Beta
×

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!

Egyptian Court Wants To Block YouTube For a Month

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the new-regime-of-youthful-exuberance dept.

Censorship 188

First time accepted submitter rogue-girl writes that a "Cairo Administrative Court announced earlier on Feb. 9 that a ruling has been issued to block YouTube within the country for 30 days. This decision comes after a lawsuit was filed back in September 2012 during the turmoil caused by the infamous trailer 'The Innocence of Muslims' spread through the popular video platform. The Court has also asked for all websites having published parts or the entire trailer to be banned for 30 days."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

30 days? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846755)

That should be long enough to reclaim their "innocence."

Re:30 days? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846843)

Wonder how /. fares in Egypt?
We may not be so uhm, kosher.
Thoughts?

First, they ask for one month ... (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846975)

... then they will ask for one more month, and one more, and three more, and one more year ... ... and then they will ask to expand the censorship to other form of media ... ... there is no way to fully satisfy the insatiable appetite for censorship for the Islamists ... ... ask the people in North Mali how them Islamists had treated them ... ... no music, no tee vee, not even ringtones on the phones

Re:First, they ask for one month ... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847327)

... then they will ask for one more month, and one more, and three more, and one more year ... ... and then they will ask to expand the censorship to other form of media ... ... there is no way to fully satisfy the insatiable appetite for censorship for the Islamists ... ... ask the people in North Mali how them Islamists had treated them ... ... no music, no tee vee, not even ringtones on the phones

There's no asking involved. They're blocking the service.

Re:First, they ask for one month ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848939)

No Ringtones? WTH seriously how can they even.

Re:30 days? (2)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846991)

Don't you mean "halal"?

Re:30 days? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847913)

kosher is for jews halal is for muslims

Re:30 days? (1)

spongman (182339) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848105)

Yeah slashdot would be halal unless it was renamed to 'slashed through the neck and hung upside-down to bleed to death.' Disgusting.

Re:30 days? (1)

blippo (158203) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849033)

You have to bleed the animals, or the meat gets spoiled.

Most of the halal-rules seems to be about food safety, protecting the animals from cruelty
and praying for the animal. Unfortunately, some religious propeller-heads trips up on some technically
regarding carrion and the use of captive bolts.

On the other hand, electrical- or carbon dioxide slaughtering are not exactly pleasant either,
but reduces the risk of missing. Bolting a pig in the eye by mistake is a terrible experience, for all parties involved.

I am not sure if there is a huge difference to die from cerebral anoxia caused by carbon dioxide or cerebral anoxia caused by bleeding.
My guess is that the brain reacts in a quite similar way.

I actually try to eat less pork just because of the relatively traumatic slaughter.

Re:30 days? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849247)

Semi-right. You are correct: Bleeding the animal is required as part of preservation. The most efficient way to do this is to simply hand the animal upside down and cut the neck. It will then die. The pain, though certainly severe, is also over very quickly if the slaughter is performed by someone practiced in the task. Halal slaughtering was perhaps the most humane and safe means of slaughtering an animal... in the bronze age.

The problem is that the slaughtering method became a ritualised aspect of a religion, and as such became entirely inflexible. We have new, better ways now: Stunning, sedation, aspixiation by carbon dioxide or nitrogen (Rather less painful than carbon dioxide: Human accounts say it is actually euphoric), captive bolt guns. Ways that have become standard practice in the secular meat industry: They can kill an animal dead in an instant, without any pain at all, reliably and cleanly. But these ways are off-limits to Muslims, and Jews too: Their holy books do not say 'slaughter like this until a better way comes along.' The books say 'Slaughter like this because your God commands you, and you will obey without question.' It doesn't matter what the original reasons for the halal slaughtering process were any more: It's a ritual, and the faithful demonstrate their faith to themselves and their God by adhering to the rituals as specified without deviation.

Re:30 days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846849)

shuttleworth and the ubuntu £inux illuminati are the real force behind the ban.

Re:30 days? (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846997)

Ok - How exactly does this help Canonical sell Ubuntu Phones?

It's because of the police abuse (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846775)

They are blocking it because they are ashamed of the police abuse caught on videos. The 'Innocence of Muslims' video is excuse they are using to hide.

Here's the real thing they want to hide from:

Man being dragged, beaten, and stripped of clothes - http://youtu.be/AlgUUGKZ4R4

Man in wheel chair shot by police - http://youtu.be/WAOkfxibwr0

Police use live ammunition and shoot randomly in the city of Tanta - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k27pETl46qg

More photos and videos here of the stuff going on: http://egyptianstreets.com/2013/01/29/revolution-2-0/

Thanks to StormXMX on reddit for the links. I only repost so others can be aware of what is happening.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846985)

Well that's a lovely government they have there. I'm glad I live in a country where the government isn't batshit insane. And before anyone comments to the contrary, I'd *love* to hear you say you'd prefer to live in Egypt.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (3, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847445)

I'm still wondering what country you live in that doesn't have an insane government. (That doesn't mean I'd prefer to live in Egypt than where you are, or that Egypt isn't more insane than your country or the US, but the bar's set pretty low here...)

Re:It's because of the police abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848275)

during my lifetime Egypt has been a very sane and safe place to live.....going to the states or even talking to people who live there has always made me glad I live in Egypt.....in modern western democracies living in a major city on a good day is dangerous thing,.....much more so than the worst neighbuorhood in Cairo

Re:It's because of the police abuse (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848593)

Unless you're a woman that doesn't want to be the property of her husband/father.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848969)

Insane government is an oxymoron. One cannot have a sane government. Any institution that uses violence against innocent people to achieve its ends is insane, by definition. It does not change the nature of an institution if the violence is avoidable or not; here, we enjoy the privilege of living where obedience is easier to achieve and threats are more concealed but this changes nothing. A man who assaults you in an alley for your wallet is no more violent than a group of men who will gently escort you to a cage, who will bully your bank into taking some of your funds, who will give you a chance to submit first, who will write an incomprehensible list of things you may not do on your own or voluntarily with other willing people. We may prefer the later(in some cases I certainly do) but it does not change the fact that the violent men who belong to such a group are insane.

Only the peaceful can be sane, not violent sociopaths.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849017)

Insane government is an oxymoron. One cannot have a sane government

That would make it a redundancy, and "sane government" the oxymoron.

