Saudi Arabia Calls For Global Internet Censorship Body 678
Onymous Hero writes "Following the recent YouTube video 'The Innocence of Muslims' and the subsequent Muslim violence, Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.' The World Telecommunications Policy Forum (a UN body) is the vehicle by which Saudi Arabia (and possibly other states) will try to use to implement a global set of internet content standards."
one word! (Score:5, Insightful)
NO!
Re:one word! (Score:5, Insightful)
but! If it wasn't religious extremists our US embassies around the world wouldn't of been attacked/rioted at and the one in Libya wouldn't of been raided the the ambassador killed! Hope and Change demands this!
FTFY
Re:one word! (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck that pack up and get everyone out and let the region burn and the barbarians kill each other if they want to kill each other over silly religious beliefs let them but they attack us once we leave them to rot as they seem to want show them the error of there way with bombs and drones if that fails we can always produces several kilometers of glass in a instant till they learn.
I see no point in wasting the lives of our troops on helping people who don't really want it. A supposed silent majority is no majority at all
Then again there is something to be said about stopping genocide which we will probably see one way or another when it comes to the Christians and Jews in the region if we did pull out.
Re: (Score:3)
If so, it's not goi
Re: (Score:3)
How on earth does making EVs "take so much energy"? They're fundamentally far simpler than gas-driven cars, with far fewer parts; the main problem is the batteries, and batteries don't cost that much to make. Just take a look at Teslas; you can compare the energy costs by comparing the production costs of the cars directly, since energy more or less translates into money. Teslas don't cost millions of dollars to make, and the only reason they cost as much as they do is because they haven't scaled up thei
Re:one word! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if women didn't dress provocatively, they wouldn't be raped.
Yeah, yeah, that's it. Suppress freedom of expression so half-crazed Islamist assholes don't have an excuse to riot. Sounds like a great plan to me.
Re:one word! (Score:5, Funny)
But she showed her ankles!!!! I COULDN'T HELP MYSELF FROM RAPING HER AFTER THAT!!!
Besides don't forget to stone her after raping her. It's the Muslim way!
Re:one word! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now here's the catch. A riot was asked what they didn't like about the video or what was so wrong, answer, I would not watch that rubbish. So what do you do with morons who riot about content they have never even bloody seen and like automatons they are rioting because the were told to be insulted and that they should riot.
Saudi Arabian government can fuck right off. The Government of Saudi Arabia via their nominated sub-cult the Wahhabis were the shit heads telling everyone to riot. No matter what anyone writes, draws or video if the criminally insane subcult of Islam spends money on telling the rest of the Islam world to riot via the religious communication channels then a percentage of fundamentalists world wide will riot.
The problem is not the content the problem is the corrupt autocratic government of Saudi Arabia and it's fiscal campaign corruption of the US government. How many US politicians are crawling around feeding at the hand of the Saudi government and it's Wahhabi religious fanatics, shit they ran airliners into US buildings, own substantial interests in US media channels, corrupt US politicians and the US governments turns a blind eye, again and again and again.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I may be wrong, but the way I see it, the Saudi government is actually rather progressive, for a Muslim nation. The King has pushed for many reforms there. The problem isn't the government, it's the people themselves: they're mostly a bunch of lunatics. The government does things like this (calling for global censorship, etc.) to appease its people, and stay in power, and avoids pushing for too much reform too quickly, so that their nutty people don't start a revolution and set up an even worse
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure about that? The way it looks to me, these Wahhabists control the clerical institutions, and the Sauds maintain this alliance because it keeps them in power. The Wahhabists are probably only able to stay in power because the people love them. It's little different from what we have here in America: a bunch of nutty fundie Christian groups have enormous popular support in certain quarters, so right-wing politicians pander to them (i.e., a strategic alliance) in order to gain power and stay in
Re:one word! (Score:4, Insightful)
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” - Seneca, Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD
These ain't real protests (Score:3)
It has been well known that this stuff is dial-a-riot type protests, the numbers are relatively tiny and to many cases of so called "spontanous" protests about stuff that either was released decades earlier or so obscure it could never have been heard of by the protestors unless someone went to the trouble of telling them.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to get your sarcasm detector checked out. I think most of us picked up that the gp was being ironic.
no (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not one of the "OMG! Look at the religion of peace!" bozos. But this is way over the line. This asks for the ability to apply censorship rules to everyone. They should be bitch slapped and sent out of the room.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran [telegraph.co.uk], Saudi Arabia [dailymail.co.uk] and Pakistan [npr.org] flow directly from Islam.
