Feeds

back to article Osama Bin Pwned: Al Qaeda mocked in Twitter counter-jihad

Al Qaeda has come under attack from a massive troll army after asking Twitter users for ideas on how jihadis could run a PR campaign. Using the hashtag #اقتراحك_لتطوير_اﻹعلام_الجهادي, which means “suggestions for development of jihadist media”, supporters of the Islamists' war on everyone offered various po-faced suggestions, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

I'm SO scared. Not.

Seriously, more people die from alcohol poisoning DAILY than die from so-called "terrorists" in a decade or so ...

Priorities, people ... Really. Think about it. If you're still capable of thinking.

12
7
Silver badge

Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

It's true. Toddlers killed more Americans that terrorists did this year. But where's the War on Toddlers, eh?

6
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

That's rather a condemnation of the stupidity of the USA belief in guns for 'personal protection'. More people are killed by these weapons than illegal weapons.

4
5
Silver badge

@Richard Jones 1 (was: Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

"More people are killed by these weapons than illegal weapons."

Post proof or retract.

And how many die from tobacco, salt, sugar & fat in a similar timeframe?

9
17
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@Jake My we are touchy today, does the truth hurt your obsession?

See post above re toddlers for a starting point, not to mention the regular massacre using 'home protection' guns held by 'death enthusiasts' but used by their dodgy relations.

It is true that people are killed by many 'legal' substances, e.g. tobacco, salt, sugar & fat. People; can die or kill themselves in many ways using many things; e.g. more die in the home than on the roads in the UK, however homes and roads are useful, - though bad practises rarely are. Guns are unless you want you or your toddler to go on a killing spree.

7
6
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

"Guns are unless you want you or your toddler to go on a killing spree."

I'll assume you meant to typoe "useless".

And I'll agree with you. My daughter was killing gophers in the veggie garden. As many as possible, on a daily basis, with her Ruger 10/22. She was probably 6 years old when I let her do her thing[1]. She has never harmed a human being with her knowledge of firearms.

I harvest protein with my 30/06 and 12-gauge. Making food involves killing things. It doesn't appear magically, pre-wrapped in plastic, in the back of Tesco or Safeway.

[1] 25 cents/head, she had to purchase her own ammo.

3
9
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@Jack

And how many die from tobacco, salt, sugar & fat in a similar timeframe?

That is true, of course. But I do see two differences here. First, when I eat lots of unhealthy (deadly) stuff I mainly harm myself. You might argue that e.g. smoking can affect others, as does exessive alcohol consumption leading to some sort of violence. The other point though is, that the consumption of those substances is not intended to harm anyone whereas the usual purpose of a weapon is to inflict damage directly on someone else.

4
3
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

And I should listen to someone who can't spot the difference between "jake" and "Jack" ... why exactly?

My firearms exist to protect my livestock & put food on the table. If you have issues with that, well, all I can say is that you have issues.

5
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

My daughter was killing gophers in the veggie garden. As many as possible, on a daily basis, with her Ruger 10/22. She was probably 6 years old when I let her do her thing

6 year old let loose with a firearm

Welcome to America

14
4
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@AC 08:15 GMT

6 year old let loose with a firearm

You can't keep your kids away from every hazard. That's why you educate them. When you have guns at home, even safely locked away, you teach your kids on how to safely use them. Kids are curious and sooner or later they will get close to one of the guns, e.g. when you go or come back from hunting. At which age would you let them shoot? That really depends - there are some 25yo that I wouldn't trust with a knife.

6
0
Silver badge

@AC 08:15 (was: Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.))

I was shooting gophers before I was in kindergarten. I have never harmed a human with a weapon. It is probably second to last on my list of priorities (after accidentally killing a suicidal teenager on a skateboard or bicycle darting out of an alley ...).

2
7
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

"there are some 25yo that I wouldn't trust with a knife."

There are a LOT of 25 yo's that I wouldn't trust in the kitchen.