Other redundancies:
Automotive transportation
Ideological Zealot
Scumbag Politician
Software error (*g*)

Other oxymorons:
Jumbo Shrimp
Sound of Silence
Microsoft Works
GNOME Usability Experts

Re:It's because of the police abuse (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848203)

Just because wherever you live isn't as bad as egypt doesnt' mean critique isn't warranted.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (2, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848293)

Just because wherever you live isn't as bad as Egypt doesnt' mean critique isn't warranted.

Critique is always warranted, because improvement is always possible. But it is important to keep some perspective. It is silly to compare any modern western democracy to the Nazi's, to call every transgression an "historic low." As an America, I have to honestly admit that Things are Pretty Okay. [xkcd.com]

Re:It's because of the police abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848259)

i do live in Egypt, always have, and it's not normally any more insane than anywhere else......going through massive political upheaval does wreck things.....every/anywhere......none of us want to be somewhere where there lots of people are rioting, doesn't matter what country.....so happens i now live in one of the many parts of the country where everything is calm and quiet.....

Re:It's because of the police abuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847007)

Funny, Obama had a lot (of bad) to say about the previous egyptian administration, but doesn't seem to mind the actions of the current one at all. Funny.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847659)

Thanks for this, glad to see you've been modded to the + max.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847931)

Yep, that's slashdot, good for lols only.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (4, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847697)

Meanwhile, what authorities are allowing on Egyptian television, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/02/09/fear-of-assassinations-haunt-egypt-opposition/1905675/ [usatoday.com]

CAIRO (AP) — Watching the events in Tunisia, where a leading anti-Islamist politician was shot to death this past week, members of Egypt's liberal opposition are fearfully asking: Could it happen here too?

Their fears of a renegade Islamist attack on any of the top opposition leaders have been hiked by religious edicts issued by hardline clerics on TV saying they must be killed.

Islamic democracy functions like this: One man, one vote . . . once.

Once they get in power, the first order of the day is to kill off any opposition. There is never a real election again.

Re:It's because of the police abuse (-1, Flamebait)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848053)

Islamic democracy functions like this: One man, one vote . . . once.

Exactly! Alan Dershowitz made the same statement with regard to Hamas. If anyone is under the illusion that the Islamist agenda and secular democracy are compatible you know have two case studies for this point of view. When the "torch is passed" from wimpy suicidal democracies to Islam each man will get one vote, one time.

Does any Free Man want this? hell no! and we shouldn't accept it for our fellow global citizens in other countries. Support anyone who believes in an supports *individual liberties* and opposes the tyranny that inevitably arises from the non-individualist *collective*.

If you are in the US that means take a look at the facts of the Obama Administration. Do they support individual liberty? (no) are they supporting the (evil Islamist) Muslim Brotherhood? (yes). That Administration believes it knows better than its citizens what is good for them. It promotes the (heartless) collective at the expense of the individual. Don't believe me? Then please look at the track record of decisions. Obama certainly has pizzazz and glamor, but his policies are against the Constitutional Rights of US citizens. Yes, Obama is not alone in this, both Democrats and Republicans want Big Government at the expense of civil liberties (although the citizens are heavily taxed to pay for the Big Government and its entitlement promises). Again, support anyone who is for individual liberties - that is the only way you will revive your Republic (which has largely been scuppered, if you look at the evidence; just think of the things you cannot say in public anymore; or what border agents can do to you; or how Obama's NDAA can kill US citizens on US soil without any judicial oversight whatsoever). ps. I'm not a Republican nor a US citizen. I just see that at the time the World needed strong US leadership to promote liberty and freedom around the globe there is instead a neo-Marxist ideologue that is aiding and abetting inviting the enemies of the Free World (eg. the Muslim Brotherhood) into decision making in the White House. Unbelievable! What would be great is a strong leader in the US that would stand up and promote liberty and freedom for all global citizens around the World. Sadly, Obama is not that man. The "change" he promised appears to be a Big State that progressively strips the liberties of US citizens, and stands idly by while oppressed masses yearning for true democracy in Iran and Egypt call for at least a few words of encouragement from a US President.

Arab Sting (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846777)

What a tragic farce

Good! (1, Troll)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846783)

Anything they can do to hasten their slide back into the Dark Ages the better it is for the rest of us.

Re:Good! (4, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846853)

Looking at world history, uhm, this can't end well

Re:Good! (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846889)

Can we include Warhammer 40K?

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846855)

Anything they can do to hasten their slide back into the Dark Ages the better it is for the rest of us.

Right, because everything will be so much better when the world plunges into chaos. There's no way that could ever bite us in the ass.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846875)

Clearly they don't mind using technology to destroy the great satan.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846949)

It's always the clergy acting up about so-called blasphemy (the obvious reason is they wish to maintain their power) but has anyone in these countries ever noticed that the god these clergy allegedly represent never actually does anything? Why, then, do these people continue to believe that these so-called gods actually exist? A god that cowers behind its human representatives isn't much of a god to begin with. Do the people living in these countries actually believe all this or do they just go with the flow out of self-preservation? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Good! (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847079)

Probably a strange hybrid of both.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847519)

Can't speak for the hordes of so-called believers but my God cannot be blasphemed and has no reason to do anything at all. It's simply impossible to blaspheme my God because my God is infinitely much bigger even as a mere concept than any human thought or action. Infinitely by such a ratio that even if sentience filled the entire universe the ratio would not display any measurable change.

People can blaspheme themselves but my God is absolutely impervious. People can disbelieve or deny my God and it remains completely irrelevant to God.

All established organised religions (and certainly islam) severely underestimate God and they rightfully belittle and scorn themselves by doing so. No point in shouting "God is great" when every action and reaction makes it seem like their "god" is a spoilt kid in need of protection. In fact there's no point in shouting "God is great" whatsoever, do they think God doesn't know? :)

God always wins because any correctly understood God-concept is tautological and ultimate in nature and that doesn't change simply because some people don't understand that they don't understand or fuddle about with incomplete reasoning, flawed logic, or whatever else floats their boat while they're trapped in space-time.

God does not need humans. It wants humans since we exist but it doesn't strictly need them.

Also; humans are generally liars, fools, idiots, or any combination thereof (me included).

P.S. fuck islam.