Re: (Score:3)
I am. Islam is a blight on humanity and evil things like those emanating from Iran [telegraph.co.uk], Saudi Arabia [dailymail.co.uk] and Pakistan [npr.org] flow directly from Islam.
Blaming the religion is the wrong approach. All you will accomplish by attacking a religion is to add to the resolve of those extremist followers who you seem to conflate with the vast majority of those followers who are not so fearful, ignorant, and hateful. Notice I said "a" religion. Not Islam. Christianity has it's share of nut-job followers too. They're not as well organized since The Enlightenment, but they are still there. We need to leave the religion out of it and deal with religious extremists for
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that?
On the contrary, blaming the religion is exactly the right approach because it is the religion that contains the evil. Most Muslims are quite decent human beings and are deserving of respect. Islam, on the other hand, is a set of ideas and philosophy and we should not hesitate to criticize it.
Re:no (Score:4)
Then you must do the same for Christianity
If this were an article about a bunch of morons in the Bible Belt calling for a Global Internet Censorship body, I'm sure he would.
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'm not kidding. When I read the Bible, I see things like the Sermon on the Mount [biblegateway.com] in which Jesus admonishes Christians to love their enemies. Christian orthodoxy requires adherents to spread the gospel, but to do so through teaching and preaching the Word in love, as the Apostle Paul did throughout the Book of Acts and more recently as Martin Luther King did during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. There have been times in history when this approach was not used, when violence and intimidation were instead used. Use of violence and other forms of coercion is not supported anywhere in the New Testament and historical uses of it have consistently demonstrated its failure to bring about any meaningful conversion.
God's commandments in the Old Testament for the descendents of Israel to enter and occupy the Promised Land were to the Jews, not to Christians, and are therefore not part of how a Christian should spread Christianity.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Mao didn't need a religious excuse to kill millions, neither did Stalin. North Korea manages to oppress their people to a degree the middle eastern nations can only dream about. Christianity was used as a rallying cry for countless atrocities throughout the middle ages. Evil flows from evil people. If the evil people couldn't use Islam to be evil they'd use something else.
Re:no (Score:5, Informative)
If the evil people couldn't use Islam to be evil they'd use something else.
I agree with you, but yet I still have to concede that it is a lot easier for evil people to manipulate people into doing evil by using the Quran than it is by using My LIttle Pony episodes.
The real problem is Belief. Not Religion. (Score:3)
Yes, and the common ground here isn't religion. Religion is a symptom of the real problem.
It desn't matter whether you are a Taliban shooting a little girl, or a member of the Red Army killing doctors and teachers--you know, those dangerous edjoomacated people--or a brainwashed 19th-early 20th century expansionist nationalist.
Humans tend to.. not question their beliefs. We become emotionally attached to them. We place way too much value on them. Our beliefs are tribal--We tend to believe what we believe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Islam is a blight on humanity
Religion is a blight on humanity.
Fixed that for ya. Doesn't matter whether intolerance and the desire for absolute control over morality and ethics emanates from Saudi Arabia, Rome, an Anglican pulpit or some intolerant, fundamentalist bigot in the southern US of A.
Belief in mean, paternalistic sky fairies and an intense wave of misogyny is the problem, here. In other words, believe whatever you like, and practice whatever superstition you choose. But the minute you try to impose that belief on any anothe
Re: (Score:3)
That defeats your hypothesis that all religion is (equally) a blight on humanity. The Onion image insulted a bunch of religions but there wasn't any violence. It seems that Islam is unique in that criticism of it or satire of it provokes deadly violence.
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Note: I said the evil flows from Islam. I didn't say that Muslims are evil. The Muslims I know are all decent and humane people. That's because they ignore all the nasty crap in their religion and only pick and choose the benign stuff. But the religion itself is full of nastiness and evil and is a blight on humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Note: I said the evil flows from Islam.
Evil flows from homo sapiens. Religion is just an excuse do do evil.
But evil doesn't really exist: it's just a human concept. In the end there are many similarities between groups of chimpanzees fighting over territories and resources, and humans.
The animal within us is still strong...
