a citation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean the freedom to violate other people's freedom through DMCA? Yes, that is truly something to nurse and be proud of... Don't let them take that from you!
Re:Typical muslims (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you get this all the time, but really: there's no call for the generalisation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At what point to we accept that Islam poses problems and threats that no other major religions do?
Sure there are secular and progressive muslims, but do these really represent the majority of muslims? It's not like there is a muslim state we can point to and say "Look at X, that's a muslim state with basic human rights and freedoms".
We see this argument all the time. Just because 5% of some selection deviates from the rest of the 95% in some way ( numbers admittedly pulled out of my ass ) apparently means we are supposed to ignore the fact that 95% can be bucketed as such. That's like saying it's wrong to generalize that men are attracted to women, because a minority aren't.
Can we please be just a little pragmatic about this.
Nah, Islamic fundamentalists are as crazy and backwards thinking as Christian fundamentalists.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately there are indeed Muslim countries in which the majority of people support killing apostates [pewforum.org], yes. (Afghanistan, for instance.)
That doesn't make Chrisq's bullshit any less unreasonable, though. Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
Re:Typical muslims (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately there are indeed Muslim countries in which the majority of people support killing apostates [pewforum.org], yes. (Afghanistan, for instance.)
That doesn't make Chrisq's bullshit any less unreasonable, though. Muslims in Western countries tend not to be like that.
You have to bear in mind that following Muhammad's example, as they have done throughout the world, they will apear friendly and attempt to undermine societies until they have sufficient forces for a violent uprising. Lets hope that when it happens it will go the way of Spain, not Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, and many more.
Look at statistics like the fact that more European Muslims have joined Islamic state than their country's armed forces (it may be true in the US also, I don't know) and you get an idea of what these "peaceful" muslims in the west think.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers. A related term, of broader application, is “kitman,” which is defined as “mental reservation.” An example of “Taqiyya” would be the insistence of a Muslim apologist that “of course” there is freedom of conscience in Islam, and then quoting that Qur’anic verse — “There shall be no compulsion in religion.” {2:256} But the impression given will be false, for there has been no mention of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, or naskh, whereby such an early verse as that about “no compulsion in religion” has been cancelled out by later, far more intolerant and malevolent verses. In any case, history shows that within Islam there is, and always has been, “compulsion in religion” for Muslims, and for non-Muslims.”Kitman” is close to “taqiyya,” but rather than outright dissimulation, it consists in telling only a part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest. One example may suffice. When a Muslim maintains that “jihad” really means “a spiritual struggle,” and fails to add that this definition is a recent one in Islam (little more than a century old), he misleads by holding back, and is practicing “kitman.” When he adduces, in support of this doubtful proposition, the hadith in which Muhammad, returning home from one of his many battles, is reported to have said (as known from a chain of transmitters, or isnad), that he had returned from “the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad” and does not add what he also knows to be true, that this is a “weak” hadith, regarded by the most-respected muhaddithin as of doubtful authenticity, he is further practicing “kitman.
Re:Typical muslims (Score:4, Funny)
I agree, albeit in the general sense. There's a group of mentally deranged humans that make the other 5% look bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but this isn't really an isolated incident now is it? This shit happens all the time, and it's always Muslims.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
It's a problem, and a big one. Can we please stop pretending otherwise?
Re: Typical muslims (Score:5, Informative)
No, but this isn't really an isolated incident now is it? This shit happens all the time, and it's always Muslims.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.... [thereligionofpeace.com]
It's a problem, and a big one. Can we please stop pretending otherwise?
It is not always Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Etc.
Re: Typical muslims (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not really convinced by that argument:
"Hey remember that one time that one guy killed some people and said that it was for Jesus? Yeah, that means Christians are as bad as Muslims, who in the meantime have committed tens of thousands of separate suicide attacks."
Today in the world, most terrorism comes from the Muslim community. Nobody gets to claim that that factual statement implies that all Muslims are terrorists, because that's not what the statement says. Anyone who makes that false claim concedes all credibility.