Re:Good! (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847927)

Even more bizarre is when you get into the concept of fate. If everything is preordained (as I understand many/most/all Muslims believe; someone correct me if wrong!), then that means Allah willed the "blasphemy" to happen. In that case, fighting against the "blasphemy" would itself be blasphemy, as you would be acting against Allah's will (of course, he willed you to fight it, which means we get into an insane feedback loop).

Re:Good! (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848191)

You might want to look up the Christen concepts of "predestination" and "double predestination". It's not exclusive to Islam.

Re:Good! (1)

Bongo (13261) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849077)

Yes, and there's an old joke where Moses meets Adam and Moses asks, "hey are you the Adam that ate the apple?" and Adam in his defence says, "yes but you know it was written that I would." The Koran is "unwritten" ie. it was not created at a point in time (opening it to the critique that it reflected the times and needs reinterpreting for today's world), instead it is "unwritten" -- it is and always is the mind of god, so it is always right. Any parts that don't make sense don't bear questioning.

The reason it is so unreasonable is that they had a big debate about it and one side said, we can demonstrate that your ideas are wrong, and the other side said, yes but being right makes no difference if we can just kill you, therefore POWER is the only thing which matters.

So anyway, they had that debate 1000 years ago, when they were wondering about modernising, and the POWER side won.

Huh... imagine that. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42846789)

I really don't give a fuck anymore what those insane muslims do anymore...

Wow. that sure didn't take very long to get tired of. I guess stupid isn't always entertaining.

Can we stop having news about the ass backwards religious nuts now? It's wasting space and bandwidth.
They've been fucked up for all of human history... And show no signs of improving even in the modern world.

it's only YouTube (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846879)

Egypt does this kind of thing periodically. the Suez Canal, for instance. Sturm und Drang.

Wrong target. (1)

GrahamJ (241784) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846911)

This will only harm the people of Egypt. Google will lose a few ad hits.

Re:Wrong target. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847339)

This will only harm the people of Egypt. Google will lose a few ad hits.

But it will help control the people of Egypt, which is the point.

Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846993)

Yo dawg, I heard you wanted some violence with your violence, so I sent you a prophet!

Believe whatever you want in private, but the sooner we start considering overt belief in a sky-friend as nothing short of a disease, the better. Religion would count as no fewer than half a dozen major diagnostic categories from the DSM (v4, anyway - who the fark knows what else they screwed up in v5), except that it explicitly exempts religious delusions.

So no, you all don't actually get a pass any more. You chat with god? Take your olanzapine like a good little psychotic! There we go. Don't we all feel less like blowing up buildings and raping Western reporters now? Hmm, I wonder if we could get it added to their water...


/ And if you consider this trolling... Well, suffice it to say I wish I meant this as a sad attempt at trolling. Not so funny that we really live in this fucked up world.

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847195)

Yeah, religion should not be excluded from any DSM categories.

However, since they wish to halt progress; I propose a solution: null route every Egyptian IP at the point the traffic enters Europe, Asia (RoK/Japan/Aus/NZ) and the US.
See how long till they (gov. and the people) start to really complain?

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847319)

The DSM is meant to catalogue mental illness for medical professionals, not to point out the irrationality of those who steadfastly hold to faulty ideas they were raised to believe. It's not a problem with any biological basis, so doctors have no power to do anything about it that would make putting that in the DSM make any sense.
You can't change opinions with chemicals; anti-psychotics would do nothing to change the beliefs of those raised with propaganda, religious or otherwise. It's lack of thinking and lack of desire to spend mental energy doing so on any deep level regarding things they were told by everyone around them that keeps them thinking what they do. If medicine could do anything about that, sure, put it in the DSM. But as much of a bad taste religion leaves in my own mouth, classifying people as ill based on their ways of thinking, despite otherwise perfect biological health, does not sound at all a good thing.

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (2)

Skinkie (815924) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847353)

They tried this in Russia a few years ago. Everything that is prohibited comes around (hard). Better to have it slowly getting extinct over a generation or two. The only problem we have to overcome is the exporting of the religion and have it seed somewhere else, getting more stricter, more correct, than it was where it came from. While I agree with the general vision, the next worst thing to religion is someone that considers himself god and uses politics to get more equal than someone else. This kind of social behavior is a dynamic system with a certain theme to justify itself, it is still bound to rules. These rules are set by nature, either evolving to an equilibrium, directing in a binary split between followers or a collapse aka death.

With this nice modern internet age transparency it is possible that people actually manipulate what the word sees. Either by the availability of people to see it first hand, the limitation on publishing or damn copyright that prevents others to spread it. Just wondering what anyone can do about a country that riots because of its bad rulers. Is supporting their freedom of information the only thing we can do?

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847397)

If you believe everything that comes out of that book I'd have to classify you as bat shit insane too. Homosexuality is or was a diagnosis until recently as an example. There are still things in it that make you wonder. They have removed one diagnosis and left another near exact as an example.

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847555)

So is Google a bunch of savages for taking down a video someone posted of 3D printing an AR-15 magazine?

Truth is Egypt is no more of a savage than the liberal/left DNC party is in the USA. Egypt wants to censor stuff they don't like and you complain about how idiotic they are. The left here wants to censor stuff and people like you claim you are a savage for wanting to post it.

It has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with intolerance. The liberals in the USA are just as intolerant as any religion around the world. The only difference is you agree with their intolerance. Yes, you are a troll.

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (1)

innerweb (721995) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848645)

Extremists (liberal and conservative) are all intolerant individuals when it comes to whatever they are being *extreme* about. The very nature of extremism does not allow for any kind of rational discourse. But, in the US, our society at large is becoming more and more polarized be opposing extremist viewpoints. Both sides would rather hold the country hostage to their demands than work together. Just ask yourself, who benefits from a sharply divided country full of strife the most?

Re:Yawn. Savages reject modernity, film at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848033)

>Believe whatever you want in private, but the sooner we start considering overt belief in a sky-friend as nothing short of a disease, the better. Religion would count as no fewer than half a dozen major diagnostic categories from the DSM (v4, anyway - who the fark knows what else they screwed up in v5), except that it explicitly exempts religious delusions.

SO BRAVE!!! Did you get your PHD in the mail when you converted to atheism?