Re:no (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't mistake good folks who pay only lip service to religion as Islam. You can't possibly be an observant muslim and a good person (as the holy book demands murdering infidels), but merely calling yourself a muslim does not preclude you from being fit for civilisation. You "just" need to disregard core articles of the faith -- fortunately, most do.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, yes. All religion is bad. That being said, some religions are worse than others and IMO Islam is the worst of the lot.
Re:no (Score:4, Interesting)
It's impossible to really observe the bible, as it's a big pile of various works that often contradict each other (or even themselves!) on core points, such as whether afterlife exists (Job), whether other gods exist, whether Yahveh is the highest god or merely a member of the "god of gods" court (Psalms -- compare translations closely, as they often try to wriggle away), whether you are even allowed to _not_ genocide your neighbours if they don't immediately surrender into slavery, etc, etc. All while claiming that every piece of past law is still in effect.
On the other hand, the Koran has hardly any contradictions -- usually they can be blamed on being literary devices; and even if it would contradict itself, there's an abrogation clause that says a commandment issued later overrides earlier ones. The very latest sura, 9 (they are not numbered in chronological order, remember!) is also the most bloodthirsty one.
Thus, it is pretty clear whether you follow the Koran or not.
Aww poor little guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Next time you see a fundamentalist, go the high road: Be nice and forthcoming. Make a nice emotional argument for the real world.
I agree, though most fundamentalists I have interacted with will take rational and compassionate arguments as personal attacks as well. There is literally no winning with someone that has an inconsistent internal view of the world.
But, it is fun an easy to knock them down a peg, though.
Drop dead (Score:5, Interesting)
If your feelings get hurt every time someone calls you out on your religious convictions, either you're not confident enough of your religion or you need to stop believing in fantasies.
Either you believe in freedom of speech, and all the nastiness that goes with it, or you want the world to adopt your narrow-minded, pathetic excuses for why women shouldn't drive, be allowed to walk alone or meet with men who aren't their relatives.
When you drag yourselves up to the 20th century, then we can discuss things you have issues with.
Re: (Score:3)
Or back to the 12th - 13th-ish century.
Back then, the muslim areas were the most advanced and enlighted ones you could find. Commerce, Arts, Science... I sometimes wonder what happend since then and if every religion sometimes has a few violent centuries now and then...
Re:Drop dead (Score:4, Interesting)
Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains this better than I could ever hope to. [youtube.com]
Isn't is supposed to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of expression is supposed to be uncomfortable and challenge public order. That's the whole idea.
Yes! Let's do it! (Score:5, Informative)
"international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order"
I agree absolutely. Let's set the standard: public disorder - destroying property, killing people - is a crime. Freedom of expression is not. Pretending that freedom of expression forced someone to violence is a transparent and pathetic excuse.
According to TFA, Saudia Arabia is still blaming the video clip for the violence. It is now well-established that the violence was pre-planned; the date of September 11th was picked carefully. The video clip was merely a transparent excuse, and the upload may, in fact, have been coordinated to coincide with the violence. Saudia Arabia is trying to use the situation to impose their fundamentalist values on the rest of the world. No thanks.
So, yes, let's set a standard: Free speech is too important to compromise.
what they should do is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
they should do their own censoring and leave the rest of the world's internets alone . . .
Exactly. Since that which threatens "public order" varies so widely by culture and country, attempting to find a global solution is pointless. As messy and difficult as it can be, censoring that which is perceived to be dangerous to a particular government is that particular government's problem, not everyone else's.
Hey Saudi Arabia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey Saudi Arabia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you really this retarded you primitive chauvinist(*) asshole?
My free speech is not protected by the US, it is protected by the constitution of my country. That attitude is exactly the kind of crap that the world has come to expect of you, and apparently rightfully so. For all I care, you could be swallowed up by Yosemite tomorrow, and my free speech would still be under the very same protection as it is today.
This arrogance is sickening to me, and I live in a western country that actually does have a reason to thank the US for a couple things. Now imagine how sickening it must be to someone living in a country where the US is responsible for bombing the shit out of the civilian population and little else. If you can't understand why they hate you - I can. If instead of liberating my country back in WW2 you had been killing a bunch of my friends and family for the past years, I definitely would, too.
(*) in the original sense, before feminism abducted the word
God fail (Score:3)
Good luck with that. (Score:3)
- The Constitution of the United States says that any treaty to which the United States shall be beholden must be ratified by two-thirds of the US Senate.
