Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pakistan Seeks To Block Facebook Again

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-farmville-for-you dept.

Facebook 98

Mightee writes "Pakistan, which was in the news last year for blocking Facebook over a 'Draw Mohammad Day' competition, is seeking to ban the social network again due to the second round of the same competition, reports Pakistan Today. Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, presiding over the Lahore High Court, ordered the Ministry of Information and Technology to block access to Facebook nationwide on the charge of 'spreading religious hatred on the Internet.' The court also directed the ministry to police the Internet and block all other websites that were found guilty of the same charge, but it spared search engines like Google (which it is targeting for other reasons)."

cancel ×

98 comments

Oh just block pakistan already (2)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471718)

Seriously. If their government don't want to use the internet, then they can fuck off.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471764)

But then we might be deprived of all those great posts about how women shouldn't be allowed to learn to read. And what would the world be without their shitty "God is great! Now check out these pics of me beheading someone for not wearing a beard!" blogs?

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471950)

aaargh! you found my twitter feed!

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472110)

Yeah, thanks for shitting all over the people in Pakistan fighting and dying for liberty.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472236)

Yeah, I forgot about the noble freedom fighters who attacked Mumbai a few years back.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472464)

Wow, you're a douche bag.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476526)

... and you the douche

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472122)

Or the pakistani porn of them fucking their goats.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472132)

Its another mechanism to control the social uprising and it wont last long....hopefully!

But then we might be deprived of all those great posts about how women shouldn't be allowed to learn to read. And what would the world be without their shitty "God is great! Now check out these pics of me beheading someone for not wearing a beard!" blogs?

Interestingly, Karachi University has 75% female population and so that many other universities and schools across. Although there are problems abound, but talk about 'blowing' things out of proportion..the sick taliban mentality does not respect any boundary, religious or political or even sanity.....

- A Pakistani national, born in Nigeria, raised up in Saudi Arabia and lived in Germany! BooHoo!

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472342)

Hey look it's a dune coon who thinks anyone cares about his shithole. Lets all point and laugh art the dune coon.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472696)

Shut up, elrous0.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472138)

i'm not sure what joke-tac i want to take on this one-- a: reading is overrated, half the stuff i have seen here i could live without b:if you don't control the media, your president can't spend the whole day playing golf and going on vacations while the economy collapses or c:who in pakistan has electricity? let alone internet access?

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472246)

Yes, let's help them with their oppression! Nice try Saeed.

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472388)

Free or GTFO! Aw crap, we just lost access to Blurmany and TOSralia!

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472850)

Most ruddy jolly goodness gracious, with all your first posting clever dickie goings on isn't it here in Newcastels, way aye.

Have you tried the switching it off and back on, good day. [bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Re:Oh just block pakistan already (1)

KingBenny (1301797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37500888)

yea, they have the right to go back to the stone age whenever they want, it would makes them far less dangerous if the only book they ever get to read is that holy quran of theirs ? maybe

Yeah, moral posturing from Pakistan (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471726)

spreading religious hatred on the Internet

As opposed to hiding it out on a compound in Abbottabad?

Re:Yeah, moral posturing from Pakistan (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37477676)

spreading religious hatred on the Internet

Perhaps they just don't want any more competition in that area, however feeble the competition is. It seems that there are already far too many countries with despicable laws enforcing religious fanaticism (Pakistan: death penalty for changing your religion. Malaysia: religion determined by ethnicity, etc.).

I'm Not On Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471734)

Is this where I post "I'm not on Facebook!" like a grumpy old bastard so that I'm exactly like the rest of the Slashdot retirement community? And then complain about how Windows 3.1 was better and that no one needs a smartphone?

Re:I'm Not On Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472074)

Well, you are partially right. Win 3.1 is better than at least one 'smart'phone (*cough*iphone*cough*) out there.

Retaliation! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471744)

I've heard Pakistan's next step is them launching their own "Draw Jesus Day" competition

Re:Retaliation! (1)

Sabathius (566108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472488)

*monocle falls out*

How DARE you, sir!

*slaps Anonymous Coward with white glove*

The iPhone5 will be magical and revolutionary! Pistols at dawn!

Re:Retaliation! (1)

Sabathius (566108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472512)

Ok, this totally got attached to the wrong post. My bad!

Re:Retaliation! (1)

Ja'Achan (827610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37476838)

Jesus, not Jobs. Perhaps they are easily confused by you? :+

Hurting feelings? (2)

acidradio (659704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471758)

Is that REALLY the ruling? Seriously? I'm sorry but Pakistan, for being a nation that owns and operates nuclear weapons, needs some tougher skin.