They told me... (1, Insightful)

AntiBasic (83586) | about a year and a half ago | (#42846995)

They told me if I voted for Rmoney, we'd see an administration increasingly supporting despotic, middle eastern regimes... and they were right!

https://twitter.com/betsy_hiel/status/276027241115295744/photo/1

Who Cares? (1)

lq_x_pl (822011) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847013)

It doesn't harm youtube.
It is not like this eliminates the only means the Egyptian people have of broadcasting the insane things their government is doing.
If they are genuinely doing this over the "Innocence of Muslims" video, the only thing this legislature accomplished is broadcasting how much it doesn't understand about the internet.
I do understand the fear they have of western culture, anytime honey boo-boo shows up on my TV I have to run out of the room.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848157)

I care. I'd like to see the world as a whole be more free, more open, and more peaceful. No, it really doesn't affect me, but in the future something similar might. Stand up for your ideals.

Video is mostly factually correct (3, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847053)

Analyses of the Innocence of Muslims video has shown it to be mostly factually correct
http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/ [pi-news.org]

Now it might be a crummy video, but don't mistake poor production values for being factually incorrect. The video is based on statements in the Qur'an and hadiths - please go and check these things for yourself: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm [skepticsan...dbible.com] [Skeptics Annotated Qur'an].

It gets worse though. Both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama were opposed to the video to cover up their arming of Al Qaeda elements in Libya through the embassy in Benghazi - and this backfired because the Obama Admistration are in total denial about jihad as a motivation of Islamism (as *mandated* by the Qur'an). The foreign policy of the US Administration is unbelievably misguided - because the political Left (which this State Department and Administration is) will not let the facts on the ground get in the way of their narrative. They are denying reality but the reality is rapidly catching up - and the securitry of the Free World is being traded for appeasement (in the hope that Islamists will be "moderate" - which is a ridiculous idea if you have ever read the Qur'an, hadiths and have an understanding of Islamic history for the last 1400 years).

Appeasement will not work with Islamists. Selling Israel out will not work (the jihadis have been in business for 14 centuries before Israel was established - you can't blame the joos for the actions of the jihadis). Making concessions to Muslims will not work (since the Islamists do not believe in quid-pro-quo; they believe they are right, the Free World is wrong, and its their way *only*). The Obama Administration abandoning the rest of the globe comes at exactly the wrong time - but perhaps this is no surprise given the number of Muslim Brotherhood members in the Administration influencing policy (which is why they are so afraid of Michelle Bachmann calling for an investigation - such an investigation would reveal that the Administration is so thoroughly penetrated it can barely be trusted to lead the Free World).

Fortunately there are signs of hope. Florida just passed a bill to outlaw Sharia. If other US states and other sovereign nations do the same then the Free World will remain Free. Then we only have to convince the wannabe dhimmis in the West to actually check the facts of what is going on - and not rely on the narrative they have been fed - they are in the Matrix and resist the truth of what is happening - preferring to *factual* arguments as some kind of 'racism' [absolutely crazy; Islam is a violent and totalitarian ideology, just like Naziism and Soviet Communism, it has nothing to do with 'race'].

Wake up folks. The biggest enemy of Freedom and Liberty in the World is the ideology of Islam (and those who apologize for it, eg. Obama and the political hard-Left). The video the Innocence of Muslims was a clumsy (but factual) attempt by an Egyptian Coptic to highlight the evils of the ideology and its warlord founder. To bad so many people simply ignored the film based on the lies of Islamist apologists (as in, the narrative from the Left-biased media). If you checked the facts you'd see the video was right - Mohammed was evil and against every the Free World stands for (but not against what the political Left now stands for - destruction of the system of the Free World).

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (2, Interesting)

DaMattster (977781) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847303)

I know this is off-topic but I can't resist an anti-religion rant. Religion in all of its forms is bad. I love to point out two particular flaws in religion: namely that devout Christians espouse pro-life ideals whilst supporting the death penalty and the prophet Muhammad's absolute hatred of women that manifests itself in today's Islamic society. I don't need a religion dictating to me how to lead my life. I don't need some archaic, anachronism like the Bible or the Quran to know what is right or wrong. Religion was a way of explaining the inexplicable in less enlightened times. Furthermore, I absolutely pity those that pray to God or Jesus Christ to ask to be shown the way or told the answer. It is blind, misplaced faith because more often than not, the deity does not answer the prayer. This is why I am atheist and proud of it!

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847431)

I'm against outlawing speech. I am for outlawing the religious. Unfortunately I'd be the one in the camp because 99% of the world is part of the former. There isn't a camp that could be created large enough for this group.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848083)

I'm against outlawing speech. I am for outlawing the religious.

So you are actually for outlawing speech then. Seems like whenever someone starts off by saying they are anti-censorship, it really means they are pro-censorship.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

spongman (182339) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848209)

And yet the concept of banning religious doctrine from law is enshrined in the US constitution - he only original part of that document.

The founders knew, since the declaration of religious freedom in Virginia that the only way a diverse democracy could work would be if it remained entirely secular.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848371)

And yet the concept of banning religious doctrine from law is enshrined in the US constitution - he only original part of that document.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Nobody said anything about separation between church and state. What the AC wrote was outlawing the religious, full stop.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

spongman (182339) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848493)

yeah, and the establishment clause does exactly that - it places the religious outside the protection of the law.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

kanweg (771128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848795)

"So you are actually for outlawing speech then. Seems like whenever someone starts off by saying they are anti-censorship, it really means they are pro-censorship."

They are free to believe what they want. They are just not free to coerce anyone to join their club. And it should be free for others to call out lies spread.

If I have a religion promoting human sacrifices or messing with underage virgins, I don't think it takes you take long to realize that there are limits to what a religion can propagate. If only religious people were convinced that their god is all powerful, and that he can handle it in the afterlife. But nooo, they can't resist their urge to act on what they know their god exactly wants.

Bert

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849175)

They are free to believe what they want. They are just not free to coerce anyone to join their club.

They're entirely free to coerce people with words and information. They just shouldn't be able to legislate it with their political power and influence. That is, they should be able to be as not gay as they want and tell other people they shouldn't be gay as much as they want, too. They just shouldn't be able to use legislation to turn gay people into second-class citizens.

And it should be free for others to call out lies spread.