A majority of worldwide Muslims support death as a punishment for apostasy. If you think death-for-apostasy is bad, and if you think majority support within a group for a certain policy makes it fair to discuss that policy in terms of that group, then it is fair to say that "Muslims support death for apostates".
Compare that to the statement "Republicans support restrictions on abortion". Is that a true statement? I consider it to be true even though not every last Republican supports restrictions on abortion. When discussing groups, we don't have to account for every last member of the group. If we did, it would be impossible to discuss groups.
The Muslim community has problems -- moral problems. The community generally supports some incredibly horrible things. It is wonderful that some Muslims are not horrible, especially many or most of those who now live in Western countries, as well as a minority of those living in Islamic countries. I hope that that minority grows into the majority someday, but today they are still a minority, and it is fair to discuss Muslims as a group and policies supported by the majority of Muslims.
Muslims as a group support death for apostasy.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for women.
Muslims as a group are opposed to rights for homosexuals.
Muslims as a group support blasphemy laws.
Some Muslims don't support those things; most do.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point in history, it is predominantly and disproportionately Muslims. It wasn't always this way - Christianity had the dark ages, and was just as brutal back then as Islam is today. Perhaps in future it will change again - religions are defined by their followers more than their holy texts, and can shift in positions over a period of generations. But right now, Muslims easily claim the crown for systematic religiously-motivated violence.
Re: Typical muslims (Score:4, Insightful)
need I go on?
Yes please do, because if you want a numbers game I think you know that by far Islam is massively guilty here, So I'll be waiting.
The crusades were a reaction to the atrocities that Islam was engaged with CENTURIES, not decades but centuries in the Mediterranean & middle east, just like we are seeing now with ISIS. You know murder, torture, slaving all the sorts of things that are considered in-human. Come on the battle of Tours was in 732 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] ]. We were trying to wipe them out and for good reason.
The problem is that the issue IS with Islam, it is the problem, because you see Mohamed is meant to be the perfect man?! Really? How can a rapist, murdering, pedophile possibly be perfect? All muslims are taught to be like him. For example some of the great examples muslims follow Mohamed forces a 17 yr old Jewish girl called Safiyyah to marry him and rapes her on the same day her husband and family are killed in the battle of Khaibar (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 522, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367).
You know everything that is being done by these muslim terrorist (Al-nasura, ISIS, Boko haram, etc.....) All of it comes from the Quran, every bit of it. Try and do that with the new testament.
Political? Islam is a political system you fool!
So the issue fundamentally IS ISLAM, is Mohamed, his teachings and more importantly his behaviour. OK here's a snip for you to think about:
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/... [raymondibrahim.com]
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that.
Oh did you notice the freudian slip she made as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes a slip is just a slip.
Re:Typical muslims (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for demonstrating your blatant racism and ignorance.
You do realize that there is 1.6 billion of people that are muslims in the world, spread out over the most of the globe? Your comment is like saying that we should ban all Christians from having human rights, because they are Bible thumping bigots opposing gays and abortions.
Please, do educate yourself before you open your mouth next time.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You could consider this particular religion a race because it's virtually impossible to abandon. Unless you want your head cut off. So in this case, the label racism could apply. .
Get a dictionary. (Score:2)
Aside from that, following strict apostate rules has nothing to do with race, there is nothing in you
Re:Typical muslims (Score:4, Insightful)
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
Re:Typical muslims (Score:5, Informative)
Okay. Anti-Balaka Chrstian militias in CAR.
Those guys make IS look tame. French peacekeepers were talking about Christian mob going door to door and taking entire families apart with machetes until there were effectively almost no muslims left in the country. They either fled or were killed. They even forced Chad's peacekeepers of muslim faith to flee alongside other muslims.
Hilariously, Anti-Balaka means "no sword" or "no machete".