3
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

When you have guns at home, even safely locked away, you teach your kids on how to safely use them

Yes, and kids that spend their childhood killing small animals live such fulfilled lives. Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country.

7
7
Bronze badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@Tom 38

"Yes, and kids that spend their childhood killing small animals live such fulfilled lives. Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country."

Absolutely! Those kids should be far away from guns. Instead they should be on the playstation with the latest shoot em up or playing cowboys and indians with plastic imitation guns. And watching TV with fire, explosions and guns.

At what age do we teach kids to use knives? Or is that the next thing to be wrapped in cotton wool?

4
0
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

Close to 25 years on, my kid is the Senior Member of the Technical Staff in a Fortune 150 corporation. She owns 6 horses, and is quite competitive in hunter/jumper, eventing & dressage.

Hunting/varminting != abuse of animals.

5
3
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

who can't spot the difference between "jake" and "Jack"

Sorry, jake.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

Instead they should be on the playstation with the latest shoot em up or playing cowboys and indians with plastic imitation guns. And watching TV with fire, explosions and guns.

As long as they don't see any boobs tho, right? This is still America after all.

9
1
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

Even as a brit I'm going to side with Jake, sorry. I'm not sure I would let my kids out at 6 alone with a rifle but I used shotguns (supervised) from that age in the UK. I grew up in the countryside, we had pests to control. By 13-14 you were driving around clearing fields at dawn. We used the meat and it saved a lot of injuries to horses and cows from rabbit holes. The police didn't care, if you were to injure anyone (and I don't ever recall that happening) it would be yourself and the rozzers son did it as well anyway. You were taught to respect weapons, it wasn't done for fun or sport, it was a chore that paid. The driving was much more fun than the shooting, especially in snow.

I think of it as similar to drinking (I could be wrong). I shot from a young age so there was no mystique or glamour to shooting, just as how I would drink with my family from a relatively young age so there was no urge to binge drink or sneak away and drink.

I'm not trying to criticise anyone, just please understand not everyone grows up in the same dynamic and different parents can parent differently and still be good parents.

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

"More people die from alcohol poisoning daily..."

In the UK, maybe. I don't think I'd be making that assertion if I lived in Iraq, Syria, Cairo, Nigeria or a number of other places right now.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@Tom 38

"As long as they don't see any boobs tho, right? This is still America after all."

How did we move from gun to bazookas? You advocated protective care for children taught to handle a gun properly and with due care. I pointed out the hypocrisy of these children being taught all the wrong ways to handle a gun through media (games, TV, toys, etc). Should they be taken away for their protection?

I also asked on the next obvious problem of knives. At what age do we teach kids about these things? Or do we take the children for their own protection again? At what point do we teach them the right way to use any tools? Or do we just let them learn from TV?

2
0
Go

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

"Yes, and kids that spend their childhood killing small animals live such fulfilled lives. Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country."

Wtf? Sorry Tom38 but I really am wondering if you shouldn't up your meds!?!?! Teaching kids the correct and proper respect for firearms is not "child abuse" as you seem to be implying. As other posters have pointed out, rob these items of their mystery and glamour and when these kids get older "they ain't cool no more dawg". Also, teaching a child where their food comes from is no bad thing either. Personally I was slotting pidgeons and bunnies as a kid to help the local farmers. These days I am a productive (ie pay my taxes, a lot of taxes) member of Society with no more quirks than those normally associated with Engineers in general.

Back to the article though, hats off to Mr Berger for some quality entertainment and appropriate response to Terrorism - rip the piss.

Oh, and Marvin O Gravel - you owe me a new keyboard mate!

3
1

Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

War on Toddlers? There's a war I could get behind. Muzzle them all.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

I also asked on the next obvious problem of knives. At what age do we teach kids about these things? Or do we take the children for their own protection again? At what point do we teach them the right way to use any tools?