Should be. If you believe 2+2=5, you're stupid. If you believe the sun and stars and planets revolve around the Earth, you're stupid. If you believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, virgin births, an afterlife, angels, demons, ghosts, cramming every living species onto a tiny little boat, a man parting a sea with his hands, resurrection, and the consumption of a resurrected guy's blood and bones -- you are the pinnacle of decency and questioning all the absurd things you espouse makes you an intolerant and hateful bigot, because anything -- no matter how stupid -- is beyond reproach or criticism when couched in the words "faith" or "belief" or "religion".

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849271)

They are free to believe what they want. They are just not free to coerce anyone to join their club.

Show me were the OP said one word about coercion or even conversion? What is it about this topic that brings the nuts out of the woodwork? So many people saying so many things based on the voices in their heads and not the words on the page.

Dumbasses like you give athiests a bad name.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849161)

I'm for educating people and instilling critical thinking skills in children from an early age so that we can eventually arrive at a point where religion and other nonsense that belongs to your person and not in government legislation or other aspects that impose your personal "beliefs" upon all of society often at the cost of the freedom of other persons are in the minority and common sense, knowledge, and focus on principals that are addressed in our constitution are more prevalent and relevant than what church you attend, what branch of what stupid religion you adhere to and how much you hate reality and the pursuit of knowledge.

Like racism, homophobia, and sexism (the actual kind, meaning discrimination) -- it's the sort of thing that doesn't happen all at once and has to slowly shift over decades, as each generation crawls a little further out from the dark ages.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847461)

It is blind, misplaced faith because more often than not, the deity does not answer the prayer.

Is that hedging I see there?
Why not go for a statement like "Prayers are never answered as there is no one to listen" or something to that effect,

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847525)

I love to point out two particular flaws in religion: namely that devout Christians espouse pro-life ideals whilst supporting the death penalty and the prophet Muhammad's absolute hatred of women that manifests itself in today's Islamic society.

Your first example is one of hypocrisy, but your second example is perfectly consistent - if Mo really did hate women then the female repression in "today's islamic society" is not a "flaw" it is working as designed.

Of course the flaw in your argument would be that Jesus hated women too as manifested in christian society for nearly 2 thousand years. Look at the US for example - women have had the right to vote for less than one century. Switzerland didn't even have it until 1971, but Pakistan had it in 1947. Hell Samoa, that bastion of islamic fundamentalism, didn't even have it until 1990.

Or just maybe repression of women has nothing to do with a specific religion and everything to do with modernization of society regardless of religion. Nah, that would be too complicated...

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (3, Informative)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847559)

Good on your for not resisting :)

I agree with you - I just didn't want to get side-tracked on the fact that none of the claims of religions are scientifically verified. Unfortunately some of the people resisting True Evil (tm) also known as "The Ideology called Islam" just happen to be hard-core Christians and Hindus. They are right about Islam, even if it is what an atheistic might consider the wrong reasons (atheists/humanists see Islam as a dire and increasing threat to liberty; other religious just claim Islam is wrong). At this stage of the game I'll accept them into my camp.

Once we defeat "The Religion of Peace" (ha, what a joke - this is such a lie as shown by the facts: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ [thereligionofpeace.com] ) then we can have reasoned debate with those with religious delusions (eg. show them the massive amount of contradictions documented in the Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ [skepticsan...dbible.com] )

At the moment most of the Free World are not aware of the 57-country Organization of Islamic Cooperation's (OIC) control of the UN (they are the largest single voting bloc, and dominate outfits like the UN Human Rights Council). The OIC claims jurisdiction over any country that has Muslims (that's right, their claim includes where you live). Since they dominate the UN HRC they are slowly but steadily making progress in implementing Islam-friendly laws. Then we have the muppets in the Free World going along with this to be 'nice' (eg. Hiliary Clinton's abject sell-out of the US First Amendment when she co-sponsored the Sharia-compliant UN HRC Resolution 16/18; disgusting behaviour for a US leader). The Muslim Brotherhood has just taken the chair of the OIC. Their plans are proceeding quite nicely and the West mostly remains asleep. A few do notice but are mostly stiffled by those with an ideological Left bent (part of the Red-Green Alliance; where the political Left support the Islamist goal of bringing down the existing international order that has maintained some semblance of international stability).

So yeah, I agree with your anti-Religious 'rant'. However, I think it is prudent to use all the Allies we can muster to defeat the rising tide of Islamism. If we stay balkanized in factions (atheists vs Christians, Catholics vs Protestants, Democrats/Progressives vs Republicans/Libertarians) then we remain divided and weak against the single biggest and focussed ideological threat to all of us: devout Islam.

It is important to note that while Christianity may be wrong, it is definitely a mistake to assert it is equally wrong as Islam. Islam is much more wrong because it is totalitarian and covers all aspects of life (especially political). Islam claim full dominion over non-adherents (that means *you*, Slashdotters) whereas Christianity does not make this claim (not these days at least).

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847653)

"devout Christians espouse pro-life ideals whilst supporting the death penalty"

Thats the idea of the justice god that takes an eye for an eye and it is solely based upon the old testament. Some nutcases manage to read that far into the bible but not further and generally are too stupid to interpret it any differently. So please don't generalize from idiots and misguided, confessionless nutcases onto the general population.

Just consider the number of devout christian scientists and monks safe guarding knowledge (historic, agricultural and technologic) during the middle ages for a minute.
You have an extremely oversimplified image that applies to some of the more extreme and crazy people and generalize so much that its difficult to take you seriously.

Religion is a part of human nature. The majority will always require some amount of philosophical, spiritual or religious foundation to be happy.
And there is nothing wrong with that by itself. The problem occurs when those beliefs promote a philosophy that causes harm to others or they start to depend upon some gurus and end up throwing lots of money out of the window for pseudo-spriritual crapware.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847731)

namely that devout Christians espouse pro-life ideals whilst supporting the death penalty

But the liberal view of not killing mass murderers in any case while supporting the killing of 54 MILLION unborn babies is perfectly acceptable to you?

THAT is the viewpoint that I don't understand and can only be supported by sociopaths.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

kanweg (771128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848875)

Is the killing of the unborn babies worth than the death of even more unborn babies? Nature aborts many unborn babies, usually because of some defect. That's nice because people prefer healthy babies anyway because that suits them (and the babies) better. In the case of a relative, her pregnancies went wrong because she was too sensitive to all the hormone swings going on (she only conceived her kids after those hormones were tamed with suppositories. Do you want to entertain a case where the earlier miscarriages were death by negligence by her/her doctors?).