Re:Hurting feelings? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471792)

My understanding is that the rule is "Having enough nukes means never having to say you're sorry."

Don't over think religion. (3, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471794)

Now I'm not a muslim but, it seems to me the whole basis for not depicting Mohammed is probably in the same vein as christian tenet of not worshipping "carved" images (likely of Christ), which serve as nothing more than a focus to keep people on the message rather than the man that gave it. Granted this is my own interpretation, but it seems people just can't help but use one sin to fight another sin, which in itself is an oxymoron. Sometimes I think it would haven been easier to just say "hey guys!! Be good to each other and make each other happy" instead of a bunch of "laws" for religious lawyers to pour over so that they can show their entrance exam was passed to get into heaven.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471832)

Are you kiding? Christians love worshiping images of Christ [plainfront.com] .

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471886)

He's right though; historically, there was great division in the Christian church as to whether iconography (statues, paintings, etc) can be considered idolatry for the reasons OP listed.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471848)

Actually the "graven images" prohibition was formulated by the Israelite tribes as they shifted into monotheism. And theoretically the Christians inherited it, but between icons, crosses and pictures of the Virgin Mary being venerated, a good portion of Christianity doesn't take that very seriously, unless of course the image in question is of Thor or Vishnu or some nasty non-Christian deity.

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471968)

And that's why real Christians don't use iconography. We pray to God alone (not Mary who was merely a woman, a highly blessed and favored woman, but still not God). Kneeling before a statue and praying to it is not a Christian practice. It's a pagan practice that, along with other such practices and false doctrines, corrupted large segments of the Church. The result is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, and the like.

Re:Don't over think religion. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471994)

You do realize the name of the logical fallacy you're invoking, right?

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472052)

Well, why don't you point out the part of his argument that is fallacious?

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472128)

The part where he goes "No True Christian...." I think his claim is one of the poster boys for the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman [rationalwiki.org]

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472358)

It's not a fallacy when it's true by definition.

Can a true pacifist use lethal force? Can a true vegetarian knowingly eat meat? Can a true Christian willfully disobey parts of the Bible?

Re:Don't over think religion. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472534)

True by the invoker's own definition, and not by the wider one. It's a fallacy, as all but a pretty small number of Protestants still claim Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not Christian churches, and more to the point the members of those churches certainly self-identify as Christians and on a pure numbers game they have as good a claim as any to considering themselves Christians.

And considering that the older traditions do not advocate Sola Scriptura or insist that only the Bible can be a source of revelation, it strikes me that the Protestants are the ones down on this point.

Long and short, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Re:Don't over think religion. (3, Insightful)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472538)

The Bible has been translated (from various ancient texts) and interpreted and rewritten in ways that explain things as how they were interpreted. This is why you have so many different factions in modern theology. Everyone puts their own personal spin on the translations. Personally I love hearing about what certain passage *might* mean based on etymology. Certain passages make much MUCH more sense to me after hearing various interpretations. So to say no true Christian would "willfully disobey parts of the Bible" I take with a rather large block of salt, because the people who translated and interpreted those scripts were men themselves and subject to as much error and ideology as any other man, which in my opinion, makes the modern Bible a work of man, who's message may be divine, but needs to be searched for, not blindly followed.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37478450)

The Bible has been translated (from various ancient texts) and interpreted and rewritten in ways that explain things as how they were interpreted. This is why you have so many different factions in modern theology.

That interpretation is a bit silly, don't you think? The government [of the time and place] got involved in Christianity in the first place only because members of differing Christian sects were killing each other in the street over the nature of God before the bible was even a thing.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

jawahar (541989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37478864)

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

rockout (1039072) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472900)

Can a true pacifist use lethal force? Can a true vegetarian knowingly eat meat? Can a true Christian willfully disobey parts of the Bible?

Dude, in the second friggin paragraph of the article he linked to: "Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie like that!", "no Christian would worship Satan!" and so on). "

Which, of course, is exactly what you just demonstrated. Only problem is, saying "No Christian would worship an idol!" doesn't apply because you're talking your personal definition of Christian, and not the "clear and well-understood definition" of it.

Meanwhile, you're all nuts, but that's another topic entirely.

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37475204)

I knew there was something to that effect - but I was looking at the Wikipedia article, not the rationalwiki one. No wonder.