- The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, and prohibits the Congress from passing legislation limiting expression.
- Every single Senator took an oath to uphold the Constitution upon taking office.
Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold. At the very least, I can't imagine that there are 67 senators looking to retire at the end of the term in which this treaty would be voted on for ratification; to say nothing of the Supreme Court throwing it out like a 105mph fast ball...
Hey, if this thing gets passed in other countries, maybe the US will become the best place to host Internet content...
Re: (Score:3)
Any vote by the US Senate to ratify such UN action would be a direct violation of the Constitution which they swore to uphold.
So?
Don't watch it (Score:3)
Ah hell go burn some books if it makes you happy
Headed by 4chan and anonymous... (Score:5, Funny)
Now that is worth fighting for. (Score:5, Insightful)
Invading Iraq for oil, did not support
Invading Afghanistan to build pipeline, did not support
Nuking Saudi Arabia for stifling freedom of speech, Let me press the button.
They need to turn off the computer if they are offended but growing the fuck up would be even better.
Dictatorships: New Name; Same Game (Score:3)
Saudi Arabia has stated that there is a 'crying need for international collaboration to address "freedom of expression" which clearly disregards public order.'
There is a "crying need for international collaboration" to address the livid intolerance exhibited by the Monarchists (we've been there before -- self-absorbed, lazy and inbred) pissed that 6 billion people aren't under their thumb.
Dear Saudi Arabia: (Score:5, Interesting)
Fuck you, and your religion too.
Your pal,
OldSport
Re:Dear Saudi Arabia: (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, let's support this. Then use it to ban all Muslim writings. They disturb public order!
But wait (Score:4, Insightful)
A modest proposal (Score:5, Insightful)
In response to Saudi Arabia, I would recommended that all religious people and all religion content be removed from the internet. Reactionary, close minded ideology is clearly incompatible with this fast paced open medium. I'll be better for all of us if we take a bold step and separate them.
Dear Saudi Arabia (Score:5, Insightful)
Take your censorship and go f*ck yourself with it.
Sincerely,
The Free World
p.s. we can still buy your oil, right?
Should support this (Score:3)
We really should support it. There is nothing at the moment that creates more public disturbance than the Qur'an. We support Saudi Arabia in this and instantly work on banning this book all over the world. Then we can start on the Bible and other religious texts.
The sad thing is that these morons don't understand the words that are coming out of their own mouths.
This sounds like their swan song (Score:4, Interesting)
This happens to exactly be one of the first telltale signs of their unwilling abdication, as their hateful 'religion of peace' disintegrates in the face of a collective, planet-wide yawn. A day to celebrate!!
Good riddance.
Practical suggestion: close yourself off from the rest of the world instead. Miss you we will not.
Good luck, don't let the door hit you on the way out, and thanks for all the (fossilized) fish oil!
So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
is there *any* country out there that doesn't censor the net in one way or the other?
Some for copyright (e.g. Youtube in germany), some for religious reasons (Iran), others call political comments a crime (China), others crush down on gambling sites cause that's a crime there (USA),
And they all have in common that they are "legal" and "fair" and "justified" as the gouvernment responsible for this or that souverign corner of the world declared it illegal. usually with best intents and in complete contradiction with the laws of that other corner of the world.
Deal with it. everyone is already censoring the net. And the differences become rather small if you recognize that the biggest difference is your point of view.
What do you do with soldiers (Score:3)
Are soldiers to blame for acting out the orders of the leaders? The idea in the west with REAL soldiers is that any western soldier has the duty to question his superiors if they order him to do something that is against higher laws. This is at least what I was told when I was drafted, it is in the dutch soldier manual.
So... what about mobs? Is the mob incited by a leader responsible for their actions?
What about a payed mob? Many arab protest are of the dial-a-riot variaty, there is nothing spontaneous about them. They are organized by leaders who decide NOW is the moment to take offense and find something to take offense at. Protests have been held over decades old material OR material so obscure it is unlike to have been found by accident by the protesters.
But lets go further. Where does reponsibility end when it comes time for collective punishment.
It is very PC to cry over the poor victims of Dresden and Hiroschima. Countless innocent children died who weren't even old enough to know the world outside their garden let alone know the politics of the world. But how many of the women who burned and died had cheered their troops? Had hugged their mass murdering sons?