It works like this: When a woman has her period, or a man masturbates, potential life goes down the drain. Nobody gives a damn. If woman A doesn't wants to have a baby, is late, but she then resumes having her period, she will be happy about that. She had been pregnant, but it stopped. If woman B wants to have a baby, is late, but then resumes having her period, she will be sad about that. Now, take the case of woman B if in another attempt she has a miscarriage after 7 months. Do you think she is as sad about that situation as she was in the first instance of being late? I think it is safe to say there will be a difference in sadness. She will be sadder in the second case. So, there is a gradual change in perception during the stages of pregnancy. In the beginning, the starting human life is not so valuable. The older it gets, the more it becomes so. Unfortunately, one has to draw the line somewhere. If the line were drawn at 8 months, I would agree with you. But that is not where the line is. Any baby has the right to be welcome, in an environment that can support its needs.

Bert
Not a sociopath. Just more interested in meeting the needs of every baby that is born

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849043)

THAT is the viewpoint that I don't understand and can only be supported by sociopaths.

Or people who managed to pass high school biology and recognize that that, once you take out the "soul" bullshit, an undifferentiated mass of cells is no more a "baby" than a toenail clipping.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849203)

You are delusional.

As someone who isn't a democrat or liberal or whatever, I have to say that I don't see any inconsistency in being against killing a human being, but allowing people the choice with what to do with the contents of their body with what is not yet a human being. By your "logic" any sexual climax that doesn't end inside of a vagina is equal to killing a school full of toddlers. That isn't to say people should be flippant about such a personal choice, but you are being incredibly irrational and disingenuous with words like "UNBORN BABIES OH NOES!" How about all the women who have been stoned to death in the name of religion? How about all of the "unborn babies" that were killed, because women who might have gone on to get pregnant and have children were murdered before they could do so?

Your complaint is only meaningful when you apply an invalid word to it. You could apply the word "babies" to anything. That doesn't make it so. The sloppy and transparent religious method of discussing their disregard for *actual* human life by deflecting and saying "durp durp but sperm and eggs!" is disingenuous and dishonest.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1, Interesting)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847679)

Here's a recent article talking about how the US Mainstream Media (MSM) are ignoring facts (Britain's media is also particularly bad in this regard, the once impartial BBC has a horrific anti-Israel pro-Islamist bias these days, no wonder, its journalists are all graduates of Lefty-dominated Liberal Arts universities): http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020713-643641-islamists-gagging-americans-through-religious-speech-code.htm?p=full [investors.com]

Political Correctness is the *enemy* of Free Speech and Liberty. Don't be fooled by the MSM ! Escape The Matrix and do your own research - the media is lying to you by omitting critical facts that don't fit their "narrative". Islam and its enabler 'political correctness' are the enemies of every free person and every Enlightenment liberty.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (3, Interesting)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847809)

Mohammed was evil and against every the Free World stands for (but not against what the political Left now stands for - destruction of the system of the Free World).

Hey fella, you know the Soviet Union died back in 1990 right? The Cold War's over. We've been drinking the authoritarian right kool-aid for quite some time now.

Snarkiness aside, what exactly would be a solution to the "Islamic problem"?

Don't forget that the US is a major backer of Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive Islamic countries in the region.

A US tactic in the past has been to keep Islamic parties from power by supporting secular dictatorships (though with Afghanistan, they destroyed a secular government for an Islamic party), mainly in Egypt, Iran and Libya. All of these have unravelled for one reason or another.

The reason then as now isn't ideological or humanitarian, it's because the hand picked dictators didn't nationalise their country's oil industry.

The west doesn't give a hoot about Sharia law cutting people's hands off, or the fact that in Saudia Arabia women are forbidden from driving. It's only painted as an ideological struggle by the thick-as-pigshit servile media.

It's a shame, because the humanitarian problems in the region are plentiful. If it wasn't for oil, no-one would give a shit about the middle east.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848471)

You give the solution in the post. The Free World needs to enact laws that essentially state the following:

  • All citizens are subject to the same laws (no exceptions!), and
  • Citizens are only subject to national laws (no foreign laws).

These conditions prohibit the application of Sharia in the West. This is the most substantial part of what needs to be done. The last thing to do is to enforce the existing local laws. That means you don't let Muslim rapists off "because they didn't know" (as happened very recently in Britain), or let Muslims terrorize the media and populace when those people exercise Free Speech rights that are critical of Islam (just as they are free to be critical of every ideology and religion).

Hey fella, you know the Soviet Union died back in 1990 right? The Cold War's over. We've been drinking the authoritarian right kool-aid for quite some time now.

The Soviet Union did spread its ideology to the West (eg. funded many Leftist groups, particularly in academia). While the Soviet Union did collapse much of its points of view are now very fashionable amongst the political elites and academic institutions. The Left is all about equality. That sounds good in theory but in practice it is totally against individual initiative, entrepreneurship, individualism and unorthodox thinking. Equality trumps everything else. The left believe that "discrimination" in any form is a problem - but discrimination is required for discernment. Without discernment everything is equivalent, there is no good and evil, everything is relative. There is no superiority of the Free World over barbaric and inhumane practices because cultural relativity says they are equivalent. Hence, there is no reason to oppose evil in the World because one man's evil is another man's good. This is complete bullshit and is this is why strong and aggressive Islamists (eg barbarians) are able to agitate and bend the West to their will. The Leftist agenda lacks the moral clarity to analyze and oppose the Islamist agenda. In fact, the Left is so determined not to pass discernment/discrimination that they actively aid and abet the Islamists. The Left choose to ignore what the Islamists have been saying for 1400 years - that the Islamist goal is not mutual tolerance but the goal of Islam is to dominate the entire World, sooner or later.