Anyway, yes, that was my point. And it's right there in the Bible: no graven images, whatever you take that to mean. Argue semantics of what it means if you want, but at face value "no true Christian" worships graven images, by definition.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37477726)

Can a true Christian willfully disobey parts of the Bible?

Yes, of course. It's called sinning, and the Catholics have complicated rituals and protocols for obtaining forgiveness: sinner confesses to priest/bishop/whatever, priest/bishop/whatever tells sinner to recite some number of various prayers as penance. Probably quite a lot of prayers would be needed to atone for murder and suchlike, but forgiveness is available. Next, you'll be telling us that Catholics aren't true Christians...

Of course, anyone (whether true Atheist or not) should be allowed to have a good belly-laugh at the Bardo Thodol, Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Dianetics, Kojiki, Koran, Rig Veda, Talmud, or any other "holy" book.

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37482674)

First of all, in stating what I believe rather matter-of-factly I don't intend to come across as preachy. I'm not saying you should believe the same as I do. What you believe is your business; in the interests of discussion I just want you to understand what I believe.

Yes, of course. It's called sinning

I'm aware that all Christians sin. However the name "Christian" means one who is a follower of Christ. You can't disobey the Bible while following Christ's teachings. And no, I'm not saying you can lose your salvation (and I don't really want to open that can of worms right now).

the Catholics have complicated rituals and protocols for obtaining forgiveness

Nobody except God can forgive sins, and the Bible says there is only one way to obtain forgiveness: someone has to die. A priest can't die for you. The saints can't die for you. There are only two people who can die for you: you, or Jesus, because he was sinless. The only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus.

Mary was not sinless; she needed a savior just as much as anyone else: "My soul doth magnify the Lord: and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my saviour." Any Catholic would be well-familiar with the quotation, yet their church doctrine holds that Mary was sinless.

Next, you'll be telling us that Catholics aren't true Christians...

I'm sure some, perhaps many, Catholics are saved, but some of their church's beliefs and teachings are things I would not consider to be "Christian" because they go clearly against what I read in the Bible. Like Apollos in Acts 18, I believe some of their doctrines are wrong, but I don't think that causes them to lose their salvation. If they're saved, they're saved.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37484336)

Thank you for that belly-laugh inducing apology for your batshit-crazy religious schisms.
You may also wish to contemplate my sig... but I suspect you would rather not.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

lee1 (219161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37493334)

Can a true Christian willfully disobey parts of the Bible?

Very few Christians keep kosher, so, yes.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37474296)

As others pointed out, you need more than the words "no true..." for it to be a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Can you actually explain where the fallacy is, rather than just namedrop it?

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37476788)

And that's why real humans don't believe in the bearded man in the sky.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472018)

Only Catholics and Orthodoxes do it, Protestants don't. And the problem is not really with the image itself but with praising it as God.

Re:Don't over think religion. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472068)

I'm married to a practicing Catholic, and she doesn't look upon the veneration of Mary or the Saints as treating that veneration as the same as if it was a god. In fact, the whole notion of veneration makes it rather clear that veneration is not the same as worship.

Of course, I think the whole lot, Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox alike, are full of crap, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

skyride (1436439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471988)

You know what? If you feel like that, you're more faithful to your religion than the majority of all religious people in the world, regardless of religion.

Re:Don't over think religion. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472494)

It's one of those odd things. And it's actually covered at least in the various writings that you should treat your neighbor as yourself and all that. Remember that Christianity and Judaism(much like in other world religions) have both had reformations. And in those cases, during the reformations there was a lot of infighting, doctrinal wars, and all that. With and without blood being shed, and in the end. You had your hangers on to the old ways, you had your splits, and you had those that said 'screw this' and ignored all the stuff that didn't make sense in the modern day. But still like the core message in the book(s).

So moving on, for the majority of Christians, if you do something like oh...lets go with the old cross in a container of piss. Most will say that it's distasteful. Some will mock it, you'll get the occasional nut that will attack it.

For Muslims, an image you'll see riots around the world. You mock or use the Muhammed or anything like that in that context you'll see riots, fatwa's, cries of religious leaders calling for blood. Suicide bombings, and so on.

But just remember up until recently and recent being about the last 70ish years, depicting Muhammed, and using his name and all the rest was just fine, though there was some provisions. They were still using him on postcards in Persia in the 1920's. It wasn't until they were caught up with the whole blow back with Amin Al Husseini and his clusterfuck with the Ottomans and using Islam beside Nazism that it became a verboten topic.