The right way to use a gun is to ask a policeman or soldier to do it for you. Welcome to civilization.

2
4
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

Thats great, you continue to torture your kids with trips to ikea, foreign cheese shops and ethnic handbags for men or whatever it is you do in cities between being knifed or shot ;-)

As a parent you teach your kids skills they need in life, initially skills they need for the current circumstances and then move onto skills for later life. I grew up in a rural farming community. Guns were a tool, one you learned and respected. I don't own a gun now, no need. When I hunt I use a bow or a knife because it's more appropriate for the task. Not everyone who has a gun is a mentalist. My kids live by the ocean so from birth they have been learning how to respect the ocean. Even at 6 they can cope with anything I can and dive far better, they can read the ocean, deal with large waves \ rips \ undertow etc. If your kids haven't I'm a bad parent for letting mine out.

We teach them what they need. I don't see them needing to use a gun but sometimes it's a tool for a job. Rabbits dig holes which harm other animals, birds eat crops. Therefore there is a decent market for pest control and as abhorrent as it may be to you the quickest and most humane way to do it is sitting on top of a landrover as dawn with 4-6 side by sides. When you have had to shoot an injured horse, up close, you respect the potential for damage. Fine you don't like guns but when you make out anyone who has ever fired a gun is a nutter you discredit yourself.

If it was a choice between using a gun as a tool and learning to respect it vs learning about guns on call of duty, I what I would prefer the neighbours kid or mine to do.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@Tom 38

"The right way to use a gun is to ask a policeman or soldier to do it for you. Welcome to civilization."

And the only person who should run should be an athlete? I am interested to see farmers and land owners calling police/army to send some marksmen to do the simple things like pest control. I guess you dont do DIY because most of that requires dangerous tools? If you do then at what age it is right to teach them the proper use of various tools? Or should kids be taken away for that too?

I guess your civilisation has no skills and no intelligence? I wont be part of that, I believe in education.

4
1
Happy

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

"Welcome to America"

Tell ya what, matey, for every "Welcome to America" you decide not to post, I'll refrain from posting "Self-righteous British twat."

Deal?

5
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

> The right way to use a gun is to ask a policeman or soldier to do it for you. Welcome to civilization.

WTF has "civilisation" got to do with anything?

Is this the civilsation where everything is dumbed down to the point that nobody knows how anything works, the civilised people that can't change a tap washer?

In my book, civilisation is not being cunts to each other. That is not predicated on us all becoming dumb uneducated prols bred solely for entertainment consumption which is what most people seem to believe these days.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Bill_Haak

Fucking massive assumptions about whats outside America

"Welcome to America"

0
0
Happy

Re: Bill_Haak

Self-righteous (fill in blank here) twat.

3
0

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

"Giving a 6 yr old license to shoot small animals as they see fit would probably have your child taken in to protective care in any civilized country."

Tom, believe me, if you had gophers you'd shoot 'em too.

2
0
Stop

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

I kind of see both sides to this, I believe people should be educated, including in the finality of killing. But I think the point is that pulling a trigger is a completely final act, with regret counting for nothing. We can't all be trained professionals (?!) in this. There are few genuinely appropriate analogies, certainly not an athlete (whose only regret is not having tried harder - I'm an "athlete"). I hate the idea of young, even trained, squaddies carrying guns in public, where some testosterone or unbalanced emotion could lead to inappropriate death. I'm actually posting from the states, and think the right to bear arms is past its sell by date. So who should have the right to carry an easy killing device? I guess every driver <sigh>, which is (horrifically) probably a better analogy. I have no answer. People live, people die, very often for economically justifiable reasons. "Democracy's bad, but there's nothing better".

2
1
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@ipanel

Sadly the right to bear arms in some areas of the states is even more relevant albeit for self protection rather than protection from the government. I haave no need for a gun and no compulsion to own one because gun crime is so low here, it may be something to do with no concealed carry (it may not I guess?). Some people do need a gun for work, farming being a prime example. Theres also little harm in guns for hunting assuming people are properly trained.