Re:Typical muslims (Score:4, Informative)
Now compare numbers, both raw and percentage to Islam. You are also conveniently ignoring both the fact that they aren't exclusively Christian (shooting your implication that it's a religious movement) and the reason they developed in the first place - Islamic take over of CAR and terrorism. The very first sentence on the Wiki page in the History section: "The anti-balaka militias originally formed in the 1990s as village self-defense forces."
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the start was about Christian majority massively oppressing muslim minority, which caused the Seleka uprising. Anti-Balaka were the Christian answer to this uprising which brutally suppressed it in true Stalinist way - "no people, no problem".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's use a single letter of leader of rebels who know they're outnumbered, outgunned and will be purged to anyone willing to listen to implicate that they are the terrorists. Ignore the rest as irrelevant because, well, it doesn't fit the whole "oo, evil muslim terrorists" narrative.
Also many left over? Really? Because Human Rights Watch disagrees with you there. Pretty much the only reason why they weren't completely cleansed was because French actually got their shit together and started putting the
Re: (Score:2)
and the reason they developed in the first place - Islamic take over of CAR and terrorism. The very first sentence on the Wiki page in the History section: "The anti-balaka militias originally formed in the 1990s as village self-defense forces."
You appear to be blaming the existence of violent Christian groups in CAR on the violent Muslim group that preceeded them. In a sense, this isn't wrong, although I don't agree with it (for a reason that will soon be apparent).
Would you be surprised to hear that Islamic State rose to power in the wake of Western military incursions into Iraq? Would you then blame Christians for the existence of Islamic State?
If you're going to be applying this type of logic, please apply it consistently.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush military doctrine and incompetence is indeed partially to blame from the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq. Combining the weakened and divided Iraq that that doctrine produced with the dogged Russian support for Syria's Assad regime created a power vaccum where ISIS could propser. In this case I wouldn't specifically blame Christians for the Islamic State because those decisions are more accurately attributed to the neo-conservative movement in the United States which mostly pays lip-service to b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a direct result of losing a jihad. Don't start any shit and there wont be any shit. This might happen anywhere when people get fed up and take up arms against terrorism and opressive religious fanatics. Might we not just leave people alone to believe what they want? I personally think the Muslim religion is a crock of shit but as long as they go bow toward Mecca and pray to Allah without trying to force me to I'm fine with it. When they start with the jihad crap I'm fine with killing the hell o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
It is if you blow up abortion clinics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Opposing gays and abortions isn't quite the same as selling them as sex slaves or beheading them, is it?
Both of which are also A-OK in the bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Not for Christians there not, show me in the new testament where is says this?
Oh right, I forgot the part where Christians get to ignore half the book because they know it's full of shit. How about showing you the part where jesus says it all counts and can't be changed?
Re: (Score:3)
And these are Governors that claim to be "pro-life".
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the previous poster was referring to such lovely things as the employment of "The pear of anguish" [medievality.com] for people "convicted" of "the heinous, unnatural" act of sodomy.
Due to religious influence, the practice of "Sodomy" (a wide umbrella for multitudinous sexual acts considered 'sinful') was considered a capital offence in more countries in europe than not. (And those that didnt have it as a capital offence, had torture as one of the major punishments, such as the afore mentioned pear of anguish.)
ht [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
If you are being attacked by group A, then sitting back and doing nothing because it wouldn't be fair to a minority percentage of that group who don't support the attack isn't exactly survival tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
You could've replaced Islam or Muslim in the article with $cientology and it still would have made sense.
But, yes I agree about the human rights in both cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont always agree with Resa Aslan but he's right about this so ust for the sake of correctness:
FGM is not a particularly Muslim phenomenon. It's pretty much limited to those Muslims that inhabit north-eastern and central sub-Saharan Africa. It is almost unknown in most other Muslim majority countries (except for immigrants from the aforementioned regions).
It's also very common among Christian and other religious groups in the same area, so FGM really seems to be linked to the culture in just that geograph
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of trolls, wouldn't it be amusing if Anonymous started filing DMCA notices against anybody who uses a meme commercially?