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37473066)

Works the other way too - go back a little, and you'll find a time when Christians were happily going around torturing and burning heretics, launching holy wars and burning books. Religions change. Sometimes they get more aggressive, sometimes less.

Re:Don't over think religion. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37483376)

Works the other way too - go back a little, and you'll find a time when Christians were happily going around torturing and burning heretics, launching holy wars and burning books. Religions change. Sometimes they get more aggressive, sometimes less.

Sure and I pointed this out, in the post. Here's the difference. The people stood up and cast out the orthodoxy, and religious figureheads in christianity relegating them to the dustbin because they were too extreme for their age. In Islam, there's currently no chance of this because one there's active theocracies, two there's active theocracies spreading and these theocracies actively support the most archaic forms of laws. Three, in those both cases the governments recognize that there *is* no higher law than their good book and anything they do is sanctioned by it.

That includes silting your throat from ear to ear, you filthy infidel.

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476448)

Now I'm not a muslim but, it seems to me the whole basis for not depicting Mohammed is probably in the same vein as christian tenet of not worshipping "carved" images (likely of Christ), which serve as nothing more than a focus to keep people on the message rather than the man that gave it. Granted this is my own interpretation, but it seems people just can't help but use one sin to fight another sin, which in itself is an oxymoron. Sometimes I think it would haven been easier to just say "hey guys!! Be good to each other and make each other happy" instead of a bunch of "laws" for religious lawyers to pour over so that they can show their entrance exam was passed to get into heaven.

Religion is the Matrix and most people take the blue pill.

Re:Don't over think religion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476566)

Only problem here is that Muslims expect everyone, including non-Muslims, to live by their rules - be it not draw Mohammed, women wearing a black klans outfit, etc. Not the case with people of other religions: you don't have Orthodox Christians forcing Buddhists to fast during Lent, Jews trying to influence food stores to keep kosher, Hindus trying to ban beef consumption for non-Hindus, et al. But with Muslims, not only must they abide by their rules - others have to as well.

Little overboard perhaps? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471812)

I know a lot of people that dont like the new changes that Facebook threw out there but banning the site? A little overboard perhaps?

Hatred for the new interface too? (2)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471840)

Ironic given the level of unrest in the USA today... about the new FB interface, that is.

"People in most countries use Facebook to protest their government. People in the USA use Facebook to protest Facebook."

Re:Hatred for the new interface too? (1)

Mycroft_VIII (572950) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471964)

"People ... Facebook"

      So wait, Facebook it the government in the USA now?

Mycroft

Re:Hatred for the new interface too? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#37473696)

This is an awful mess. I can't find anything. Stories are all out of order. I like to log-on and scroll back until I see a story I recognize and catch up and check out anything interesting. Now things are all over the place, we're forced into top stories (which I've always considered useless and never used) and there doesn't seem to be any way to change it or opt out. Taking away choice is never a good thing.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471844)

I think we do a diservice to Pakastan by pretending a country wants to block Facebook. Let pile are ridicule on Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed the judge who is promoting this. By saying Pakastan want this we are letting him off the hook.

Re:Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472032)

I think we do disservice to Pakistan by pretending it's a country. This is a place with at least two parallel governments, one civilian, one covert, and it's impossible to say who actually runs the place. This is a place that has tribal groups who fell more loyalty to the contents of the nearest outhouse than they do to other tribal groups or to the nation state as a whole.

Re:Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472100)

I just think it is wierd that we can get a protest going to draw insulting pictures of a dead islamic prophet, but we ignore the actual living douch bags. Wouldn't it be better to do an "Officer Bubbles" meme on this judge?

Can't blame them..... (2)

genner (694963) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471854)

I don't like the new layout either.

No problem (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471858)

Given FB's latest round of changes (Facebook in Facebook), I imagine it won't be long before everyone pisses off and Pakistan will have to start blocking Google+ instead.

Re:No problem (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472312)

This has been a recurring theme for a while. "Everyone hates these changes, so everyone will go places that are not facebook." If it happens, great. I just don't think it will. The vast majority will just settle down and get used to the new interface.

Translation (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471978)

"spreading religious hatred on the Internet" -> "spreading religious (freedom/opinions) on the Internet"

Re:Translation (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472076)

Generally, none of the people participating in any "draw Mohammed day" are forbidden from doing so. Thus, they are not actually doing anything to promote any kind of freedom.