Even worse than the lack of discernment by the Left is their rapid suppression of any dissenting views. They also are completely for conformity to their views and shut down any opposing views, even it factual, through personal attacks (eg. slandering Geert Wilders and the EDL as if they were decendants of Nazis and the KKK, when their agenda is defending individual liberties exactly as the original Left did). The new Left supports the collective over individual rights. The funniest thing is that the new Left basically have the same goals and tactics as the old political Right. It is the new Right (eg. libertarians) who believe in dissenting views, morality over equality and individual rights and the new Left opposes it. Black has become white and white has become black in our crazy world. We also get what used to be the bastion of liberty (the US) no longer promoting liberty but installing and defending opponents of liberty (Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood). The political Left are also much more ideologues (who ignore facts and realpolitik) than the libertarians.

So, with regard to the Islamists the actions of the political Left can be described best by a quote from Winston Churchill
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Appeasement is the policy of the Leftist political elite in the West and of the academics supporting them (and the academic and educational institutions that are inculcating our young with a Left-friendly and Islamist-friendly politically correct agenda). The whole culture of the West is being steeped in appeasement rather than standing up for liberty of all people. The political Left has been sewing the seeds of Western demise for decades. The Left means well but whatever it touches it ruins (well-meaning to support people but introducing massive state dependence instead of individual initiative, and promoting the Big State as the solution to all problems).

It's a shame, because the humanitarian problems in the region are plentiful. If it wasn't for oil, no-one would give a shit about the middle east.

Not true. Oil is part of the Leftist "narrative" and popular in belief but the real reason is that the Middle East always exports its troubles to other countries. The reason for that is the dictates of Islam - but most in the West didn't understand Islam well enough to know that until recently, all they saw was terrorism (actually jihad) affecting the West.

The cowardice of the political Left has caused many thinkers to leave it. For example may ex-lefties like Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell are sickened by the immorality of the Left's "cultural relativism" and cowardice in the face of those who would strip us of our Enlightenment liberties. Just because you oppose the Left doesn't make you on the Right either. Libertarianism is probably closer to those that champion individual liberty without becoming slightly oppressive like the Christian Right (eg. anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-contraception etc). However, the Leftist-Islamist "Red-Green" Alliance intends to be Big State totalitarian and is far far worse than the mistaken Christian Rightists. That's why it is moral to oppose the Left and stand up for liberty values.

The west doesn't give a hoot about Sharia law cutting people's hands off, or the fact that in Saudia Arabia women are forbidden from driving. It's only painted as an ideological struggle by the thick-as-pigshit servile media.

Alternative media talks about the totalitarian evil of Sharia. Mainstream media *almost never* talks about Sharia - even when Islamist crimes against humanity happen every.single.day. Unfortunately most of the victims of Islam are Muslims, but the left-leaning mainstream media is careful never to criticize (and thereby implicitly enabling the evil to continue). Watch the news, the media usually take great pains to demonize Israel and soften the message from the Islamists (and never, ever link the common cause of the Islamists acting with the same intended goal from Algeria to Indonesia). Here are some *facts* for you to digest:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ [thereligionofpeace.com]
Especially "The List of Fatal Islamic attacks' (a staggering 20369 attacks from 9/11): http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks [thereligionofpeace.com]

If you believe in individual liberties, Free Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Women's Rights, Homosexual Rights etc then you cannot support either Left, Right and absolutely not Islam. The only people who promote and *defend* these rights are the libertarians. I reluctantly came to this conclusion after much research.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847817)

Both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama were opposed to the video to cover up their arming of Al Qaeda elements in Libya through the embassy in Benghazi

Wait, what? Did I read that right? Did you just claim that the US funnelled weapons to an Al Qaeda franchaise through the US consulate in Benghazi? Really? And you got a +5 for that bullshit? Man.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848055)

This is Slashdot. Sometimes the crazies are out in force. I guess this month's supply of aluminum foil finally arrived.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848557)

Your counter facts, please. Otherwise you could look at some of the references I supplied and get a clue at what I was trying to say :) That link, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks [thereligionofpeace.com] ought to clue you in to the reality of Islam a fair bit. The Obama Administration is deluded by the Leftist "narrative" of cultural equivalence and that "moderate" Islamists can be supported and "extremists" sidelined.

The *facts* are that the mainstream of Islam approves and supports jihad and global Sharia (Google for the surveys). Negotiation and appeasement won't work. This is a fight to the death between the supporters of Enlightenment values and the Islamists.

I suggest you do the research yourself. Look at the agenda of the OIC (Stephen Coughlin's videos on YouTube are simply the best explanation). Read the Qur'an and hadiths - they would be condemned as an ideology of utter hate speech if they weren't cloaked in a fig leaf of plagiarized superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Check the *facts* rather than just going by what you think you know. That's all I ask.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848535)

What facts do you have to oppose this? What is known about Benghazi is that Ambassador Stevens was closely working with groups against (monstrous) Gaddafi who had given up his WMD programme, was still a brute, but was fighting Al Qaeda in the Maghreb. The US organized for weapons to go to the rebels in Libya. Note that Benghazi as a city has supplied Al Qaeda with more homicide bombers than any other city in the World. The Benghazi embassy was organizing to ship ex-Libyan weapons to the Syrian Sunni rebels through Turkey. The attack on the embassy was watched by US drones in real time and the President and Secretary of State did nothing. What they did do is deflect their undercover activities with a bogus story about the Innocence of Muslims video (and even though factual and under the First Amendment rights of the producer they worked to suppress it). The Obama Administration is petrified that the truth about Benghazi gun running comes out. They believe they can arm Muslim "moderates" but the thing is Muslims may be moderate but the ideology of Islam is never moderate (so said Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister).

So, your facts and references please. Yes, it sounds incredible that a US Administration would do this - but that is what they did. Unfortunately some Al Qaeda militias went and ruined their plan. The Obama Administration's foreign policy is coming apart at the seams (although the complicit mainstream media tries to deflect it as much as they can). The reason it is coming apart is because reality is catching up with them. Obama thought the US was bad and the cause of the troubles of the Middle East and by promoting "moderates" he could suppress the dangerous Salafis. This was completely delusional - but the Left has always acted on ideology and theory rather than look at actual reality and facts.

There is a great deal more to tell. I won't bother starting with it unless you are actually interested and have an open mind (in which case I'd be happy to point you in the correct direction). Some people do have an open mind and can see the *facts* I'm trying to relay - that's why they kindly gave me +5.

So, your counter evidence, pretty please :)

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849261)

What facts do you have to oppose this?