Before we try and reduce responsible gun ownership (I am totally for reducing irresponsible gun ownership) we should look at why people carry. If a lot (and I don't mean a few folks who did too much lsd whilst watching predator) of people feel legitimately so unsafe they need a gun and gun crime is such an issue, should we not be paying just as much attention to making people feel safer? Give the police and the courts the resources they need and require the results. Then when \ if crime is reduced and people feel safer you will be in a better position re reducing gun ownership. I am no gun nut, I'm not in the NRA, hell if anything I'm closer to being a democrat, but if the government (local and federal) wants less guns they cannot abdicate their responsibility to ensure peopls safety. There is a hell of a lot we can do to ensure sensible gun ownership (checking they are properly stored, mandating training, closing loopholes for purchase without a background etc) but along side that we also have to properly fund the police and the justice system, then hold them accountable.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@ Rampant Spaniel

"If a lot (and I don't mean a few folks who did too much lsd whilst watching predator) of people feel legitimately so unsafe they need a gun and gun crime is such an issue, should we not be paying just as much attention to making people feel safer? Give the police and the courts the resources they need and require the results. Then when \ if crime is reduced and people feel safer you will be in a better position re reducing gun ownership"

This is an interesting idea which requires a lot of unbiased study. Carrying a gun is not necessarily for reducing gun crime but violent crime in general (which gun crime may be part of the problem). There is some evidence to suggest the possible presence of guns reduces violent crimes which if true would be a potential tool for the police/courts to reduce crime. However then removing guns could then return the previous state of violent crimes.

I would like more study to be done on the availability of guns and violent crime. I also doubt it would apply globally or even for each state but if the possible presence of guns as personal protection reduces violent crime then it would be worth implementing. Unfortunately there seems much study cherry picking the view of the pro or anti lobby. Both seem to have lost sight of the goal to save lives and protect freedom

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.

Source Mr Jones?

No, serious question.

The CDC figures show that 50-60% of firearm-related deaths in the US are suicides. So tagging them as gun deaths is a bit disingenuous because as the UK knows, people are more than capable of jumping off bridges or tying a noose without needing access to firearms.

About 10% are unintentional shootings which leaves ~30-40% as homicides. However, they rarely split out how many are from legally held firearms and how many are from unlicensed, illegal firearms.

So I'd be fascinated if you have a source for homicides using legal vs. illegal firearms which you've used as the basis for your statement there, because I've never managed to find one.

If you're wondering why legal vs. illegal is significant then it's because legislation can help reduce deaths from legally held firearms - mental health checks and suchlike prior to purchase.

However, legislation can't rein in illegal guns (they're already illegal. Making them more illegal is pointless, good for nothing but political grandstanding. You've already passed a law, and it's being ignored). Case in point, after the 1997 UK ban on handguns, firearm crime continued on it's upward trend, more than doubling by 2004. The ban had no impact whatsoever on criminal gangs and fraternities who held their guns illegally anyway, even when it was possible to get such things legally with the right license.

In the UK's case, firearm crime didn't tail off till about 2003/05 when Operation Trafalgar/Trident started hitting home and disrupting some of the criminal groups who were smuggling and trading these firearms illicitly. The only way to address illegal firearms is with enforcement. More laws don't generally help.

As a result, you can't adequately address firearm homicides without knowing whether you're dealing with primarily legal or illegal firearms, and whether the bulk of your effort should be focused on legislation or enforcement.

I suspect these numbers are deliberately not collected because if in fact (as in the UK), less than 1% of homicides are committed with legal firearms, then you don't want that fact getting in the way of your popular (cheap) new anti-gun law, which promises to clamp down on gun crime. You don't want any annoying journalists pointing out that actually you should be pouring money into the Police to get the black market guns off the streets - which isn't cheap, and doesn't get next-day headlines, because such projects take time to adequately infiltrate the criminal fraternities and disassemble them, which isn't conducive to on-demand political good news.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @Richard Jones 1 (was: Whatever. Show me the fucking "terrorists" already.)