What they are doing is acting like brats and angering a lot of people. That is not a productive way to spread your views, it will just cause people to backlash.

Re:Translation (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472162)

If your faith is so brittle that some non-believer mocking it causes you to go into a frenzy, then I posit that you are little better than the people you're angry at.

It was a pathetic infantile set of responses to a pathetic infantile set of inflammatory acts. Both sides are equally pathetic and stupid. But when push comes to shove, I'll have to throw in my lot with the pathetic infants drawing nasty pictures over those demanding such actions be banned, because, well, the latter are well and truly enemies of liberty.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37473152)

That is to some extent the plan behind DMD:

1. Do something trivial and harmless, but guaranteed to incite not just anger but outbreaks of violence. Like drawing pictures.

2. Watch fireworks.

3. Show the world that no, you can't just peacefully exist with these people in a spirit of mutual respect for religious freedom. That isn't how they think. They don't want to be but one religion among equals - they want to be the one on top. They want all who disrespect Islam to be imprisoned and executed, and you can't just dismiss these events as the actions of a few extremists when you have the governments of countries joining in condemnation.

That's the idea. Goad the fanatics into dropping their pretence of respect and revealing their true selves.

Re:Translation (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37474308)

1. Go into a town with black people, start calling them niggers.

2. Get beat up.

3. Show the world that you can't have niggers in this goddamn country because they are violent and brutal, so we have to throw them out.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476636)

Whatever you were saying, should they choose to react with violence like that, then yes they're savages.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476698)

Not the same thing. The drawing of pictures is something that Muslims aren't allowed to do by their own religion, and they expect that nobody should be allowed to do it. Essentially, this is trying to assault non-Muslims for not following Muslim laws. Calling people niggers is just something designed to inflame tempers. The GP AC (not me) had this point exactly right.

Re:Translation (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480814)

And drawing Mohammed is also something designed to inflate tempers.

Re:Translation (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#37473732)

I don't have a problem with them banning Facebook at all. That is liberty. If the people of Pakistan truly did not like it, they could change their government through revolution, within the framework of their country's legal system, or just leave.

As another poster pointed out, Pakistan is hardly represented by those in power. There is a fairly large non-trivial number of Pakistani people that are more moderate and have no interest in killing another person based on their beliefs at all. Yet, at the same time there is a large number of Pakistani men (generally) that are fanatics and have no problems telling/killing others that don't cooperate with their belief system.

In any case, is it not freedom to allow them to choose?

My only problem comes with the IT people in Pakistan that don't understand routing and take out half the Internet for a few hours propagating some fucked up routing changes.

They have the right to peer and transit with any other network in any fashion they choose to do so. They don't have the right to screw up and affect other networks, which has happened a few times before I think.

This is the same government banning encryption. So I think that they are taking it up a notch and trying to give China a run for its money on how locked down they can make the whole system.

Ultimately, the information will reach the people that want it anyways.....

Re:Translation (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37476674)

If the people of Pakistan truly did not like it, they could change their government through revolution, within the framework of their country's legal system, or just leave.

Or just not send HTTP requests to facebook.com?

Re:Translation (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472256)

Citation needed for the "not a productive way to spread your views." I would bet it is quite effective. That is why it is illegal in so many places.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37474366)

I can't even begin comprehend the kind of confusion that would lead to a post like this.

Re:Translation (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472276)

So what you're saying is Muslims get violently angry when people who haven't been forbidden from doing things do the things they haven't been forbidden from doing.

Re:Translation (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472434)

...and it's not the Muslims' fault, because the people who were never forbidden from doing those things shouldn't be doing those things anyway because it makes Muslims angry.

Re:Translation (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37479620)

So no one should ever do anything that might ever make anyone angry? Good luck with that.

Re:Translation (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37480706)

Did I forget the <sarcasm> tag? Oh darn.

Re:Translation (1)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556766)

Hmmm in retrospect, had I paid enough attention to the fact that you wrote both of those posts, I might have caught the implied . My apologies.

Re:Translation (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37474288)

No, I am saying that people get angry at you when you insult their values and beliefs.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37474930)

And that is why I bother taking the time out of my day to draw their bullshit "prophet", when they stop insulting MY values and beliefs by viewing me as an infidel worthy of nothing but death or conversion to their fairy tale then we can talk. Until then they can kindly fuck the hell off. This goes for any of the the other extremist religious idiots running around out there as well.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476840)

That's the point - not believing in the supremacy of Islamic law is what constitutes an insult to their values & beliefs. Just ask any non-Muslims coming out of any Muslim country, and that's what they'll tell you. It's very different from what constitutes an insult to our values and beliefs. Besides, as the other AC pointed out above, we (non-Muslims) are not the ones who consider people who don't follow our respective religions Infidels, and worse, demand that they accept the supremacy of _____ (fill in your religion) law or face death.