Part of the crew of the Titanic accepted a reward/bribe for rescuing passengers, this was an outrageous thing to do and over of the mothers of the crew slew the door shut in her sons face when he came home and refused to ever speak with him. How many mothers of SS soldiers, Japanse child raping infantry and Islam terrorists have done the same? The father of the muslim who killed 3 French soldiers and 2 jewish kids, didn't even apologize but instead sued the french state for killing his son.
I am not reponsible for the actions of others, in my eyes, goes only so far. If you go to the same church as someone who does something you disagree with, you have to take action, either leave that church or bar that person but you can't just shrug your shoulders and claim the others actions shouldn't reflect on you.
Many talk about the hate of Muslims in the west but so far, Muslims deaths at the hands of white westerners is a fraction of westerners killed by muslims.
Terrorism is not isolated to Muslims but in other parts of the world, what has happened is that the people part of the terrorist group started to protest, held marches to condemn the violence to show they were not supporting it. Often at great danger to themselves.
There have only tiny handful of muslims who publicly showed on their own accord in front of their own people, that the terrorists were not acting in their name.
Plenty hold that every US citizen deserved the 9/11 attack becsuse of US actions. None of these people believe that ALL Muslims deserve the Iraq/Afghan war for Muslims terrorist actions.
Ultimately these people are racists. White people are responsible for the action of their society. Muslims are not responsible for the actions of their society.
I don't think that attitude is right.
Re:Saudi douches, internet censorship in 1 easy st (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
Are you arguing that what non-Muslims should do is commit genocide against Muslims? If you're not, could you explain how invading Iraq and Afghanistan and applying economic sanctions to Iran, Syria, and the Gaza Strip constitute "appeasing"?
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Insightful)
What about non-militant Islam, is that evil? These aren't the "death to America" types, but the much more common "I want to go to work, come home to my family, and help raise the best and brightest kids I can, and maybe I stop by Friday prayers at the mosque" types.
For reference, here are the 5 fundamental practices of Islam:
1. Regular personal declaration in belief in monotheism, and that Mohammed is the messenger of that 1 god. This conceptually would be like a Christian reciting the Nicene Creed.
2. Praying 5 times a day. Totally harmless for anyone who's not doing this.
3. Giving at least 2.5% of ones income as charity towards the less fortunate. This seems positively virtuous.
4. Fasting, particularly during Ramadan, if practical (exceptions are made for children, pregnant women, etc). Again, harmless to anyone who isn't fasting.
5. A pilgrimage to Mecca. This could potentially support the Saudi government, but it's also basically harmless to anyone who isn't doing it, and often quite moving to those who do (Malcolm X is a great example - his experiences led him to stop hating white people due to their race).
And I should point out, for the record, that I'm not Muslim myself, but I've noticed that those who think that Islam is completely evil often know very little about what Muslims actually believe and how they practice their faith.
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point, but I've also noticed that many who are comfortable bashing religion and certain devotees, or are silent when others bash them (often times the target is Christianity or Christians), become agitated and assume a protective role when the same is done to Islam. Not a Christian (or even religious) myself
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me again... who are the ones promoting hatred and violence?
That's easy - anyone who believes that people who believe differently than they do are fundamentally and typically irredeemably evil. Which is where Islamic nutjobs (e.g. Al Qaida) and Christian nutjobs (e.g. Xe, formerly Blackwater) and atheist nutjobs (e.g. the Soviets) all are much more similar than they'd like to admit.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I wouldn't:
1. Most Muslims are not members of Hamas.
2. The leaders of Hamas aren't widely considered to be religious authorities, only political authorities in a certain area of the world (this would be the equivalent of treating, say, John F Kennedy, as a leading authority on Catholicism).
3. The leaders of Hamas have a clear motive that has nothing to do with religion for convincing people that jihad, as envisioned by Hamas, is the ultimate in religious devotion.
Re: (Score:3)
But the response hurts more non-militant Muslims then it does extremists. And those hurt or those whose families are killed are much more likely to become extremists - from helpless rage if nothing else.
Just look at how much hate 9/11 created in the US. Now imagine if your countrymen were killed nearly every day, just for living their lives in the 'wrong' country. Would you support the guys doing the killing, or would you join anyone that was trying to push them out. And if your new organization had a few
Re: (Score:3)
It's going to happen some day. The world will be dominated by Islamic idiots because the rest of the world will do nothing but appease them.
One little tragic baby step at a time.