You want me to prove a negative? Extraodrdinary claims require extraordinary proof. You made that crazy-ass claim, but you haven't provided even a shred of proof.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847841)

As much as I resent what's going on in the Muslim world, I prefer all of the evil for which they stand, above all the evil for which you stand. Preach your bigotry and Civil War Southern pseudo morality, so we all can be reminded of how morally vacant is your philosophy.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848411)

While its true that only extremists will follow the Qur'an to its sick extremes of "killing the unbeliever" and "terrorizing them", its also true that non-extremist muslims wouldn't do a damn thing if they saw one of their extremist "brethren" doing one of their sick killing acts.

Re:Video is mostly factually correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848649)

Heads up mods, this is a crazy person. Just, you know, FYI. Paragraph 4 is especially crazy town.

Farse (1)

joelwhitehouse (2571813) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847093)

"The Innocence of Muslims" is most certainly NOT the reason for the desire to ban youtube.

Re:Farse (1)

Celeritas 5k (1587217) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847167)

Exactly this. It's not a reason, it's an excuse.

Oh Noes! (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847177)

Without countless hours of crude amateur porn, what will Egyptians masturbate to now?

Pssst. Hey Egyptians... you're welcome! [xtube.com]

Re:Oh Noes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848183)

redtube.com ?

Far better than anything on youtube

What is really sad is that even with them ranting about how porn is bad and all that they can spend all day at work masturbating to internet porn
someone should really inform these people that their internet traffic at work is monitored
nothing is said about this of course because the person in question is a muslim and they do not tolerate porn

Re:Oh Noes! (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849207)

Without countless hours of crude amateur porn, what will Egyptians masturbate to now?

The same thing repressed Christians have been jerking off to for centuries -- little boys.

Umm... People... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847383)

If Egypt wants to ban Youtube for any period of time, that's their choice. Those of us who are not Egyptians and will not be affected by it shouldn't be complaining. It's their country, their laws, their government. In fact, I think Google should take things one step farther for them, and cut Egypt off from ALL Google products and services until they receive a full apology from the Egyptian government.

Just think about what that might accomplish.

Re:Umm... People... (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42847985)

Ah, a clueless apologist - we knew you'd drop by.

If by "Egypt" you mean the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist dominated government has every right to deny what 80 million Egyptians see then you'd be right.

If by "Egypt" you mean that the 80 million people ought to have a right to make their own minds up as to what is good and what is bad, they you most decidedly are *wrong*.

No one is arguing about Egypt's sovereign right to do this. The problem being discussed is that a small group of people are dictating what a great mass of people can and can't see. Egyptian society is going backwards and the liberties of its people are being eroded. Egypt is not headed for Enlightened democracy, it is on a path to become a hellhole of the magnitude of Saudi Arabia (or Iran). Nice one Obama! (you fskn clueless ideologue!!!111)

You cannot be for Free Speech and think that a government is doing good by censoring *all of YouTube*. So please don't be clueless. Those in the Free World are doing good by making noise about the freedoms denied to our fellow citizens. It's not because we see ourselves as superior (although our culture is superior to Islamism) but because we want the Egyptians to experience the same freedoms we have. Our lives and governments are not perfect, but they're a damn sight better than where Egypt is now, or where it is headed.

The rights of the 80 million people (well, whatever proportion have YouTube access, which is still more than most non-Egyptians think) are more important than the theocratic ideology of the Egyptian Government. No Free Man should support the blanket censorship of YouTube by a Government unless it is actually hate speech (which this video certainly wasn't; it was merely *true facts* that exposed the tyrannical warlord Mohammed for the monster he was).

So stop giving your consent to evil! Free Men must research and oppose the evil ideology called Islam.

Good news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42847803)

A government blocking an entire platform to supress public access to a tiny fraction of the content helps to bring public attention to the matter. Even if Egyptions on the whole actually prefer such censorship they have the opportunity to understand what is happening, why, and to investigate why other civilisations don't have such heavy restrictions on infomation.

When the Egyption government shut down the internet, that was an act that required assistance from people around the world. But this is a matter for the Egyption people to tackle.

Also, almost just to make a point about what the internet means, I started torrenting Innocense of Muslims today. If anyone is having difficulty finding it search for the hash of the original torrent: de33ee20e7434ca2e57c01d89382a5dff4204ae8. Maybe this will help a few people before Slashdot censors this comment.

Islam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848071)

"Do you know what it is? A virus. Islam is a disease, a cancer on this planet. It is a plague. And we... are the cure." - atheist Smith.

Re:Islam (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849213)

I don't see the point in singling out Islam, however. The statement should also be equally inclusive to every ridiculous religion and fantasy, including Buddhism, Wicca, astrology, and numerology.

Which is why, after a certain point, tiling against the windmill of religion is a lost cause. The long term gain of simply offering people knowledge and education, Neil DeGrass Tyson style, and resources is far more beneficial.

NOT unexpected (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848465)

There are two things Islamists are allergic to:
YouTube and
Polio vaccination

Laughably transparent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42848503)

If "Innocence of Muslims" is really the reason, then why is YouTube being blocked only for a month? Its not as if the video will be taken down.

I propose that we ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848707)

... just block all of Egypt for a month. That will get it all overwith and done.

omgpanic (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42848983)

Whatever will we do without egypts 40 hits a month?????!!11!!!!1!!

What's the point of having a religion (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849135)

if you are so high strung about it? I mean, shit, why get so butthurt over a video trailer?

Guess what stupid religious people, there are people who do NOT believe the same thing as you, who might, *gasp* do something you consider offensive. Get over it. I find your actions regarding your religious beliefs to be extremely offensive, but you know what I do? Nothing. Be a bunch of stupid people, like it makes your religion look any better.

You can't hide your head in the sand from truth, so accept it. You act like a bunch of ignorant dumbshits. You know, sort of like the people in Texas.

Like Youtube is the only place you can see videos online.

Stop perpetuation the bullshit about the film. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42849151)

The whole "all sorts of bad shit happened because of a stupid offensive youtube video" thing has been fully debunked by now. Not only debunked, but admitted to by the US government after using it as an escape goat for the violence that was occurring in places at the time. Yet, no matter what, we get a story that comments on it almost every week on Slashdot, in which the bullshit of the first two weeks of lies after Benghazi are perpetuated. It's like nobody even reads the news anymore.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?