Re:Translation (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37478520)

It sounds to me like you are trying to forbid me from doing it.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476602)

Legally, they're not, but the way Muslims and their advocacy groups react, they do what they can to create a climate of intimidation so that people are too scared to do things that they consider sacrilegious because it's against the laws of Islam. That's why Molly Norris, who started the first 'Everybody draw Mohammed Day' had to go into hiding, with an assumed identity, after she received death threats. Essentially, the way Muslims operate is like the mafia - explicitly, nobody is forbidden from doing anything, but what happens is a climate of threats and intimidation if one does transgress their boundaries.

Contrast this with acts like immersing crucifixes in jars of urine. Yeah, there were protests and boycott threats, but never any threats of violence. But with Muslims, there always are. That's why the first contest was held - if too many people drew Mohammed, there would be too many people for Muslims to behead, thereby sending them a message. Facebook tried nixing such attempts, but new profiles kept getting created. Now, the second round of that contest is on, and Pakistan is fuming. And don't think it won't spread - it'll be like what it was throughout the Muslim lands when the Danish cartoons were first out.

This is an outrage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37472096)

I hope they don't succeed. They should have to live with Facebook and suffer like the rest of us.

Facebook is Facebooks worst enemy... (1)

Dieppe (668614) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472176)

Based on the changes made to Facebook today, it'll become as irrelevant as MySpace in less than a year, maybe even shorter. Instead of a nice simple interface... well it's crap now. Thanks Facebook!

Clearly (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37472670)

Pakistan doesn't like the new Interface either.

Re:Clearly (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37473276)

They're just looking for a way to push to the top of your feed.

Children, PLEASE! (1)

Archwyrm (670653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37473486)

Now, I know most of you are thinking "why can't every day be 'Draw Mohammed Day'?", but just KNOCK IT OFF. This is why Pakistan can't have nice things.

Facebook & Pakistan Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37475642)

All the religious bastards and I mean all (Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, Hindus) to go and play with urself. As for Govt. of Pakistan, they already get fucked up on a regular basis by America in ****** but they don't feel embarrased or guilty that they are supporting the wrong people. Pakistan should side with China and Russia and order Americans to leave from this country once and for all. Banning Facebook won't stop the Drawing Day but it adds fuel to it but the fucked up officials here are not able to understand.

I hate it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37476336)

I hate my government, I live in this shitty country where freedom of speech is a big NO. I earn my living by working online, and today I can't access half of the websites. It happened last year too, when they banned Facebook.
I am seriously planning on satellite internet ;)

Stupidty knows no bounds (2)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37477160)

People have been drawing pictures of Mohammad throughout the ages but for some (stupid and illogical) reason it was a page of cartoons in the danish newspaper Jyllandsposten that really got them worked up.

Now, Denmark is a small country (pop. 5 mill) and the newspaper in question is only written in danish, and is extremely unlikely to be found in shops outside the western hemisphere. Nobody in the Muslim world would have known about those cartoons if it was for an expedition of imams from Denmark that travelled around the middle east with a collection of drawings and other artworks, of which several had no connection with Muhammad, like a photo from a french farmers festival featuring a man with a pig snout. The intension was to create headlines and incite a response. It worked and ever since certain regions have been way overly sensitive about drawing Muhammad. The only way to combat that is to keep on drawing Muhammad again and again and again until they figure out that a drawing is just that - a drawing. Nothing to be worked up about.

For a rather complete collection of Muhammad images through the ages, including the infamous Muhammad Cartoons, go here: http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ [zombietime.com]

Reading the comments on the website (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37477898)

gives a great insight; I was expecting all of them to cheered up by this, but a lot of people are against this, they realise the futility of banning facebook, and the hypocrisy of banning facebook while porn sites go unchecked.

Also, it seems a lot of them earn money via facebook, interesting, I never knew you could do that.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/09/facebook-to-be-blocked/ [pakistantoday.com.pk]

Kill all muslims (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37478130)

They are backwards scum, infecting the west. Destroy them.

Fuck Pakistan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37479138)

Fuck Pakistan, they can't be trusted AT ALL(.)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...