Absolutely. They wand a censorship board that will say "kill the non-believers wherever you find them" is a valid religious sentiment, but "Sharia Law is incompatible with human rights" will be banned.
Read this from a Muslim (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/30/husain-haqqani-muslim-rage-is-about-politics-not-religion.html [thedailybeast.com]
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
The basic message is simple: The Islamic powers that be see the decline of the Islamic world and instead of catching up by modernizing their world, they seek to keep what control they can by creating theocracies, where the rule is to not question those in charge. It keeps the population dumb and controllable but also backward and unable to matter in the real world.
A perfect example was shown with Olympics. Saudia Arabia had fielded a female Judoka but insisted she would be allowed to wear a headscarf. Probably the first thing you picture when thinking of Judo is the standard uniform, which has no head covering. It never had, wasn't needed to appease any country ever before. But Saudia Arabia needed to be appeased because else they might withdraw. So the woman was allowed to disregard safety, disregard tradition and wear a piece of kit nobody else was allowed to wear...
AND LOST
Immidiatly, she didn't stand a chance! Not even the slightest. She was the worsed to ever take part in the modern olympics.
She wasn't put into her countries team to win or even to compete, she was put in to be harmless enough to not upset Saudi Arabians while at the same time playing the "the world hates islam" card by hoping she would be barred because of the headscarf. She wasn't and it became clear thar SA biggotted nature simply meant they had no women worthy of competition.
It is easier to shout loudly "rah rah us" and blame everything on them, then to risk modernizing your country and have the people wonder why this old men are in charge. England works that way, "trust us the 1% conservatives, we will fix your country because you are great, trust us". The USA loves its rousing "We are #1" waving made in China banners.
And around the world, were the powers that be have made a mess of things, religion is a good card to rally your troops around the leaders in support rather then looking for a handy rope.
Why do you think backwater North-ireland had religious strife? Because it was managed so well economically? Why do you think the orthodox church is back in power in Russia, because the last time they were in charge, they did so well economically?
No, but in economic hard times when people can't improve themselves or society, they become susceptible to religious control telling them they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Because keeping the people stupid is a good way to control people, but when times are hard, people also prefer to be kept stupid. Easy answers are so much easier.
Re:Read this from a Muslim (Score:5, Informative)
Can't be racist since the author is a Muslim.
Are you aware of what the word racist means? Would you use the phrase "can't be racist since the author is Muslim"? there are multiple races in the Muslim world you know, and much like in the Christian world, there is plenty of hate between them, but speaking out against a religion is never racism.
it would almost be as bad... (Score:3)
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, really? So what was this [wikipedia.org] all about?
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Funny)
Those are things called "facts". They are just inconvenient things that get in the way of unsubstantiated rants.
If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why are Muslims also attacking in so many other countries? There are Muslim terrorist attacks, all over the world, every day, and it's been going on like that for decades. Muslims are actively attacking not only Jews, and Christians, but Hindus, Buddhists, and of course, other Muslims.
How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?
Because it has to be! They were just peace-loving innocents until the big bad United States came along. Never mind that they've been fighting amongst themselves and with those same groups you mentioned for hundreds of years before the US ever existed.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
You know..if we could just become energy independent....we could just then pull out of the whole middle east and let those fuckers blow themselves up and be done with them.
I'd love to quit giving them so much money....
I think we need to drill our asses off locally, build more refineries to keep us going while we explore all other forms of energy.
The US needs to make energy independence our new "going to the Moon" quest.....
Re: (Score:3)
You know..if we could just become energy independent....we could just then pull out of the whole middle east and let those f*ckers blow themselves up and be done with them.
Energy independence is very important for many reasons, but it won't have any effect on the middle east. If the west stopped buying Saudi oil China would just step in and buy whatever is available. The Saudis would still have as much cash as ever to fund gullible Taliban morons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What we need to do is develop renewable energy sources to the point where they are truly viable, and spread them around the world so everyone can easily use them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
But then they'd be China's problem, not ours.
?!?!?
False logic. They'd use the money they get from selling oil to the Chinese to fund attacks on Western targets. They wouldn't attack China - As others have said, the Chinese don't cower and start groping grannies at airport checkpoints when they're attacked the way North Americans do, so there's little propaganda value in attacking China.