@codejunky

Very well said. The absolute worst that could happen is we have a lower crime rate. If we still find we need guns, even as a deterrant, we still at least are safer anyway.

You are totally right re perspective. You have one group of people saying arm everyone and another group saying no one should have guns. I do not predict a useful compromise occuring.

Legally held guns seem (as mentioned figures are hard to come by) to be more of an issue where they fall into someone elses hands (a relative for example) or where the owner is frankly a little unstable. Being a responsible gun owner means actually securing all your guns. If you need a handgun by your bed it lives in a biometric safe, it's part of being responsible. We carry insurance and keep our cars well maintained as it's part of being a responsible car owner. If you have a kid or relative who has what the news shows will term 'behavioral issues' don't let them near your weapons (or your car for that matter). We need to find a sensible middleground that allows sensible, responsible people to own weapons for sport, protection or work but keeps mentalists and criminals away from weapons. The criminals part will be the hardest, that requires more police action and needs to be part of a wider anti crime initiative. Offer better rehab to try and reduce reoffending, but when people are convicted (of a serious offense, not speeding) for the 4th or 5th time and help isn't working, we need an answer for that as well. Sadly all we will get is lame duck laws.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: (Whatever. Show me) ... Where's the War on Toddlers, eh?

Oddly enough, that just might be in ... Congress.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Tweets

OK already, stop sending me bodies, we're full already,

Lucifer

0
0
K
Bronze badge

Its Ironic..

They hate the west, yet they are reliant upon western technology and creations to further their cause!

4
0
Silver badge
Go

Re: Its Ironic..

Yes, I can just see them sitting around in a small room having a meeting, chaired by a terrorist called "Reg" oddly enough, and asking…

"And what did the West ever do for us?!"

15
0
Silver badge

Re: Its Ironic..

I see where you're comming from. But ironic it is not, it's pragmatic. When you are at war and you capture enemy's weapons you will happily use them against your enemy.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Its Ironic..

People go to anti-oil drilling protests in cars. It's called "cognitive dissonance".

0
0

Just sayin

If they complain can't they get all those people banned for trollin

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Just sayin

Can't they get all those people banned for trollin

0
0
Bronze badge

Wait

So a civilian group terrorised their twitter account? What a proud day for the warriors of god.

1
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Hasn't anybody told them tweeters can be traced. Quite easily if recent court cases are to be believed.

What's that loud noise coming from above...

0
0
Silver badge

This is why I am happy to be on this side of the fence. We live in a society where people are allowed this freedom of expression and can actually articulate it i.e. aren't beaten and threatened into submission.

We may get a lot wrong but I think fundamentally we are closer to fair. We are generally intollerant of certain actions, but more tolerant of differences and beliefs. There is no legal or social compulsion to follow a belief, although naming your kid Messiah apparently is a little risky (perhaps they should have changed it to 'very naughty boy'?

2
0

deaths?

<pedant>

I know so far the discussion has been about cigarettes/guns/sugar/salt/[something] killing people. I'm going to be a pedant here. Everyone dies, apart from about 3 people in the bible (Enoch, Elisha, Jesus), assuming you believe what the bible says

So, technically, none of this stuff is killing people, but rather causing an *early* death. We're all going to die sometime.

</pedant>

3
0
Bronze badge

pedantry?

an it guy, according to the biblical accounts, Jesus died too, death being a prerequisite for resurrection.

0
0

Re: pedantry?

ta. I should have said "dead and stayed dead".

On the three in the bible, I actually got it wrong. It was Elijah, and not Elisha. Kind of annoying when two prophets that come one after another share a very similar sounding name.

0
0
Silver badge

Huh no rape threats

0
3

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.