Re: (Score:3)
Well at the very least it will be China's problem
How it is China's problem if the Saudis use profits from selling oil to the Chinese to fund attacks on the west?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Except there's Israel. We'll never be free of their over-large influence (and I'd say co-opting) of US politics. Sorry about the Holocast, and you're better than your neighbors, but that doesn't justify your willful and active meddling in US policies foreign and domestic.
If there was no religion of any sort, present day would be like living in Star Trek.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
All Religion==evil.
All religions eventually devolve into violence and racism. All religious people directly encourage the existence of religion.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Having lived in India as well as Saudi Arabia and then moving to the west as a Muslim, I can answer that. And answer that is all I will do, it is not a justification for the actions in any way or form.
The answer is short, education. There is a huge populace of uneducated muslim's in the world, probably the highest percentage of the 3 major religons in the world. With education comes tolerance and understanding that so many lack. Since the 1960s, Saudi Arabia started preaching its brand of wahabism to a lot of muslims, not only at home but abroad. This gave you the likes of Taliban and extremist Islam was born. Afghans were know for revenge long before Islamist Islam took roots with Saudi Sponsored madarsas to drive away Russians (I will let you guess who thought it was a good idea to drive away Russians in this manner). All these uneducated fighters were given a cause to fight in the name of the religion.
Living in Saudi Arabia, one thing that is quite apparent is that they are very strict in terms of what they intepret Islam. Their religious police would come out at us with sticks if we dared play soccer during prayer time. This brand of Islam was exported with oil money to a lot of places and you get terrorism.
Not only that, a few corrupt indviduals will go murder innocent non-muslims in the name of Islam. The same breed of uneducated non-muslims would then go kill muslims and decades of enimosity lasts between societies and cultures. You get into a feedback look of hate and suffering exploding to sad events like 911.
IMO, this generation of terrorist cannot be enlightened, the focus must be to bring the new generation up with education and tolerance. Taliban know this full well and you get 14 year old girls shot, only if the west would realise this too.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
When you're born and raised to adulthood in a certain mindset, specifically of a religious nature, it can be very, very hard to break free.
Re:If US policy is causing Muslim attacks . . . (Score:5, Funny)
"How could this all be due to US mid-east policy?"
Because _everything_ was and is and will be due to US mideast policy.
Example:
The Mughal conquest of India in the 1500s was anticipating future US involvement in Afghanistan so they invaded India anticipating eventually being beaten back into modern Pakistan from which they could still support Taliban forces. Before US policy there was the celestial promise of US policy, and after US policy there will be permanent blowback.
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Insightful)
parent poster seems to forget that the islamic MISSION is to forcibly convert the world. now, later, they don't care: as long as the world gets converted, their book is happy.
christianity also wants to convert the world and it did it in quite a bloody way in the middle ages. but the moslems also were just as bad, just at different periods of time.
and today, they are THE WOST in the world when it comes to tolerance. there is no culture that is less tolerant, in fact.
and there is no perma peace with them. there can't be. until you are one of them, they consider you evil and either convertable or kill-worthy.
yes, its in their scriptures. those stupid, twisted, madlib sounding scriptures they love so much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forget that most judaism-sourced religions have conversion as a core belief. Christianity's conversion drive has butchered tens if not hundreds of millions at this point, not a small feat considering much less effective weaponry hundreds of years ago when that mess really got going.
Big religions are a tool for control of the masses. So is conquest. Is it really so surprising that they go hand in hand even today?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference being that that was a long time ago, and Christianity today acknowledges that that was wrong and does not engage in those practices. While some of the more extreme Muslims still openly practice those techniques and have not recanted them.
Unfortunately, we live in a society that thinks th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Go read some history books! What a crock!
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, there is only one country in the world that has, throughout its history, used its military power and political influence consistently to try to export its ideas of morality and law to the world, and it ain't no abode of Muslin desperation, it is the U-S-of-A.
Have you forgotten the Mongolians? What about the European Colonization period? Or the creation and expansion of the Chinese empire? Or the subjigation of the neighboring tribes by the Incas? What about the Aztecs and their demanded subservience of the tribes around them? Egypt certainly never crushed Kush.... and hell, Assyria played very nice.
What, this wasnt "the world?". Back then "the world" was limited by technology.
Stop being so naive.
Re:One More Baby Step to Global Sharia Law (Score:5, Interesting)
Grow up. No war has ever been fought on the reasons of morality. There are only three reasons for a war: power, resources and land. Which, of course, are pretty much the same as long as you keep your shit together somewhat.
Morality in a war is never more than a popular justification. The US Civil War? Not about the slaves, but it did use the promised freedom of slaves as a way to use them behind enemy lines. The invasion of Iraq? Not about freedom or democracy, but about keeping the dollar as the currency of oil trade. I dare you to find one that was really about morality.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Several points
1. He's not over-exaggerating. With the exception of the United States, many Western countries already have something similar. Canada for example already has human rights tribunals which seek to censure offensive material. Muslim groups are powerful and blasphemy is still a big deal in Muslim communities.
2. Why is he complaining? Because he prefers the American way to the Saudi Arabia way. What kind of world would you rather live in? That ruled by the Saudis or the Americans? Is this c
Re: (Score:3)
That's kinda the point of conquering territories isn't it?
Now, it's worth clarifying... I don't like it. I don't think it's right. But us US Americans are far from the only people in even the last 50 years to impose our beliefs on others. Anyone remember a place called Indochina?
Personally, I'd be a huge fan of stopping the "world's police" line, and adopting a more altruistic approach to the world and its affairs... But let's keep this in perspective... There's always someone who's claiming to "help"
Re:The USA is already a global censorship body (Score:4, Interesting)
Kiddie porn? Boohoo.
AC didn't say kiddie porn, AC said under-18 porn. Presumably they mean something like 17 years old rather than 7 years old.
Not that I agree that it is a bad thing. A line should be drawn somewhere, and age 18 seems as good a place as any. Just pointing out that under-18 porn does not necessarily constitute kiddie porn.
Re:Public order be damned!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Ex-muslim I say mod parent up.
Anonymous because I don't want to be beheaded.
Re:Public order be damned!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
How about international collaboration on having some self restraint and not causing others physical harm to others any time something in the world doesn't go your way?
You can't debate or find compromise with peoples that believe there is only one true God and that anyone not sharing that faith is wrong and unworthy of life. The only appropriate response to Saudi Arabia is to fuck off.
Re:What the fuck is the point of the UN? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bless, I actually wondered how far I'd get down the thread before someone started mouthing off about things they don't understand, which is often the case when the UN is in a story, I had to actually get quite far this time before I reached your post.
So let me explain for you, the UN is a bit like your government, except whilst your government represents the population of your nation, the UN represents the governments to the world.
So a bit like when a member of your government comes up with some braindead law and no one wants, the UN works in the same way, but with far more safeguards. Saudi may well be mouthing off about this sort of thing but it wont happen, because the only UN body that comes close to this sort of thing would be the ITU, and the ITU requires unanimity on votes, and as the West wont vote for this measure at the ITU, it wont actually happen.
Think of Saudi as that annoying representative in your government that cries think of the children, and comes up with ideas that frankly scare the shit out of you, but are thankfully so insane, that they don't actually ever get passed.
Really though, the UN is less scary than government in this respect, because sovereign nations can opt-out of it, or elements of it, whereas you can't opt-out of your government. There are some exceptions, if one member state threatens another, or if one government ceases to represent it's people through committing war crimes against them for example, then the UN may act, but for the most part, nations sign up to what does suit them, and don't sign up to what doesn't (i.e. some countries don't think the WTO would benefit them).
The point is though, for every fringe-organisation of the UN filled up by the nutjob countries, there are plenty of UN organisations that facilitate global cooperation, for example, the International Civil Aviation Organization helps facilitate global standards on air traffic control so that when a plane enters another country's air space they can navigate safely to land, or avoid other air traffic, without fear of conflicting standards on such things causing issues. The Universal Postal Union helps ensure you can send a letter from your house in the middle of whatever country your in, to just about any other address in the world and so forth.
So yes, don't worry, your sovereign nation's rights and laws will remain intact, providing it doesn't try and force them on anyone else, which is precisely why Saudi Arabia's bid is just noise that is doomed to fail. The UN still has a point, just as your government still has a point, even if it probably does a lot of things you dislike as most governments do. Just as at least some form of government is necessary for a civilised society to exist by enforcing laws against being able to arbitrarily murder people and so forth, the UN is necessary to ensure that certain international efforts and cooperation flow smoothly by mitigating the potential for cultural barriers and so forth to cause issues (i.e. imagine if an air traffic controller at a busy airport like Heathrow, or Chicago O'Hare had to know every language in the world to cater to pilots flying in from all over the world).